undefined

Agenda and draft minutes

Development Management Committee - Thursday, 16th July, 2020 5.00 pm

Venue: Remote Meeting - Via Skype for Business. View directions

Contact: Mark Gregory  Democratic Services Officer

Link: Follow_the_meeting

Items
No. Item

24.

Apologies for Absence

To receive and record apologies for absence.

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence.

 

25.

Site Viewing Working Party Minutes pdf icon PDF 199 KB

To receive the minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 8 July 2020.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The minutes of the Site Briefing held on 8th July 2020 were received.

 

26.

Declarations of Interest

To receive and record declarations of interests from members present in respect of the various matters on the agenda for this meeting.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest relating to items on the agenda.

 

27.

APP/19/01048 - Northney Farm, St Peters Road, Hayling Island pdf icon PDF 356 KB

Proposal:  Retrospective application for agricultural maize silage clamp and 3 metre high walls with safety rail.

 

Additional Information

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The site was the subject of a site briefing by the Site Viewing Working Party.

 

Proposal: Retrospective application for agricultural maize silage clamp and 3-metre-high walls with safety rail.

 

The Committee considered the written report and recommendation from the Head of Planning to grant permission.

 

The Committee received the supplementary information, circulated prior to the meeting which:

 

1)    included the minutes of the Site Viewing Working Party held on 8 July 2020;

 

2)    included a copy of the presentation given to the Site Viewing Working Party held on 8 July 2020;

 

3)    included a written deputation received in advance of the Committee;

 

4)    gave responses to the information requested by the Site Viewing Working Party which included:

 

a.    more recent photographs showing the site in summer foliage;

 

b.    the results of an investigation into the suitability of using Ash trees to screen the proposal;

 

c.    the results of an investigation into the most suitable size for proposed planting; and

 

d.    clarification on the limits of the capacity of the silage clamp and the height of the silage within the metal frame;

 

5)    included updates to the officers’ report; and

 

6)    included an amended Condition to the officers’ recommendation.

 

All members confirmed that they had read the above supplementary papers prior to the meeting.

 

The members received a presentation from the officers outlining the report and answering the questions raised by the Site Viewing Working Party and individual members of the Committee since the agenda was published.

 

In response to issues raised within the deputation, the officers explained that the application was made following consideration by the Council’s Enforcement Team, and that the application needed to be decided based on planning merits alone. The Heritage Team Leader also informed the Committee that they had visited the application site twice and had been able to have full view of the silage clamp in relation to the listed building and its surroundings. They believed that the intermittency of the frame did not have a significant enough impact for them to object to the application.

 

The Chairman stated to the Committee that the photos shown in the presentation were a snapshot of a moment in time, and so were not representative of the full site. They also reaffirmed the retrospective nature of the application, and that they should question, debate, and make a decision on the application as if it was not already erected.

 

In response to questions raised by the Committee, the officers answered that:

 

i.              agricultural permitted development rules were complex but give increased rights to developers, meaning that the concrete walls of the silage clamp were permitted without the need to seek planning permission up to a height of 3m. It was the railings and metal framework of the development which required permission to be sought;

 

ii.            the applicant had informed officers that the railing was a necessary safety requirement for agricultural use of the silage clamp, and whilst not being requested by the Council, did offer the addition of supporting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.