Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bessant and Ladkin with the following substitutions authorised in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4:

Councillor Boothby for Councillor Bessant

Councillor Nickerson for Councillor Ladkin.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2016.

It was moved by Councillor Crooks, seconded by Councillor Roberts, and

RESOLVED – the minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2016 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

Councillors Nickerson and Wright declared personal interests which might lead to bias in application 16/00681/FUL as it was an application by Burbage Parish Council, on which they were councillors.

It was reported that all decisions made at the previous meeting had been issued, and Faray Drive was on the agenda for this meeting.

Application for the demolition of no.65 Coventry Road and erection of 13 dwellings.

Late items:

An email has been received from the agent in support of the application, raising the following points:

The agent states (in reference to para 8.8):

a) Adjoining street to the west ‘Bullfurlong Lane’ is also a cul-de-sac punched between two houses on Coventry Road. Thus the whole of this lane, represent substantial forms of backland development, not blighted by any perceived social issues. There is no mention of backland in the NPPF and plenty of other examples can be provided elsewhere including just 38m east of the site

Officer Response

Bullfurlong Lane and Crossways form part of the established character of this part of Burbage and the development site is not considered to be comparable.

The agent states (in reference to para 8.9):

b) The committee report indicates that the site is a greenfield site. The report does not reflect the High Court decision from February 2016 (Dartford Borough Council v Secretary of State), which has clarified the definition of previously developed land.

The ruling states that only residential gardens within the “built-up area” are to be exempt from the definition, whereas residential gardens outside of “built up areas” may be regarded as “brownfield”.

The proposed garden land could be considered brownfield. This weighs in favour of the proposal, particularly in light of the overwhelming need for new housing in sustainable locations. There is support within the NPPF for the use of land that has been previously developed.

Officer Response

The case referred to by the agent has been considered, but this does not establish any legal basis to define the application as greenfield. Nor does it mean that the scheme meets the definition of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF. The agent state (in reference to 8.9):

c) The proposal is consistent with the recent developments to the south of Burbage. New developments of 9 houses/ha would not be an efficient of use of land, particularly given the overwhelming need for new houses. Immediately east of the site on Coventry Road the next 15 dwellings are built at a density of 28 houses/ha including some ‘backland’ development referred to above.

Officer Response

The reference to density, when set into the context of the report, refers back to the prevailing landscape character of the area in that it is out of keeping with the immediate density surrounding the site. There is no suggestion that a low density scheme is an efficient use of land.

Demolition of 65 Coventry Road and erection of 13 dwellings (outline – access, layout and scale).

It was moved by Councillor Wright, seconded by Councillor Roberts and

RESOLVED – the application be refused for the reasons contained in the officer’s report.

Application for variation of conditions 1 and 4 of planning permission 16/00027/CONDIT to add 1x window to rear elevation and 8x roof lights and accommodation within roof space, (retrospective).

Application for variation of conditions 1 and 4 of planning permission 16/00027/CONDIT to add 1 window to rear elevation and 8 roof lights and accommodation within roof space (retrospective).

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that the application be approved, it was moved by Councillor Witherford and seconded by Councillor Crooks that the application be refused.

Following further discussion, Councillor Roberts proposed that all new windows and roof lights be opaque and fixed. In the absence of a seconder, the motion was not pursued.

It was subsequently moved by Councillor Wright and seconded by Councillor Roberts that the two roof lights to the rear of the property serving the bedroom only be opaque and fixed.

Being the first valid motion, a vote was taken upon the proposal to refuse permission which was LOST.

Councillor Boothby proposed an amendment to Councillor Wright’s motion that members be kept updated with regard to compliance with the conditions. This was accepted by the mover and seconder of the motion.

A vote was then taken on the amended motion to amend the conditions to require the two roof lights to be opaque and fixed. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            permission be granted with the abovementioned amendment;

(ii)           Members be updated with regard to compliance with the conditions.

Application for conversion of agricultural buildings to 3 dwellings and extensions and alterations to 2 existing dwellings.

Application for conversion of agricultural buildings to three dwellings and extensions and alterations to two existing dwellings.

On the motion of Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor Sutton it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report.

Application for alterations and extensions to existing Parish Hall and erection of a new Pavilion.

Late items:

Sport England has requested that the following condition is added:

The changing rooms hereby approved are constructed in accordance with the details submitted and available for use prior to any works taking place which results in the loss of the existing changing rooms in the Millennium Hall.

Reason: In order to maintain the continuity and availability of changing provision at the site and in accordance with Policy DM 8 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies DPD.

Officer Response

The applicant’s views about Sport England’s request has been sought, who has stated that although completion of the new pavilion prior to the closure of the existing facility is the intention of the parish council, issues relating to timing and weather could make it difficult to comply with a condition. They therefore request that no such condition is included.

While the suggested condition is relevant to the scheme, insisting upon the changing rooms to be constructed before the existing facilities are decommissioned would be unreasonable. The recommendation to approve without Sport England’s suggested condition therefore remains unaltered.

Application for alterations and extensions to existing parish hall and erection of a new pavilion.

On the motion of Councillor O’Shea, seconded by Councillor Boothby, it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report.

Application for a two storey rear extension.

Application for two storey rear extension.

Notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation that permission be granted, Councillor Taylor proposed that the application be refused. In the absence of a seconder, the motion was not put.

Councillor Boothby, seconded by Councillor Roberts, proposed that the application be deferred to allow for consideration of amended plans following the applicant’s indication that he would be willing to amend the roofline of the proposed extension. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED – the application be deferred to give consideration to amended plans.

Members received an update on progress in relation to various appeals since the last meeting. It was moved by Councillor Boothby, seconded by Councillor Sutton and

RESOLVED – the report be noted.