Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes from the previous meeting of 8 February 2023.

The minutes of the previous meeting of 8 February 2023 were agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Mrs Laws, on behalf of Whittlesey Town Council. Councillor Mrs Laws stated that Whittlesey Town Council is against this development, not against development in Whittlesey, but of any further development in the north of the town which as can be seen from the photos on the presentation screen shows flooding not once in 100 years or once in 50 years but this area is now experiencing once in 5 years where the roads surrounding this development are closed up to 69 days, which is a substantial amount of traffic that has to be diverted to the A605. She made the point that presently there are 1,078 dwellings being built out, not approved but actually being built out, with in the villages there being 82 mixed dwellings so the Town Council is not against development but what it is looking for is suitable and appropriate development and it does not consider the north of the town complies.

Councillor Mrs Laws drew members attention to 5.1 and 5.2 of the officer’s report, Whittlesey Town Council consultation response and the County Council’s response and also referred to a Flood Warning pack that is issued to 220 dwellings adjacent to this site that are at risk of flooding. She stated that she is the Delph warden and also works with the Environment Agency and she believes their consultation in the report is in conflict with their department working with flood wardens.

Councillor Mrs Laws expressed the view that over 1,000 properties now are at the risk of flooding in the north of Whittlesey and even with this new estate residents are struggling to find insurance to cover their contents and the building, if they can get insurance they cannot afford it. She referred to 7.7 of the officer’s report which is in relation to the new Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan and she has it on good authority from the Chief Executive that from the moment the declaration was made on 23 February this became a living live document, which is more current that the 2014 Local Plan, which has been through independent examination, found to meet the basic conditions required for legislation subject to the incorporation of examiners recommendations for modification and the plan was successful at referendum on 23 February 2023 and, therefore, carries full weight.

Councillor Mrs Laws stated that the Neighbourhood Plan states that no further development to the north of Whittlesey and adjacent to the built area of Whittlesey, forms part of the Whittlesey Washes Flood Storage Reservoir which protects Peterborough, Whittlesey and other settlements and Fenland areas from flooding but supports the provision of housing to the South and to the East of the town and importantly industrial and commercial to the West  ...  view the full minutes text for item P114/22

To determine the application.

Graham Smith presented the report to members and drew their attention to the following updates:

·       the total contributions in Section 10.13 should have included the possible maximum total which is a request for £1,366,040, which will be subject to the total houses as it is an outline application but made the point that Section 10.14 highlights the accepted viability in Fenland.

·       a further letter has been received from the Fire Service confirming their request for fire hydrants and planning condition 10 deals with this issue.

·       a late letter was received from John Maxey who drew attention to the question of whether the applicant should have provided a viability assessment, the applicant has agreed to provide 20% affordable housing and infrastructure contributions as detailed in the report of £2,000 per dwelling. Mr Maxey sought confirmation that this proposal would be consistently applied together with a position of 10% first homes and 0% infrastructure contributions on sites to the north of the A47, officers have since given Mr Maxey that confirmation and he has confirmed that his objection has been satisfied and his request to speak was withdrawn.

The committee had regard to its inspection of site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Benney, a District Councillor. Councillor Benney stated that the site lies within his ward so he is looking at it from a ward perspective and this also falls under his Portfolio Holder responsibilities. He expressed the view that all his life he has been critical of politicians local and national who make popular rather than practical and informed decisions just to get re-elected, with this in mind it would have been easier for him to jump on the band wagon and go for the minority option as ward councillor to refuse this application but he believes this application has been well worked, is policy compliant and is the best compromise for all Chatteris residents and it also delivers housing Chatteris desperately needs.

Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that there has been no major house building in Chatteris, with the exception of Womb Farm, since the early 1980s, with the Chatteris East Strategic Allocation BCP having been in place for 15 years and has stood as the cornerstone of housing allocations for Chatteris in that time but not one brick has been laid, whilst on paper the policy looks good the lack of willingness to agree by landowners, agents and developers has failed to put a deal together to deliver and this is why the BCPs are being dismantled in the emerging Local Plan and individual applications within a BCP are being accepted. He stated as Portfolio Holder for the Council’s assets he has seen other proposed schemes for this site, another proposal was for the whole BCP area showing 450 homes with the land at the bottom of The Elms having all the social housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item P115/22

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Martin Williams, the agent. Mr Williams expressed the view that the proposed site is almost surrounded by building and from a plan on the presentation screen members can see the proposed dwelling sits comfortably on the plot whilst still leaving a large garden for number 241. He made the point that there have been no objections from any of the consultees to this application or the previous one, with no letters of objection but 8 letters of support and Newton-in-the-Isle Parish Council support it reading out their comments as detailed in the officer’s report.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Purser referred to the fact that this proposal had previously been refused and asked what had changed on this application? It was indicated that nothing had changed.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis referred to the hobby room, which has its own separate entrance and whilst it is a small space she asked whether it should be conditioned that it has to remain as such and cannot be used for living accommodation? David Rowen responded that this may be premature as the proposal is for refusal but clearly if members were minded to grant planning permission and had a particular concern about this then it is something that could be conditioned.

·       Councillor Sutton asked for confirmation that the development is within the curtilage of the existing dwelling? Danielle Brooke responded that it is associated garden land that is currently within the curtilage of that dwelling.

Members made comments, asked questions and received answers as follows:

·       Councillor Benney said he visited the site and village separately to the site inspections and he can see why LP12 is one of the reasons for refusal but he fails to see how LP3 is as there is a brand-new build just the other side of the junction. He stated that he rode around the block and there has been little bits of building and odd infills and houses from old farm cottages, some built in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s as you can look at the bricks and style of buildings and there also seems to be quite a lot of new development that has taken place. Councillor Benney expressed the view that this proposal is within the village under LP3 and under LP12 it is on the end, with it not specifying about it not being garden land and the other side of the T-junction has been built on and the whole village has sporadic development of different one-off houses. He feels that LP16(d), which is another reason for refusal, is a subjective planning policy and that this proposal would be a positive development for the village and he can see nothing wrong with it.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item P116/22

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Ian Gowler, the agent. Mr Gowler referred to the three reasons for refusal, with the initial response that they received for the referral to committee only listing the open countryside as the original reason for refusal and he was not made aware of the highway and noise reasons until he read the report last week. He made the point that the application is in outline with all matters reserved including the access and the first slide on the presentation screen shows that by moving the access slightly along the road they are able to achieve the visibility splay requested by Highways in their comments, the details of the access would be in the Reserved Matters application.

Mr Gowler stated that the second reason for refusal is based on noise generated from the motocross track and shooting ground and he showed on another slide two developments that have been approved in the last few years where no concerns were raised by Environmental Health, with the owners of the motocross track and shooting ground having provided a large acoustic barrier to their great expense to the edge of the site to reduce the noise to acceptable levels for all residents in this area, otherwise the use would not be allowed to continue anyway. He stated that the applicant would be happy as part of a condition or reserved matters or both to provide an acoustic report, acoustic fencing and details of acoustic glazing to the dwellings if it is required like you would find on a busy highway or railway line development where the noise is more consistent than this sporadic noise generated at the track.

Mr Gowler referred to his last slide relating to the site being in a remote location and in the open countryside, with his slide showing other developments that have been allowed recently on Primrose Hill, with these developments being a similar distance from the centre of the village to this proposed development. He stated that the proposed site already has a footpath to the frontage, with street lights along Benwick Road, both similar to the developments approved along Primrose Hill.

Mr Gowler referred to Policy LP12(a) which states development will be supported where the site is adjacent to the existing developed footprint of the village and he feels this site is part of the original developed footprint of Doddington. He expressed the view that with the exception of a small livery along Askham there is no break in development along this side of road, therefore, this site is adjacent to the existing developed footprint and is not an extension like other recently approved sites which are extension upon  ...  view the full minutes text for item P117/22

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall stated that all consultees support this application and there has been no objections. He made the point that the applicant’s have lived at this site for 36 years and are attached to this area of Chatteris, with Mr Dixon being a school teacher in various areas of Cambridgeshire for over 25 years and has now retired, Mrs Dixon previously worked at Doddington School for 15 years and is currently a volunteer for Chatteris Community Car Scheme and has been for 6 years.

Mr Hall showed on the presentation screen a map of the area and since 2013 there have been 8 dwellings approved in this area and a refurbished garden centre and of those dwellings approved, since 2019 five dwellings were approved by Planning Committee. He referred to the officer’s report which considers this site to be an elsewhere location and not part of Chatteris but given the planning history, the map on the screen and 5 dwellings approved since 2019 under this Local Plan, the committee have consistently taken the view that this area is part of Chatteris.

Mr Hall expressed the view that all the landscaping can be agreed with officers if the application is approved as part of a condition including garden areas and the site is within the curtilage of the existing building, being single-storey and small scale. He made the point that Chatteris Town Council support the proposal and there is no objection from Cambridgeshire County Council Highways, the site lies within Flood Zone 1, there is no neighbouring objections and it is in area where there have been previous other approvals.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Benney referred to reason 4 of the refusal reasons in that it has not provided private amenity space and asked how far short is it and is there anything that can be undertaken to amend this? Mr Hall responded that on the site plan shown by officers the private amenity space is shown to the rear but there is also space to the front that can be used as private amenity space, with 30% private amenity space having been shown and the requirement is 33%.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Murphy referred to it being in an unsustainable position and made the point that looking at the map there are so many properties in this area and if they are all unsustainable why are they there and flourishing. He does not consider this proposal as back land development as it is no farther down Sutton Gault than the road where the car place is and is does not protrude into the countryside, with the opposite side  ...  view the full minutes text for item P118/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Shanna Jackson, the agent. Mrs Jackson stated that the scheme is for a single dwelling and submitted in outline with only matters of access committed, with the application site lying within the built-up area of March, a primary market town. She made the point that the Local Plan states that such locations are the focus for new development and she expressed the view that this is one of the most sustainable places in the whole of the District and there should be a presumption in favour of developing this site.

Mrs Jackson referred to the two recommended reasons for refusal, which include character and biodiversity issues and with regard to character she acknowledges that the immediate surrounding area includes semi-detached and terraced housing and this proposal is for a detached dwelling, however, in her view, just because it is detached does not mean that it is harmful and she feels it is more harmful to leave a vacant site unkempt within an existing residential area where there are strong sustainability arguments which support housing on this site. She expressed the opinion that there are examples of detached properties to the north and south of this site, which can be seen on the Fenland location plan as per page 183 of the agenda pack.

Mrs Jackson expressed the view that there is scope within the site to build a high-quality dwelling which provides sufficient garden land and parking in accordance with adopted standards and the proposal would enhance the site which currently has a negative appearance within the street scene. She referred to biodiversity and is aware that the ecology report provided as part of the application is a preliminary report only and that a full report is recommended, the preliminary report was intended to scope out the site’s potential and to ascertain whether it is physically capable of accommodating the proposed development and they have always been aware that a full report will be necessary before the development takes place but it would have been unreasonable to put the applicant to the great expense of commissioning a full report when they did not yet have the comfort that the Council would support the scheme in principle.

Mrs Jackson stated that the preliminary report does not preclude development on this site instead it recommends that further bat surveys are carried out and it is important to note that the Wildlife Officer has not categorially dismissed the principle of development for ecological reasons. She expressed the opinion that there are no features on the site which would accommodate bats, it is the trees on the neighbouring land that would have the potential to accommodate  ...  view the full minutes text for item P119/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Craig Brand, the agent. Mr Brand stated that members will recall that this application site came before committee 20 months ago and concerns were raised last time regarding the state of the pot holed public byway and the first plot not abutting Mill Hill Lane, which could have possibly led to a further application for building plots and this application still seeks approval for four executive self-build dwellings on a slightly larger site that now abuts Mill Hill Lane and includes within the application red line the repairing of the byway to address the committee’s previous concerns. He expressed the opinion that the site represents a very small fraction of the broad location for March’s future growth south of Knights End Road between Wimblington Road and the A141 and approval of the application will not affect a broad concept plan for the area as approved minor application F/YR15/0961/F mentioned in Section 10.2 did not.

Mr Brand expressed the opinion that the existing countryside view of the applicant’s field from the private road will be lost as it will be by the future development of the broad location for growth. He expressed the view that the Grade II Listed barn which is shown on the presentation screen as the whole building shaded in red is inaccurate as it is only the front section as there is a post-war agricultural extension and it is also screened by the owners overgrown hedge with the applicant also having willow trees within their site screening the Listed Barn, with development of the application site having less impact on the Listed barn setting that the new houses on Mulberry Close and Birch Lodge which were judged not to affect the barn setting.

Mr Brand expressed the view that the countryside public footpath which is next to the plots provides safe access for pedestrians and cyclists to Knights End Road, with the manual for streets requiring a minimum width of 4.1 metres for two cars to pass each other and the application proposes to make the repaired byway 4.6 metres in width to allow cars to easily pass each other or a home delivery van to pass a car. He made the point that Highways in Section 5.5 of the report has no objection to 4 additional dwellings and the Definitive Map Team also raise no objections to the proposal, with all residents welcoming the repair of the byway.

Mr Brand stated that his client is happy for a pre-commencement condition as recommended by officers at the end of Section 10.23 to cover the byway repair works. He stated that Mr Pocklington the owner of the private road and  ...  view the full minutes text for item P120/22

To determine the application.

Nikki Carter presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Pamela Knowles, the applicant and Peter Humphrey, the agent. Mrs Knowles stated that she currently lives in Eastwood Hall and has done so for the past 25 years, previous to this her father and mother-in-law lived there buying the property in 1974. She expressed the view that this proposed dwelling is very much in association with Knowles Transport of which she is a major shareholder and her son Alex, who now runs Knowles Transport as Managing Director, is third generation and he currently lives in Cambridge and would now like to move back to Wimblington into Eastwood Hall with his wife and family and she would like to continue to live in the village, hopefully adjacent to Eastwood Hall.

Mrs Knowles stated that Knowles Farms as part of Knowles Transport has approximately 200 acres of Grade 3 agricultural land around Eastwood Hall and she would like to use 5 acres to build a house complementary to the Hall but on a much smaller scale. She expressed the view that from the plan members can see that she would like to incorporate paddocks, hedging, trees and a meadow all to encourage wildlife and birds.

Mrs Knowles expressed the opinion that the proposed property, should she be given permission, will always stay within the Knowles family for future generations and will not be an open market dwelling. She expressed the view that the proposal will leave open countryside which includes a public walkway for everyone in the village to continue to enjoy.

Mr Humphrey expressed the view that this is an opportunity to embrace a one-off house to enhance the entrance to Wimblington provided by the largest employer in the village and possibly in the area by the Knowles family. He queried whether Eastwood Hall would have ever got built if it came before the Planning Committee and made the point that there are no objections from any individuals or statutory consultees but 11 letters of support and the Parish Council fully support the application.

Mr Humphrey stated that the committee has recently approved four houses away from the village to the other side of Eastwood Hall where it was believed there would be no harm and also officers have approved and recommended for approval 88 houses opposite, with officers clearly feeling there was no harm to Eastwood Hall but this proposed plot for one house has raised concern. He made the point that Wimblington is a growth village, in Flood Zone One, the land to be built on is Grade 3 agricultural land, the Conservation Officer comments appear to be a cut and paste from the 4 houses the other side of Eastwood Hall and not site specific and Eastwood Hall is not Listed although  ...  view the full minutes text for item P121/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Matthew Hall, the agent. Mr Hall made the point that all consultees support this application, with the site having a previous approval for residential use under the Local Plan for an existing barn that was on the site, which was given approval for a change of use to residential but this has expired. He stated that the caravan has been on site for over 10 years and the applicant has lived here for 9 years and before this the caravan was being lived in by a separate person and during this time Council Tax and Middle Level charges have been paid and continue to be paid.

Mr Hall expressed the view that the proposal to remove the caravan with a dwelling in Flood Zone 3 would be an improvement in relation to flood risk mitigation measures which have been approved by the Environment Agency. He stated that the applicant has advised him that he has had 4 break-ins with tools and equipment being stolen and during the night-time there is regular stopping of vehicles, turning round and leaving, referring to previous meetings of the committee where it has been stated that it is better to live on site for security reasons in relation to an established business use on the site.

Mr Hall stated that the proposal has been revised as officer’s have said to include the existing shed where the existing business is being carried out and this is not for a separate residential dwelling. He made the point on the Design and Access Statement submitted and on the application form it states that the proposal is a dwelling in conjunction with the existing business, it is not a separate residential dwelling and the applicant is fully aware if planning permission is granted that he would need to enter into a legal agreement to ensure the dwelling is occupied in relation to the business use or a planning condition could be applied to ensure this is the case.

Mr Hall expressed the opinion that the committee has supported applications similar to this, referring to one in July 2021, F/YR21/0552/F at Sandbank Barns, Sandbank, Wisbech St Mary was approved for an existing business and the applicant wished to live on site for various reasons, with this application being in Flood Zone 3 and is just like this proposal. He expressed the view that the proposal has the support of nearly all the properties down Hospital Road and Doddington Parish Council support the application and there have been no further objections from consultees or neighbours.

Members asked questions of Mr Hall as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the 4 break-ins that have occurred with the applicant already living on site and asked how is moving  ...  view the full minutes text for item P122/22

The purpose of this report is to advise members of the current situation in respect of confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) Eaudyke Bank, Tydd St Giles.

David Rowen presented the report to members in respect of confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

The committee has regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that the trees need to be protected.

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor and agreed to CONFIRM the TPO 01/2023 in respect of T01-T18 (1 x Pride of India, 3 x Hornbeam, 3 x Ash, 3 x Poplar, 3 x Plane, 1 x Horse Chestnut, 2 x Silver Maple, 2 x Sycamore).

(Councillor Meekins left the room during this item and took no part in the discussion and voting thereon)

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee has regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Angela Johnson, an objector to the proposal. Mrs Johnson stated that her comments were in relation to this application and the two similar applications on the same site that would be following this item. She stated that the comments and objections raised in no way reflect the character, friendliness and politeness of the travellers and their families and there is also no prejudice towards travellers and their families as evidenced by the fact that there are already 11 sites for statics and for other touring caravans within the same proximity as these applications.

Mrs Johnson expressed the view that there are a number of realistic concerns raised by residents, who she is representing, and there is also a letter of objection from the Parish Council, with some of the objections and concerns raised being with regard to issues like water, waste and sewage and although the officer commented that there are conditions on the applications there are no conditions on the site and there is no report from the officers on the application site to reflect any of these questions she is putting forward. She made the point that the applications total 7 mobile static caravans and an application for 8 statics in The Spinney raise repetitive objections from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) in regards of surface water, domestic effluence, sewerage and drainage yet there has been no recorded consultation with the LLFA referencing these applications, the total being one less than what is in The Spinney already.

Mrs Johnson stated that the number of sited tourers at any one time is going to be up to 9 and questioned whether these going to be occupied or are these parked unoccupied because this will also impact upon water, waste, sewage etc. She queried why the Design and Access Statement has not included anything like sewage or drainage drawings in the plans, there is no evidence of a treatment plant or a septic tank and so what impact is this going to have on the environment and ecological area surrounding these sites.

Mrs Johnson expressed the view that another concern is overcrowding and congestion, with each plot having a static caravan, one or possibly two tourers and up to two cars and will also have possibly storage sheds, outhouses, garden play areas, with overcrowding making traffic movement difficult especially with moving tourers as access in and out of the site with a tourer is going to be extremely tight and if this is happening when another vehicle approaches it will be even more hazardous due to the tight bends. She stated that the major concern of most residents is with road safety along The Hook and Horsemoor, if Highways and the planning officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item P124/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee has regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

The comments of Angela Johnson, an objector to the proposal, under the public participation procedure, are set out in the minute for planning application F/YR21/0768/F.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that on the previous plan it had a treatment tank on every plot but on F it does not show a treatment tank and asked if this was an oversight? David Rowen responded that he is unable to comment on whether this is an oversight or not, however, if members are minded to grant the application there is a similarly worded condition requiring the details of the foul drainage treatments and its ongoing maintenance to be submitted within 2 months of the date of the decision.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that the reasons that these applications are being recommended for approval is because the Council does not currently have a five-year land supply of traveller site as the needs assessment has not been undertaken and should this have been undertaken and there was the supply the outcomes for these applications may have been different from both an officer perspective and a members’ perspective. He stated that although members have heard what the objectors have said the committee does not really have a strong reason to be able to do anything other than grant permission. Councillor Sutton stated that on this particular application on this corner when members visited the site there is a high fence all the way round and a condition ought to be considered where that fence on the bend is reduced in height as it does restrict visibility for vehicles going around the corner. David Rowen responded that there is a proposed condition 6 which states within 2 months of the date of this decision the following information shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval details of a scheme to plant a mixed native hedgerow with post and rail fence to all external site boundaries, this shall include a plan, fence details, planting specification, visibility splays and timetable for planting etc.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor asked if this is all the fence or just the corners? David Rowen responded that the condition states all external site boundaries including the site frontage.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to Councillor Sutton’s point about the land supply for travellers’ sites and asked if this is getting closer to being completed? Nick Harding responded that a contractor was appointed and due to the inability to complete the work due to Covid and some difficulties with that contractor that fell through and the Council looked to appoint a new contractor, working with a business who had links to the gypsy and traveller community, but there were some fundamental disagreements between the contractor and the other organisation so the Council is back  ...  view the full minutes text for item P125/22

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

The committee has regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

The comments of Angela Johnson, an objector to the proposal, under the public participation procedure, are set out in the minute for planning application F/YR21/0768/F.

Councillor Sutton made the point that he may or may not have made a different decision should a needs assessment on a five-year supply of land for travellers’ had existed.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Meekins and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillors Connor and Mrs Davis declared that they were pre-determined on this application and left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon. Councillor Mrs Mayor chaired this application after being nominated by other members)