Agenda and draft minutes

It was noted that an apology for absence had been received from Councillor C F Woodgate.

There were no substitute members appointed.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

Councillor N S Kenton declared an Other Significant Interest in Agenda Item 6 (Application No DOV/24/00361 – Land to south of Summerfield House, Barnsole Road, Staple) by reason that his friends lived near the application site.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 October 2024 (to follow).

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

The Chairman advised that the application remained deferred.

Erection of a detached dwelling with new vehicular access and associated parking and landscaping

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

 

The Committee was shown drawings, a plan and photographs of the application site.   The Planning Consultant advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a detached dwelling on a site that formed part of the hamlet of Summerfield and was joined with the hamlet of Barnsole.  The scheme was well designed and there was parking proposed in front of the property and land at the rear reserved for turtle doves.   There was a good deal of planning history to the site.  An application for a change of use for the siting of static and touring caravans had been refused in 2020 and the appeal against enforcement dismissed in 2022.  Most recently, an application for the erection of two dwellings on the site had been refused and dismissed at appeal, with the inspector’s decision having been received on 29 October.  The latter was a material consideration and carried significant weight in determining the application.

 

Councillor R M Knight did not agree with the report recommendation to refuse the application, citing that local residents were happy with the proposal and that the land had already been cleared which would indicate that there was no habitat remaining for turtle doves.

 

In response to Members’ queries, the Planning Consultant clarified that it was Officers’ view that the previous appeal inspector had misunderstood Policy SP4 of the Local Plan.  Nevertheless, the inspector had commented that that proposal was unacceptable due to its visual impact on the character and appearance of the landscape.  To be clear, the site was outside the rural confines of Barnsole and contrary to Policy SP4.  Now that the new Local Plan had been adopted, there was no requirement for Members to take a ‘tilted balance’ approach to the application.  The inspector’s decision was significant and, with a new Local Plan, there was a robust policy position for refusing the application.  Ultimately it was for Members to consider whether the current application had changed significantly enough to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. 

 

In response to Councillor H M Williams, the Chairman reminded the Committee that it was not appropriate to discuss the future of the caravans as its sole remit was to consider the proposal before it and its suitability for the land.  The Planning Consultant added that it was for the Committee to look at the scheme and decide whether it was acceptable or not.  The retention of the caravans was a matter for enforcement and proceedings.  It was often the case that magistrates would wait for the outcome of a ’live’ planning application before considering a case.  He stressed that Members should not be thinking of approving the application solely to solve the problem of the caravans.

 

It was proposed by Councillor M J Nee and duly seconded that the application should be REFUSED as per the report recommendation.

 

On being put to the vote, there was an equality of votes.   The Chairman used his casting vote and the motion was CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/24/00361 be REFUSED on the following grounds:

 

1.     The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its location and proximity to the nearest settlement and day-to-day facilities and services, would represent an unsustainable form of development, contrary to the spatial strategy and Policies SP1, SP3 and SP4 of the Dover District Local Plan and paragraphs 83, 108, 109, 114 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.     The development of the site would harm the environmental and visual quality of the street scene and is an unsympathetic, harshly intrusive and poorly related form of development which, due to its scale and form, siting and design features harms the historic context and rural character and beauty of the area, contrary to Policies SP4, PM1 and NE2 of the Dover District Local Plan and paragraphs 135 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

3.     The application fails to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a significant effect on turtle dove habitats, foraging and breeding areas.  It does not provide a baseline survey for assessment and does not make provision for the long-term maintenance and management of land suitable for the turtle dove habitat proposed.  In the absence of which, and taking the precautionary approach, the proposal would result in the potential loss of ecological habitats and fail to conserve or enhance nature conservation and the biodiversity of the site and surrounding area, contrary to Policy NE1 of the Dover District Local Plan and paragraphs 180 and 186 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

4.     The proposed development would result in additional pressure on the Thanet Coast and Sandwich Bay Special Protection Area (SPA).  In the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking to secure the necessary financial contribution towards the monitoring and mitigation of the harm, then the proposed development would be contrary to Policy NE3 of the Dover District Local Plan and paragraphs 185 and 186 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

(b)  That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to settle any necessary reasons in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

 

(Councillor N S Kenton left the Chamber during consideration of this item.)

Reserved Matters application pursuant to outline application DOV/14/00058 for the erection of 112 dwellings

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

Members viewed an aerial view, CGIs, plans and photographs of the application site.  The Team Leader (Development Management) (TL) advised that the application was for reserved matters pursuant to outline application DOV/14/00058 for the erection of 112 dwellings.  Due to the scale and complexities of the site, the applicant had unusually been given 10 years to submit the reserved matters application.  This application was the first for the construction of housing on the site and addressed matters of access, layout, landscaping, appearance and scale only. The principle of development had been established at the outline stage where viability, ecology, highways and flood risks had been found acceptable.  A viability assessment undertaken at outline had indicated that the development could not support the provision of affordable housing, largely because the development was in a flood risk zone where construction costs would be higher.  That said, there was a clause in the Section 106 agreement pertaining to the development which stated that additional financial contributions would be required in the event of land sale receipts increasing.  He advised that Sandwich Town Council had made a further representation on 11 November with no further comments made.

 

In response to points raised by Members, the TL clarified that there would be one equipped and one unequipped play area.  He advised that a primary access already existed and further accesses would be provided as the development was built out.  Fire & Rescue had made only a generic comment about the access.  In terms of concerns raised about sustainability and the lack of services, the TL stressed that viability had been considered at the outline application stage and was not for consideration that evening.  That said, the Section 106 agreement provided a degree of clawback should land sales exceed a certain amount, such that the developer would be required to negotiate contributions.  The Chairman noted that a primary school would be provided as part of another phase of the development.

 

Councillor Williams expressed concerns about the age of the viability report which was 10 years old.  During that time market conditions and the Local Plan had changed, as had the political will of the Council.  Whilst she accepted there was a flood risk with the site, it concerned her that a development of 500 houses would have no affordable homes.   The TL acknowledged that the long implementation period was unusual.  However, he stressed that the development had been granted in its current form (i.e. with no affordable housing) at the outline application stage and there was no mechanism for changing it now.   Whilst the development would not generate a full suite of contributions as might otherwise have been expected, the applicant was nevertheless required to engage with Kent County Council (KCC) regarding school places, public transport improvements and bus infrastructure. 

 

Councillor N S Kenton questioned the wisdom of building what amounted to a small village on the edge of Sandwich, but there was not much that could be done about it now.  He proposed that the application should be approved.  Councillor D G Cronk noted that KCC Highways had not objected to the scheme but had provided no information on how the scheme would impact the three junctions surrounding the site nor details of how much traffic the site was likely to generate or its cumulative impact.  

 

The TL advised that highways had been considered at the outline stage.  He confirmed that the cumulative impact of this and other committed developments had been considered as transport evidence.  A good deal of work had gone on behind the scenes by the applicant to update and upgrade pedestrian links and some highway works to ensure they were in line with current standards and regulations. 

 

The Chairman commented that Active Travel England should have been consulted on the application as the outline consent unit numbers met the threshold, albeit this parcel was below it.  He also noted that a phasing plan had been a requirement of the outline permission which had not come forward.

RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to a Unilateral Undertaking to secure SAMMS payments, Reserved Matters Application No DOV/23/01351 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)               Approved plans;

 

(ii)              Samples of materials;

 

(iii)            Details of measures required to provide on-site energy generation;

 

(iv)            Updated ecological assessment, mitigation measures and biodiversity enhancements;

 

(v)             Details of boundary treatments;

 

(vi)            Details of play areas;

 

(vii)          All homes to meet Building Regulations M4(2).

 

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to settle any necessary legal undertakings and planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

 

 

Outline planning application for erection of up to 90 dwellings with associated parking and infrastructure following demolition of existing dwelling, with all matters reserved except access

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

Members were shown plans and photographs of the application site which had been allocated for development in the new Local Plan.  The Principal Planner advised that outline planning permission was sought for the erection of up to 90 dwellings with associated parking and infrastructure.   With the exception of access, all matters were reserved.   The principle of development on the site was already established, and the location was a sustainable one with access to a shop, village hall, primary school and play spaces.   An existing property in Capel Street would be demolished to provide access.   Details of an indicative secondary access solely for the emergency services had also been provided.  There would be open space near the entrance to the site and a landscape buffer adjacent to the boundaries.  A minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain would be secured.   As part of junction improvements, double yellow lines would be installed on Capel Street but parking spaces would be provided within the site in compensation. Other off-site highway works included the repositioning of the pedestrian island and the upgrading of the public footpath surface.  Arrangements for surface water drainage and foul sewage disposal would be imposed by condition.  These benefits, together with the 30% affordable housing and financial contributions towards the local infrastructure, led to a recommendation to approve the scheme.    

 

 

Councillor D G Beaney referred to the number of dwellings having increased from 70 to 90 and recent flooding.  He requested that contributions be sought through the Section 106 agreement for drainage improvements in and around the site.   The Principal Planner advised that these would not normally be secured through a Section 106 agreement and, in any case, KCC (the lead local flood authority) had not asked for any.  In any event, conditions would be attached to address drainage issues.  

 

Councillor J P Loffman questioned the increased number of dwellings and how this would affect the density of the development.  He expressed dissatisfaction with KCC Highways’ relatively scant comments and was of the view that the number of car journeys generated by the scheme could be significant.  It was unfortunate that Members were not in a position to counter KCC Highways’ assessment that there would be no severe highways impact.   There had been a number of accidents along the road, and he regretted that the cumulative impact of developments on local communities was not taken into account to a greater degree.

 

In response to Members’ comments, the Principal Planner advised that roads within the development would be adoptable.  Whilst the Local Plan had indicated that up to 70 dwellings could be accommodated on the site without an unacceptable impact on the landscape character, that did not preclude the developer from building more houses if they could demonstrate that it could be achieved without having a detrimental impact on the landscape.  This aspect would be assessed further at the reserved matters stage to ensure that the number of dwellings was appropriate. She emphasised that highways matters had been fully considered as part of the site allocation through the Local Plan. KCC Highways’ consultation response was summarised in the report.  Traffic movements would have been calculated using the standard ‘TRICS’ database.  She reminded Members that there were now more people working from home and flexible hours so the morning and afternoon/evening peaks in car journeys once seen had changed. 

 

The Chairman commented that the Committee had to accept to some degree that the traffic modelling/database used by KCC Highways was up to date.   In terms of drainage, he pointed out that condition 22 would require the developer to submit details of the sustainable drainage scheme for approval which would be up to date at that point.  In any case, new developments generally had less water run-off than vacant land, with drainage schemes designed to ensure that surface water infiltrated the land rather than running off.  

 

The Principal Planner added that the drainage scheme had to demonstrate that it could cope with surface water drainage.  In response to Councillor Williams who asked whether the proposed attenuation pond would be fenced off, she advised that safety measures could be included if Members wished when further details were submitted at the reserved matters stage.  In relation to education contributions, she clarified that KCC had asked only for contributions towards secondary education and not for primary.  Its request would have been based on current data for the primary school and future needs and it was obviously satisfied that no primary contribution was necessary at this stage.

 

Councillor Kenton acknowledged that the principle of development had already been established by the site’s allocation in the Local Plan.  However, the increase in dwellings was unfortunate and would not be popular with the local community.  It was also the case that attenuation ponds were normally provided within the development site, and he was concerned that the land identified for the attenuation pond could be built on in future.   The Principal Planner responded that the land was outside the settlement confines but, if an application came forward for its development, it would be assessed on its own merits. 

 

In response to Councillor Beaney, the Planning and Development Manager advised that, as an outline application, the applicant’s plans were only indicative and did not have to be detailed.  It would be for the applicant to demonstrate how 90 dwellings could be accommodated satisfactorily on the site.  The proposals would be fully assessed at the reserved matters stage, but it was not possible to control what the applicant brought forward at that point (although they would definitely not be able to come back with a higher number of dwellings).  

 

The Chairman noted that, in their Design and Access Statement, the applicant was proposing an exemplar fossil-free development which exceeded Building Regulations and would provide electric vehicle charging points for all dwellings.  He requested that Officers bore these in mind at the reserved matters stage.

 

RESOLVED: (a) That, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to

secure the required contributions, Outline Application No DOV/24/00257 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)               Approval of the reserved matters;

 

(ii)              Time condition;

 

(iii)            List of approved plans;

 

(iv)            Samples of materials;

 

(v)             Archaeological works;

 

(vi)            Demolition construction management plan;

 

(vii)          3-part contamination condition (investigation, remediation and verification);

 

(viii)         Unexpected land contamination;

 

(ix)            Biodiversity method statement;

 

(x)             Bat sensitive external lighting strategy;

 

(xi)            Construction vehicle loading/unloading and turning facilities;

 

(xii)          Parking facilities for site personnel and visitors;

 

(xiii)         Wheel-washing facilities and contingency protocol;

 

(xiv)         Details of car parking to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage;

 

(xv)          Details of cycle parking to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage;

 

(xvi)         Measures preventing surface water discharge onto the highway;

 

(xvii)       The proposed roads, footways, footpaths, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle overhang margins, embankments, visibility splays, accesses, carriageway gradients, driveway gradients, car parking and street furniture to be laid out and constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority;

 

(xviii)      Provision of footpaths and footways (with the exception of the wearing course) and carriageways (with the exception of the wearing course but including a turning facility, highway drainage, visibility splays, street lighting, street nameplates and highway structures (if any)) between the dwelling and adopted highway;

 

(xix)         Provision and maintenance of the visibility splays shown on the submitted plans with no obstructions over 1.05 metres above carriageway level within the splays, prior to the use of the site commencing;

 

(xx)          Completion of off-site highway works prior to occupation;

 

(xxi)         Reserved matters for layout demonstrating requirements for surface water drainage for all rainfall durations and intensities can be accommodated;

 

(xxii)       Sustainable surface water drainage scheme;

 

(xxiii)      Verification report pertaining to the surface water drainage system;

 

(xxiv)      Restricting infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground;

 

(xxv)       Details of foul sewage disposal;

 

(xxvi)      Biodiversity gain plan to demonstrate at least 10% net gain;

 

(xxvii)    Submission of biodiversity net gain plan;

 

(xxviii)   Habitat management and monitoring plan;

 

(xxix)      Notice when the habitat management and monitoring plan has been implemented and when the habitat creation and enhancement works are completed;

 

(xxx)       Completion report for habitat enhancements;

 

(xxxi)      Monitoring reports pertaining to Biodiversity Net Gain;

 

(xxxii)    Details of bollards/means of enclosure for the secondary emergency access to Cauldham Lane.

 

(b)  That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions, legal agreements and reasons in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Erection of 5 dwellings and the conversion and extension of existing barn to form dwelling (existing silos and Atcost farm buildings to be demolished)

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

Members were shown an aerial view, CGIs, plans and photographs of the application site which was situated on the eastern side of Eastry adjacent to the settlement boundary.  The Planning Consultant advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of five dwellings and the conversion and extension of an existing barn to form an additional residential dwelling.   As a correction to the report, Members were advised that the standard paragraph giving delegated powers to the Head of Planning and Development was missing and should be added.  The site had been allocated for development under Policy SAP33 of the new Local Plan.  The proposal was acceptable in all respects and approval was recommended.

 

In response to the Chairman, the Planning Consultant clarified that hedges and trees in private gardens had been included in the biodiversity net gain (BNG) calculation.  This was not permissible so further work would be needed to identify which elements of BNG could be achieved on and off site.

 

Councillor Kenton commented that the site had once been a busy farm that had closed about 20 years previously and fallen into disrepair.  Drainage had previously been an issue with a private sewer, but he noted that Southern Water had agreed to connect the site to the main sewerage network.  However, he was under the impression that rainwater was not allowed to enter the foul sewer and remarked that there had previously been issues with soakaways. Notwithstanding these issues, the removal of concrete and other hardstanding should ensure that drainage was not an issue in future, although it would need controlling.   He welcomed the construction management plan as Church Street was very narrow and the private sewer needed protection during construction.   He questioned the description of one of the barns as an Atcost barn as they were constructed of concrete and suggested that there could be historic merit in retaining it.   

 

The Planning Consultant advised that Southern Water had confirmed that there was capacity in the sewerage network for the development.  There were no concerns around overlooking and he agreed that a photographic condition survey of Eastry Court Cottages should be included in the construction management plan to ensure that any damage caused by construction vehicles would be covered by the developer.  He noted that the number of vehicle movements generated by the site when it was a farm would have been higher and the vehicles much larger when compared to the proposed development.  The Heritage Officer’s preference was to retain the barn which had some historic value and was a notable presence on the site.  However, the applicant had advised that it could not be retained.   The barn would be photographed in situ before demolition. 

 

Councillor Loffman questioned the mix of house sizes and whether they were suitable for the site.  The Planning Consultant advised that the mix of houses was drawn from Policy SP5 which required affordable housing to be provided.  Given the size of the development, the constraints of the site and its proximity to heritage assets, it was difficult to achieve smaller affordable units of housing there. 

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to

secure the required contributions (as necessary) for Biodiversity Net Gain provisions, SPA payment, affordable housing and developer contributions, Application No DOV/24/00866 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)               Time limits;

 

(ii)              Approved plans;

 

(iii)            Material details (including samples and roof tile samples for converted barn);

 

(iv)            Windows/doors set in reveals;

 

(v)             Landscaping and open space provision;

 

(vi)            Provision and retention of refuse/recycling storage;

 

(vii)          Provision and retention of bicycle storage;

 

(viii)         Provision of vehicle parking spaces;

 

(ix)            Detailed SuDS scheme;

 

(x)             Strategy for potential contamination risks;

 

(xi)            Verification report for contamination remediation strategy;

 

(xii)          Previously unidentified contamination;

 

(xiii)         No piling without consent of the Local Planning Authority;

 

(xiv)         Completion and maintenance of the access;

 

(xv)          Roads, junctions, street lighting, etc submitted and approved;

 

(xvi)         Measures to prevent the discharge of surface water onto the highway;

 

(xvii)       Provision and maintenance of the visibility splays;

 

(xviii)      Maintenance of vegetation along the access;

 

(xix)         Construction management plan including vibration assessment;

 

(xx)          Details to demonstrate surface water drainage can be accommodated;

 

(xxi)         Details of surface water management;

 

(xxii)       Verification report for surface water system;

 

(xxiii)      No drainage systems infiltration beyond details in this submission into the ground without consent;

 

(xxiv)      Details of foul drainage;

 

(xxv)       Programme of archaeological works;

 

(xxvi)      Full Building Recording (to Level 2) in line with Historic England Guidance;

 

(xxvii)    Housing to meet Building Regulations M4(2) standard;

 

(xxviii)   Designing out crime measures;

 

(xxix)      Tree and hedge protection measures;

 

(xxx)       Construction Environment Management Plan;

 

(xxxi)      Biodiversity Enhancement Plan;

 

(xxxii)    Provision of bat-sensitive lighting;

 

(xxxiii)   Ecological Design Strategy (biodiversity net gain and enhancements);

 

(xxxiv)   Habitat management and monitoring plan;

 

(xxxv)    Removal of permitted development rights;

 

(xxxvi)   Converted barn – joinery details;

 

(xxxvii)Converted barn – details of flues, vents and meter boxes;

 

(xxxviii)                    Converted barn – survey confirming areas of repointed brickwork, including lime mortar mix details (and sample panel);

 

(xxxix)   Access road and green space detail adjacent to Eastry Court Cottages including samples.

 

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions and legal agreements in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

Erection of sauna/steam room and garden room, and excavation of ground for plunge pool, with associated hard and soft landscaping work.  Removal or relocation of one small hawthorn tree (T11)

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

The Committee was shown an aerial view, plan and photographs of the application site which was situated within a conservation area and involved the rear garden of a Grade II-listed property.  The Principal Planner advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a sauna/steam room and garden room, together with the excavation of ground for a plunge pool.  The new garden room would be approximately half a metre higher than the two existing sheds which would be demolished.  A detailed hard and soft landscaping scheme and noise report (in respect of the plant for the plunge pool) were required by condition. 

 

Councillor J S Back noted that the garden was well screened by high walls and trees and the proposed buildings would be just under 2ft higher than the existing buildings.  He proposed that the application should be approved.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/24/00471 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)               Time limit;

 

(ii)              Approved plans;

 

(iii)            External material colour finish;

 

(iv)            Archaeology;

 

(v)             Tree protection/landscaping;

 

(vi)            Specialist piling;

 

(vii)          Lighting details;

 

(viii)         Acoustic recommendations.

 

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

Erection of two-storey side and single storey rear extensions, front porch, side canopy and internal alterations (existing single storey rear extension to be demolished)

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

The Committee was shown a drawing and photographs of the application site which was located within the urban area of Dover.   The Planning Officer advised that planning permission was sought for the erection of a two-storey side and single storey rear extensions, a front porch and side canopy, with the existing rear extension to be demolished. 

 

The Chairman commented that the application appeared to be from a business.  However, the Committee was required only to consider what was before it and, on that basis, had to assess the application as a residential property seeking a modest extension.  Councillor Back agreed that the use of the extension was not the concern of the Committee as it could not predict what would happen in future.  There was ample parking and another extension further along the road so he proposed that the application should be approved.

 

RESOLVED: (a) That Application No DOV/24/00744 be APPROVED subject to the following

conditions:

 

(i)               Time limits for implementation;

 

(ii)              Approved plans;

 

(iii)            Ground floor living-room window to be obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.8 metres.

 

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the report and as resolved by Planning Committee, and to draft and issue a Statement of Reasons.

 

Erection of fence and entrance gates (part retrospective)

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

Members viewed a drawing, a plan and photographs of the application site which was on a private road in a rural area and beyond settlement confines.   The Planning Officer advised that retrospective planning permission was sought to erect a post and rail fence and entrance gates.  Part of the hedgerow had been removed but the site was screened from the wider countryside and the proposal was considered acceptable in appearance.

 

Councillor Back noted that Walmer Parish Council had raised no objections and the fence’s encroachment outside the applicant’s boundary was not a planning matter.   The Chairman expressed frustrations that the application had come before Committee.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/24/00895 be APPROVED subject to the

following condition:

 

(i)               Approved plans.

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

Installation of drainage treatment plant

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

The Committee was shown photographs of the application site which related to land to the rear of two agricultural buildings previously owned by Great Everden Farm.   The Planning Officer advised that planning permission was sought for the installation of an underground  drainage treatment system to serve the existing barn buildings due to there being no mains drainage.  Whilst there had been a number of objections concerning the usage of the site, these were not relevant to the Committee’s consideration of the application. 

 

Councillors Back and Loffman commented that they had to base their decision on the application in front of them and not on what might happen in the future.

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That Application No DOV/24/00429 be APPROVED subject to the

following conditions:

 

(i)               Time limit;

 

(ii)              Approved plans and details.

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Planning and Development.

The Committee received a report on planning fees and charges for 2025/26.

 

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

 

The Chairman noted that there was no information to receive regarding appeals.

 

The Committee noted that no action had been taken.