Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Director of Corporate Services as Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

10am – (2.6) 15/507246/FULL 320 Minster Road, Minster, ME12 3NR

The Vice Chairman in-the-Chair welcomed the applicants, the applicant’s agent and the one member of the public to the meeting.

The Planner introduced the application which sought planning permission for a detached two-bedroom bungalow and a carport in the rear garden of 320 Minster Road, Minster.  He explained that the bungalow would measure 9.7 metres in width and 12 metres in depth measuring 2.7 metres to the eaves and 5.5 metres in overall height.  The bungalow would have a pitched roof and a two-bay carport measuring 5.5 metres x 6.5 metres, 2.5 metres to the eaves and 3.6 metres in overall height with a pitched roof.  Also proposed was a 72 square metres rear private amenity space.

The Planner advised that a new boundary was proposed between the existing and proposed dwelling and an extended area of hardstanding between the dwellings would incorporate a driveway and the car port would provide two parking spaces.  The existing dwelling at no. 320 Minster Road would retain space to park two vehicles.  The agent had submitted a supporting statement which set out the need for the bungalow and related to the applicant’s daughter having a medical condition which required constant care.  The proposed bungalow would be occupied by the applicant, her husband and disabled daughter to reside in whilst the existing property, no. 320, would be occupied by other family members.  This would allow for family members to be on-hand to help with caring when the parents take respite.

Mr Chamberlain, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.  He explained that they had worked closely with planning officers on the application in particular to ensure that there was sufficient parking and turning space so that cars did not have to reverse out onto the main road.  Mr Chamberlain reported that incorrect drawings were shown at the Planning Committee meeting on 7 April 2016 and amended drawings had been submitted showing the size of one of the car ports reduced and fencing altered to allow better turning within the site.

The Planner acknowledged receipt of the plans which he had with him for Members to view.

Mrs Hughes, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She stated that they had been working on the proposal for 18 months with planning officers and the proposed development was for longevity.  Mrs Hughes explained that they had no family living locally and the proposal would help them to support their daughter.

Mr Hughes, the applicant’s husband, urged Members to have an open-mind and raised the following points: was not ‘shoe-horning’; planning officers supported the application; would help to keep our daughter out of the care system; similar applications with “terrible” access had been granted; with regard to setting a precedent each application should be considered on its own merits; would be in-keeping with other properties; and all developments “adjust” the streetscene.

In response to queries from a Member, the Area Planning Officer reported that objections had been received from a neighbour and Minster  ...  view the full minutes text for item 647.