To receive any announcements from the Chairman and any matters of communication.

The Chairman advised the meeting that the order of business in the morning would be Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.  The Items scheduled to be heard after 1.30 p.m. would be 6, 13, 14, 15 and then 16.

The Chairman also reminded Members of the Committee that they had to be present throughout the entire debate on an Item (including the officer’s introduction) in order that they could participate and vote upon it.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 16 August 2017 (copy to follow).

RESOLVED

that the minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 16 August 2017 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To receive from Members any declarations of interest, including membership of any Parish/Town Council consulted upon during the planning application process and the way in which a Member cast his/her vote.

To consider the report of the Director of Regeneration and Business which provides a monthly update of planning enforcement cases where action has been taken.

The Chairman advised Members to raise any issues they might have with regard to planning enforcement cases with the Planning Enforcement and Appeals Team Leader.

NOTED

the monthly update of planning enforcement cases where action has been taken.

Address:       Land at Sorrell Way, Biggleswade (nearest postcode SG18 8BW)

Outline application: Erection of building(s) to provide extra care accommodation comprising up to 93 units with associated access, landscaping and ancillary works. All matters reserved except for access.

Applicant:     CBC Assets

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/01236/OUT for an outline application for the erection of building(s) to provide extra care accommodation comprising up to 93 units with associated access, landscaping and ancillary works with all matters reserved except for access at land at Sorrell Way, Biggleswade.

The Committee noted that there was no additional information contained in the Late Sheet on this application and the planning officer had no additional information to report verbally.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Biggleswade Town Council and the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.  A Member sought clarification on the points raised by the Town Council representative.  In response the Town Council representative stated that the application was linked to the Saxon Drive development (minute DM/17/60 refers) as a means of overcoming the requirement to provide social housing on the Saxon Drive site.  In addition the proposed access to the development wasn’t suitable, clearly defined or adequate.

A local Member reported a request from residents of the existing Flowers Estate that the shrubbery/bushes on either side of the footpath be maintained so that a clear demarcation remained between the Estate and the proposed new development.  He asked that this request be incorporated within a condition.  A second Biggleswade Member stated she shared some of her concerns with those of the Town Council regarding affordable housing.  She commented that it was usual to consider each application on its individual merits and that the application before Members and that for Saxon Drive should be considered separately, without the current application, if approved, removing the requirement for affordable housing under the Saxon Drive scheme.  Further, the application was of 93 units and therefore represented a considerable increase in the population of older people who would tend to require extra care.  There appeared to be no indication of how this care was to be provided, given that local GP’s were at capacity and an absence of funding to increase provision.

The Chairman emphasised that there were two separate applications before Members.  However, if one was not approved by Members it could possibly jeopardize approval of the other.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The vehicular access onto the development would be located at the northwest corner of the site off Sorrell Way whilst the pedestrian access was to be dealt with under reserved matters. 

·         The retention of shrubbery/bushes along the boundary with the Flowers Estate and as much of the existing vegetation including the blackberry bushes, as was possible give the need to divert the footpath.  It was suggested that the proposed landscaping condition be strengthened to reflect this.

·         The absence of any response by the NHS regarding the need for additional GP provision.  It was acknowledged that previous attempts to challenge the approach adopted by the NHS had failed.  It was noted that the new Greenfields private development of one and two bedroom apartments for older people, located near Leighton Buzzard,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Address:       Land at Saxon Drive, Biggleswade (nearest postcode SG18 8SU)

Outline Application: Erection of up to 230 residential dwellings with associated access, landscaping, open space and ancillary works.  All matters reserved except means of access from Saxon Drive.

Applicant:     CBC Assets

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/01277/OUT for the erection of up to 230 residential dwellings with associated access, landscaping, open space and ancillary works with all matters reserved except for the means of access from Saxon Drive at land at Saxon Drive, Biggleswade.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses and additional/amended conditions/reasons as set out in the Late Sheet including a change in the description of the application so that it referred to ‘up to 200 dwellings’ and not ‘up to 230 dwellings’.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Biggleswade Town Council, an objector and the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.

In response to two of the points raised by the Town Council the Chairman advised first, that the development would not set a precedent as all planning applications had to be considered on their individual merits and, second, that there was no knowledge of a covenant on the land referred to.  Further, if there was one it would not constitute a material planning matter but a civil one.

Clarification on a point raised by the applicant’s agent was sought by a Member.  The agent confirmed that there would no development on that part of the flood plain which lay within the application site.

A local Member stated that approval of an application for development which lay outside the settlement envelope would set a precedent, encourage developers to submit such applications and for development to proceed without proper consultation or planning.  He therefore requested that the application be withdrawn until such time as it could be considered in the context of the Central Bedfordshire master plan.  However, the Chairman advised that the Committee was required to determine the application before it.  The Committee could not withdraw the application and if it deferred consideration the application could be called in for determination by an Inspector.  The legal officer explained that the application before the meeting could not be deferred unless on planning grounds.  Further, the applicant had not indicated that the application should be deferred or withdrawn.  The Committee was, therefore, required to determine it.

A second Biggleswade Member reiterated her concern regarding the relationship between the current application before the Committee and that previously considered (minute DM/17/59 refers).  She then suggested that the application could be refused.  The Member referred to a previous application for a GP surgery and playing fields on the site which had been refused at appeal by an Inspector who had rejected development of the land.  She compared this with the Council’s determination as the landowner to proceed with development.  She referred to the historical role of the land as open space and with the local road network already being at overcapacity and therefore unable to absorb the increase in vehicular movements associated with the development.  Last, the Member expressed concern regarding the provision of healthcare given the substantial cumulative increase in residents arising  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Address:       Kennell Farm, Saxon Drive, Biggleswade, SG18 8UT

Change of use of agricultural land to a Travelling Showpeople Site to create 4 plots, each plot accommodating the following: - 2 x mobile homes/chalets; - 4 x caravans; - 1 x workshop; - 4-6 trailer parking spaces; - 4 x car parking spaces.

Applicant:     CBC Assets

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02682/REG3 for a change of use of agricultural land to a Travelling Showpeople site to create four plots, each plot accommodating the following: - 2 x mobile homes/chalets; - 4 x caravans; - 1 x workshop; - 4-6 trailer parking spaces; - 4 x car parking spaces at Kennel Farm, Saxon Drive, Biggleswade, SG18 8UT.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses, additional comments and additional conditions as set out in the Late Sheet.  The planning officer advised that, in addition, recommended condition 9 should be amended to state that the vehicular access should be surfaced in an approved material for its entire length and not for a minimum distance of 25.0m into the site.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Biggleswade Town Council, an objector and the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.  In response to a comment from the Town Council that the application was premature because the Local Plan was not yet in place the Chairman stated that the application was before the Committee and therefore required determination.

Clarification on some of the points raised by the public speakers was sought by Members.  In particular information was sought with regard to the Town Council’s request that all operational restrictions placed on the nearby industrial units should also apply to the Travelling Showpeople site and to the Town Council’s comments that a large number of local members of the public were of the opinion that the proposed location was unsuitable due to its proximity to existing properties. The Town Council representative felt unable to respond to a query as to whether the proposed site was more unsuitable than the Travelling Showpeople’s current site within the town centre.

A ward Member commented that the site had originally been proposed by the Town Council as a site for Travelling Showpeople some 10 years ago.  He indicated both his own and another Biggleswade ward Member’s continued full support for the site to be used for this purpose and for the application before the Committee.

A Biggleswade ward Member stated that no complaints had been received about the Travelling Showpeople current site near Franklins Mill in Biggleswade town centre.  The community had lived in Biggleswade for at least 100 years and had not caused any problems.  The Member commented that the need to protect the ancient heritage asset should not outweigh the requirement to meet the needs of the living.  She added that the site would not be for a showground but for accommodation.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         Concern regarding the scale and height of the proposed workshop building.  The planning officer confirmed that the building was 7 metres high but the site was sloped and, as a result, the height would be approximately the same as the existing commercial units to the east of the site.  Although there would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Address:       Samuel Whitbread Community College, Shefford Road, Clifton, Shefford, SG17 5QS

Outline Application: Enhancement of sporting facilities including new '4G' floodlit pitch, tennis courts, improved grass pitches and new changing rooms. Construction of up to 64 new homes on land south west of the main school buildings and new access from Hitchin Road.

Applicant:     Bedfordshire East Schools Trust

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/15/01657/OUT for an outline application for the enhancement of sporting facilities including new ‘4G’ floodlit pitch, tennis courts, improved grass pitches and new changing rooms and the construction of up to 64 new homes on land south west of the main school buildings and new access from Hitchin Road at Samuel Whitbread Community College, Shefford Road, Clifton, Shefford, SG17 5WS.

The planning officer advised the meeting that the application had previously been considered and approved by the Committee on 20 June 2016 but had been re submitted because the original submission had referenced the then lack of a 5 year land supply as a material consideration.  This position had now changed with the land supply requirement having been met and so Members were being asked to determine the application having regard to this factor. 

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses and additional comments.  In view of the additional responses the planning officer stressed that the change in the land supply was the only issue which had altered since the Committee’s original decision to approve.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a joint representation from the applicant and a supporter.

A ward Member praised the school’s sporting achievements and welcomed the proposed improvements to its sports facilities given the school’s sporting ethos and the use by other schools in Central Bedfordshire of its facilities.  He acknowledged the concerns expressed by Clifton Parish Council and advised the meeting of the possibility of new junction to the north of the site which could be employed to overcome the issues generated by the current school bus traffic route through Clifton.  He asked that all parties involved in the separate planning application for The Hales, which included the proposed junction, give full consideration to this matter given the wide ranging positive impact which would arise.

Members considered the application and no issues were raised.  A Member took the opportunity to assure any members of the public observing the meeting that the debate on the application had been relatively short because it had already been approved at a previous meeting and had been brought back before the Committee purely because of the change in the status of the Council’s land supply. 

On being put to the vote 11 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.  

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/15/01657/OUT relating to Samuel Whitbread Community College, Shefford Road, Clifton, Shefford, SG17 5QS be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

Address:       Land east of Hitchin Road & south of the former Pig Testing Unit, Hitchin Road, Stotfold (nearest postcode SG5 4JH)

Reserved Matters: Erection of 180 dwellings with landscaping, open space and associated works pursuant to outline planning permission reference CB/16/01455/OUT dated 30th June 2016.

Applicant:     Lochailort Fairfield Ltd

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/00358/RM relating to reserved matters for the erection of 180 dwellings with landscaping, open space and associated works pursuant to outline planning permission reference CB/16/01455/OUT dated 30 June 2016 at land east of Hitchin Road and south of the former pig testing unit, Hitchin Road, Stotfold.

The Committee noted that there was no additional information contained in the Late Sheet on this application.  However, the planning officer reported verbally that he had received an email from Fairfield Parish Council stating that its concerns regarding the absence of a dedicated area for goods vehicle turning area on the site of the retail unit(s) had now been met and so it had withdrawn its objection.  The meeting was advised that the application had been brought before the Committee for determination solely because of the Parish Council’s objection.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.

A ward Member indicated his support for the application.  He commented favourably on the design of the housing scheme, which had replicated that of the original Fairfield development, and informed the Committee that the school would be constructed on a modular basis off-site and invited Members to informally attend the associated works.

Members considered the application and no issues were raised.

On being put to the vote 11 members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/00358/RM relating to land east of Hitchin Road and south of the former pig testing unit, Hitchin Road, Stotfold be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

Address:       Land adj. to Haynes Turn, south of High Road, Haynes (nearest postcode MK45 3PA)

Outline Application: With all matters reserved for the erection of five detached dwellings.

Applicant:     LSF Properties

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02023/OUT an outline application for the erection of five detached dwellings with all matters reserved on land adjacent to Haynes Turn, south of High Road, Haynes Turn, Haynes.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional comments as set out in the Late Sheet.  The planning officer reported verbally that, in addition, he had received an email from the ward Member setting out her objections to the application.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Haynes Parish Council and an objector to the application under the public participation scheme.

At this point a statement from the ward Member opposing the application was read out by the Chairman. The ward Member had been unable to attend the meeting in person.  Her statement had concluded with a request that the Committee reject the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and the negative impact it would have on local residents.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The decision by the Inspector at appeal to overturn the Council’s original decision, taken on 6 May 2016, to refuse the original application for three dwellings and the Inspector’s statement that the site could accommodate seven dwellings.  Whilst the highways officer did not agree with the Inspector’s highways assessment regarding the site he felt the Committee was bound by the Inspector’s decision.

·         The Inspector’s professional ability to reach a decision regarding highways issues.

·         The highways officer’s statement that he did not feel that the likely volume of vehicle movements arising from the proposed development was of concern.  His main concern remained visibility but, given the outcome of the appeal and that concerns regarding visibility had been rejected by the Inspector, he felt that this would not be sufficient to maintain an objection to the current application.  He made reference to the local speed limit of 60 mph and that even though a speed survey had revealed that vehicles were travelling at a slower speed than the maximum permitted it was apparent that drivers exiting the junction lacked the required level of visibility in either direction.

·         Concerns regarding the availability of sufficient space for larger vehicles to turn within the site.  The highways officer reminded Members that the application was an outline application and the issue would be addressed under reserved matters.

·         No record over the last five years of any accidents having taken place at the junction had been found.

·         The Inspector’s decision was a material consideration with regard to the planning application before the Committee.  Members were required to consider the application before them with the Inspector’s decision and the relevant planning policies in mind.  The Inspector did not have to be a highways specialist in order to have determined the application.

·         The Inspector’s statement that the site was a clearly defined area suitable for development.  The current application could not, therefore, be regarded as encroachment into the open countryside as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Address:       Land off A5 at Checkley Wood Farm, Watling Street, Hockliffe, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 9LG

Installation of a single wind turbine with a maximum tip height of 143.5m (hub height 100m; rotor diameter of 87.0m), substation, hardstanding area, access track, underground cabling and associated infrastructure.

Applicant:     Checkley Wood Energy Ltd

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/16/01389/FULL for the installation of a single wind turbine with a maximum tip height of 143.5m (hub height 100m; rotor diameter of 87.0m), substation, hardstanding area, access track, underground cabling and associated infrastructure at land off the A5 at Checkley Wood Farm, Watling Street, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 9LG.

In advance of consideration the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses as set out in the Late Sheet.  The planning officer reported that since the publication of the Late Sheet Members had also been sent a letter and slide show by an objector.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Heath and Reach Parish Council, Potsgrove Parish Meeting, an objector on behalf of Stop Checkley Wood Turbine (SCWT) Action Group, an objector on behalf of local residents/Savills, the applicant and the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.  Clarification on a point raised by the Heath and Reach Parish Council representative was sought by a Member.

The ward Member for Heath and Reach, who had called in the application, referred to three issues that required consideration by the Committee: justification for the breach of the Green Belt, industrialisation and the changing nature of the English countryside and localism in the form of the opinions of the community which would need to live with the outcome of the Committee’s decision.  The Member stated that an additional wind turbine would change the character of the landscape through cumulative dominance and adversely impact on the local and historic environment.  He added that the view of most professionals in this sector was that a turbine in the proposed location would cause harm.  In contrast he could not identify any special benefits that would outweigh this.  Whilst supporting renewable energy he believed the turbine to be in the wrong location, too close to homes and that any benefits could not justify the impact on the Green Belt.  He also warned of the industrialisation of the countryside and impression of dominance created by the presence of a second turbine.  The ward Member stated that since the last wind turbine application in 2010 it was expected that a greater emphasis should given to the views of the local community.  He stated that local residents were overwhelmingly against the application and warned that approval would set a precedent. He asked the Committee to refuse the application.

The ward Member for Aspley and Woburn, representing the parishes of Potsgrove and Battlesden in his ward which lay near to the application site, reminded the meeting that the planning process was there to protect local people from developments blighting their environment and views.  The existing turbine was already extremely visually intrusive and another turbine would have a further negative impact.  He expressed the hope that the Committee had visited the locality and was fully aware of the likely visual impact.  The ward Member stated that local residents did not benefit from the existing turbine’s output as it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Address:       Henlow Middle School, Church Road, Henlow, SG16 6AN

Removal of existing two classroom modular unit. Construction of free standing four-court sports hall with changing facilities and attached two-storey six classroom block. Construction of additional car parking.

Applicant:     Henlow Church of England Academy

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/03294/FULL for the removal of an existing two classroom modular unit, construction of a freestanding four court sports hall with changing facilities and attached two storey six classroom block and the construction of additional car parking at Henlow Middle School, Church Road, Henlow, SG16 6AN.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses, additional comments, additional/amended conditions/reasons and to notification of an error within the report as set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from the applicant under the public participation scheme.  A Member queried the applicant’s statement that the Academy’s performance was above average when the Council’s website stated the opposite.  In response the applicant stated that she had referred to the 2017 data.  The Chairman advised the applicant to check the content of the Council’s website and, if it was incorrect, to contact the Executive Member for Education and Skills and request that it be amended.  A brief discussion took place on the Academy’s academic performance and results.

A ward Member stated that excellent progress had been made since the new head teacher had been appointed and he had no hesitation in supporting the school’s expansion.  He then explained that he had called in the application for the Committee to determine because of his concern regarding the proposed Travel Plan and the impact on local residents.  However, following various consultations a revised travel plan had been submitted and consideration given to the Council’s policy on transport to school.  The highways conditions now reflected the need for changes both inside and outside the school site.  There was also a commitment by highways officers to carry out a consultation with the local community regarding the introduction of limited waiting and drop off restrictions outside the school.  The ward Member stated that there was the possibility of a further five car parking spaces for existing staff being added and which would be located on the site of the builder’s portacabins during the proposed development. He was now fully supportive of the application and had withdrawn his objection.

The planning officer recommended the use of an additional condition seeking details of the five additional car parking spaces to be submitted if the Committee wished to see them provided.

A second ward Member thanked the head teacher and its leadership for taking two additional classes at this highly regarded school.  He had also expressed concern regarding the Travel Plan but the school now met the relevant objectives and hopefully the Travel Plan would satisfy local residents and there would be no highways objections.  He moved the addition of a condition regarding the five additional parking spaces.

The Committee considered the application and no issues were raised.

On being put to the vote 9 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/03294/FULL relating to Henlow Middle School, Church  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Address:       Henlow Bridge Lakes Ltd, Bridge End Road, Henlow, SG16 6LN

Change of use - for the proposed Teen Building (CB/16/01005/FULL Approval granted 28/4/16 and subsequent relocation CB/17/00188/VOC Approved 9/3/17) to a private Day Nursery and associated Children's Activity Centre.

Applicant:     Henlow Bridge Lakes Ltd

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02361/FULL for a change of use for the proposed Teen Building (CB/16/01005/FULL approval granted 28 April 2016 and subsequent relocation CB/17/00188/VOC approved 9 March 2017) to a private Day Nursery and associated Children’s Activity Centre at Henlow Bridge Lakes Ltd, Bridge End Road, Henlow, SG16 6LN.

No additional consultation/publicity responses, comments or conditions were reported in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the planning officer informed the Committee that, since his report had been published, he had received additional supporting information from the applicant.  This stated that approximately 35 children would attend the nursery, that the experience of other sites run by the operator was that not all parents arrived at the same time with their children and that the company’s environmental policy incentivised staff to walk and cycle to work.  In addition information had been circulated directly by the applicant to Members on issues within the report including a query with regard to proposed condition 2 requiring access to the nursery being from the existing main site entrance to Henlow Lakes.  The applicant had suggested that the existing site access be used and the highways officer had raised no objection to this.  The planning officer therefore recommended that condition 2 within his report relating to access for the nursery being from the existing main site entrance to Henlow Lakes should be removed.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from an objector to the application and from the applicant under the public participation scheme.  Clarification on some of the points raised by the public speakers was sought by Members.

A ward Member stated that he had fully supported the development of the site since its inception and the quality of the development had assisted tourism.  However, he felt concern at the proposed change of use.  As the governor of a local school which had its own nursery he had seen very young children thrive in a school based environment.  He therefore believed nurseries should be based on school sites as that arrangement provided children with an incentive to move on from the nursery to the school proper.  He recognised the business benefit of the proposal and that the demand existed for nursery places but felt that this was not the right location.  In addition he was concerned at the possible highways safety implications as returning commuters attempted to reduce their journey time from the railway station to the nursery to collect their children by turning across the oncoming traffic flow to access the site.  Following discussion the applicant had subsequently discussed the ward Member’s concerns with the highways officer and it had been acknowledged that some warning signage was incorrectly located.  However, the ward Member remained concerned as to whether this issue could be remedied.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The highways officer’s statement that there would be an estimated 36 additional vehicular movements which would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Address:       6 The Old Dairy, Speedsdairy Farm Road, Beadlow, Shefford, SG17 5PL

Conversion of existing outbuilding to annexe.

Applicant:     Mr J Lines

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/03030/FULL for the conversion of an existing building to an annexe at 6 The Old Dairy, Speedsdairy Farm Road, Beadlow, Shefford, SG17 5PL.

No additional consultation/publicity responses, comments or conditions were reported in the Late Sheet.

Members considered the application and no issues were raised.

On being put to the vote 9 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/03030/FULL relating to 6 The Old Dairy, Speedsdairy Farm Road, Beadlow, Shefford, SG17 5PL be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

Address:       Ickwell Fields, Ickwell Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade, SG18 9BS

Proposed Menage.

Applicant:     Mr & Mrs Ben Maudlin

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02780/FULL for a proposed menage at Ickwell Fields, Ickwell Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade, SG18 9BS.

No additional consultation/publicity responses, comments or conditions were reported in the Late Sheet.

Members considered the application and no issues were raised.

On being put to the vote 9 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/02780/FULL relating to Ickwell Fields, Ickwell Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade, SG18 9BS be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.

To receive and note, prior to considering the planning applications contained in the schedules above, any additional information detailed in the Late Sheet to be circulated on 12 September 2017.

In advance of consideration of the planning applications attached to the agenda the Committee received a Late Sheet advising it of additional consultation/publicity responses, comments and proposed additional/amended conditions.  A copy of the Late Sheet is attached as an appendix to these minutes.

Under the provisions of the Members’ Planning Code of Good Practice, Members are requested to note that the next Development Management Committee will be held on 11 October 2017 and the Site Inspections will be undertaken on 9 October 2017.

NOTED

that the next meeting of the Development Management Committee will be held on 11 October 2017.

RESOLVED

that all Members and substitute Members along with the relevant ward representatives be invited to conduct site inspections on 9 October 2017.