To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 February 2025, as a correct record.

Resolved: That the Minutes of the Development Management Committee held on the 20 February 2025 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

Including any interests not already registered

There were none.

There were none.

Demolition of part of the existing building and an existing garage and erection of two three-bedroom houses with associated access and parking.

The proposal sought planning permission for demolition of part of the existing building and an existing garage and erection of two three-bedroom houses with associated access and parking.

The application had been referred to the Development Management Committee by Cllrs Penny Cole and Perry Cole due to concerns that the proposals would not preserve the character of the area, would result in loss of highway safety and would have insufficient parking.

Members’ attention was brought to the main agenda papers and late observation sheet which did not amend the recommendation.

The Committee was addressed by the following speakers:

Members asked questions of clarification of the officers. In response to questions, Member were advised that the numbers proposed for the development was below what KCC would formally respond to, and their advice was informal. Questions focused on the street scene, ridge height, materials, biodiversity net gain, self-build regulations and parking standards/access.

It was moved by the Chairman from the chair that the recommendations within the report, be agreed.

Members discussed the application. Some Members expressed concern on highways grounds regarding the vehicular access with the narrow roads and bends.  Other Members raised concern that the development was not in keeping with the street scene, with a particular focus on the ridge height. Some Members expressed concern that permitted developments could result in loft or further extensions thus causing more highway implications. Concern was also raised over connections to the main sewage supplier.

It was moved and duly seconded that an additional condition should be attached to any grant of planning permission to remove permitted development rights for loft extensions and ground floor extensions in relation to GDPO 2015 Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, AA, B and C.

The amendment was put to the vote and it was carried.

Debate continued on the substantive motion.

A further amendment was moved and duly seconded for an additional condition for the demonstration of an approved sewage connection prior to construction. The amendment want put to the vote and it was carried.

Debate continued on the substantive motion. With further debate raising concerns for the proposal being contrary to EN1, and SP1.

The substantive motion was put to the vote and it was lost.

It was moved and duly seconded that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the planning application did not comply with policies SP1 of the Core Strategy andEN1 of the ADMP in relation to the design and impact on the character of the area, and highways safety concerns contrary to Policy EN1 and T1 of the ADMP and paragraph 116 of the NPPF.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

Resolved: That planning permission be refused on the following grounds

a)    Design and impact on the character of the area  (Policy EN1 and SP1);

b)   Inappropriate and unsafe access (Policy EN1 and T1);

c)    and for Officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

The Chairman moved and it was

Resolved: That, under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting when considering Agenda item 5 below, on the grounds that likely disclosure of exempt information is involved as defined by Schedule 12A: paragraph 5 -information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

The following Members, Cllrs Ball, Barnett, Paul Darrington, Hudson, Horwood, Malone, and Reay declared that they had visited the site and remained open minded. Cllr Horwood also declared for reasons of transparency that he worked for the National Power Network.

It was moved by the Chairman that the recommendations as set out within the report be agreed.

The Development Manager presented the report which advised Members that following the refusal of planning permission under delegated powers on 23 July 2024, an appeal was lodged against the decision on 20 January 2025. The application was refused on four grounds, inappropriate development in the Green Belt with harm in principle and to openness, harm to setting of listed buildings, harm to character of landscape,  extent of loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.

It was highlighted to Members that planning permission had been refused under delegated powers and that decision could not be reconsidered or additional grounds of refusal be added.  At the time of the decision be taken, these grounds were sound, but now new evidence and policy changes must be taken into account and the implications considered. It was stressed to Members that whatever the outcome of the meeting, the appeal was in progress and would continue, with a decision being made by the Planning Inspectorate at the beginning of July this year.

Members were advised of the key changes in planning policy following the new NPPF. This included the introduction of grey belt and a focus on the extent to which a development undermined the purposes of the green belt in local plan area as a whole, the recognition of the importance of grid connections for clean energy provision, and the significant weight to the benefits of renewable energy generation. In February 2024, the NPPG was amended to clarify how to interpret the guidance. The first solar farm appeal decision after the changes detailed was issued, and Members were advised of the key conclusion which had implications for the appeal.

As a result, all the grounds for refusal had been reviewed. The site would be considered grey belt, and the tests would be met for the proposal to be appropriate development in the Green Belt.

Legal advice indicated that there was only a 10% of chance of defending the two grounds of refusal relating to the protection of agricultural land and the Green Belt and these could no longer be supported.

To minimise the risk of being unreasonable and leaving the Council liable to an award of costs, these grounds of refusal were withdrawn on 12 March 2025 under  ...  view the full minutes text for item 621.