Agenda item

   (Enclosure)

A Member said that in her opinion the minutes required two amendments, firstly to the second paragraph of minute 92, and secondly to condition number 8 referred to in application NB1 on page 4 of the minutes. 

She outlined her proposed amendment to minute 92 orally, and gave reasons for her request, and then went on to request an amendment to the minute on NB1, which should, in her opinion, have made reference to the preservation of the line of the proposed link road, preferably by a condition.  The Principal Planning Officer said that there was no policy requiring this, and that it could not be conditioned.  In addition, the plans submitted for the proposal did not show any built form on the preserved line, and any development in the future would require a separate planning application.

Another Member supported the view of the Member requesting amendments.  The Chairman then asked that the proposed amendments be written down and submitted before further discussion took place.  Further consideration of the minutes was then deferred to enable this to be done.

(Resumption of consideration later in the meeting).

On receipt of the written down amendments, the Chairman read them to the Committee.  The Development Management Service Manager reminded members that the planning permission for the application referred to had actually been issued, and it therefore could not be amended as had been requested.  He drew the attention of members to condition 13 which required that the development be carried out in accordance only with the plans listed in that condition.  These referred to the access being left undeveloped and, as had been stated, it would require planning permission if any development affecting the road was required in the future.  He repeated the assurance given by the Principal Planning Officer.

The Vice-Chairman recollected that in previous discussions about development in this area it had been understood that the 4^th exit from the island (the road now under discussion) was always intended for the relief road.  Other Members agreed with this recollection.

The Member originally raising the issues on the minutes then read and proposed her first amendment, which was to be added at the end of paragraph two of minute 92, as follows:

“It was requested by a Member that whereas the officer had said that the ‘benefits’ of the wind farm ‘outweighed’ the negatives, when asked, the Developer’s agent could not satisfy the Development Control Committee that there was any worthwhile ‘benefits’ to the community which outweighed the negatives of which would indeed affect all the residents in the area.”

The Solicitor gave advice in regard to the formation of minutes, particularly noting that minutes were only a summary.  Several Members made comment on the proposed amendment and in relation to the minutes generally, during the course of which the proposal was seconded. 

On being put to the vote the proposed amendment was agreed.

The Member originally raising the issues then read and proposed her second amendment, which was to be added to the minute in relation to application NB1 on page 8 of the minutes, as follows:

“It should also be noted that no building or development on this site should prejudice against the future link/relief road, planned by LCC or Central Government for this site.  Lindum made all of Bourne Town Council aware at their presentation their roadways would be built to specification as for LCC to adopt them.”

On being put to the vote the proposed amendment was lost.

It was then proposed, seconded and agreed that the minutes of the meeting on 1^st May 2012 as amended above be accepted as a correct record of decisions taken.