Issue - meetings

This application is the subject of a planning appeal. The Committee is asked to review the original grounds for refusal in light of the latest available information and to agree the case upon which Officers will defend the appeal.

Councillor Land, present in the public gallery, had earlier declared an interest in relation to Planning Application 16/00838/OUT by virtue of the fact that he was the local Ward Member.

The Committee recalled that, at its meeting held on 1 November 2016, it had resolved to refuse outline planning application 16/00838/OUT for the following reasons:

1)     Highways;

2)     Heritage/Local Character; and

3)     Ecology.

The Committee was informed that the application was now the subject of a planning appeal and that Officers had received a letter from the Planning Inspectorate to confirm that the appeal would be dealt with by way of an Informal Hearing scheduled to commence on Tuesday 22 August 2017 and that the Council’s statement of case had to be submitted by 12 July 2017.

The Committee was now being asked to review the original grounds for refusal in the light of the latest available information and to agree the case upon which Officers would defend the appeal.

The Committee was reminded that the application had been refused on highways, heritage/local character and ecological grounds at a time when the Council had been unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

The Committee was aware that the Council could now demonstrate a five-year supply and that the emerging Local Plan had gained greater weight on reaching its publication stage.

The Committee was informed that Officers believed that the Council was now in a reasonable position to contest the appeal on the basis that the proposal was contrary to the Local Plan and that the adverse impact on the character of the area, heritage assets and ecology were not justified and would not be outweighed by the benefit of 49 new homes.

The Committee was made aware of Officers’ concerns that the Council would find it difficult to reasonably defend the reason for refusal which had related to highways and were recommending that this be withdrawn from the case to minimise the risk of an award of costs against the Council.

Following discussion, it was moved by Councillor McWilliams, seconded by Councillor Baker and unanimously RESOLVED that the Committee: