Agenda and minutes

Venue: Via Video Conference: Accessible to members of the public at

Contact: Harry Thomas - Email: 


Webcast: View the webcast

No. Item



Additional documents:


Members heard apologies from Councillor S Morgan


Temporary Changes to Membership

Any changes will be reported at the meeting.

Additional documents:


Councillor P Cooper sat in place of Councillor S Morgan as a Nominated Substitute.


Minutes pdf icon PDF 397 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2020, copy attached.

Additional documents:




That the Minutes of the meeting held on 18th November, 2020 be approved as a correct record.


Declarations of Interest

Members to declare any interests.

Additional documents:


There were none.


20/00823/ADP - Land off Soulbury Road and Dove Street, Stewkley pdf icon PDF 194 KB

Reserved matters application persuant to outline planning permission 16/02551/AOP  landscaping, Layout and Scale)  to provide 67 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), and associated works to include details required by  Conditions; 4 (Tree Protection) and 5 (Existing and proposed levels).


Contact Officer:  Helen Fadipe 

Additional documents:


Reserved matters application pursuant to outline planning permission 16/02551/AOP landscaping, Layout and Scale) to provide 67 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), and associated works to include details required by Conditions; 4 (Tree Protection) and 5 (Existing and proposed levels).


Prior to consideration of the planning application, Councillor Monger stated that he believed the Committee report did not properly take account of the emerging Stewkley Neighbourhood Plan. As such, and due to other errors that had been highlighted in the report, it should be referred back to the Officers for further and proper consideration before any decision was taken. Following discussion by the Committee it was agreed to proceed and to consider the application. Councillor Monger asked for his objection to this to be minuted.


The Planning Officer then presented the Committee report, after which the Committee heard from the following speakers.



Parish Council: Councillor Keith Higgins (Chairman, Stewkley Parish Council)

Objector: Mrs Diana Fawcett

Applicant: Mr Chris Higgins


The Legal Officer present at the meeting then informed the Committee that, upon further consideration, it was recommended to defer the application back to Officers to update and bring back to the Committee at a subsequent meeting. The Chairman agreed that it would be helpful first for Members to be allowed to ask technical questions of Officers to inform the work in updating the application. Members of the Committee then asked technical questions of the Officers and were informed that:


1.    Officers would consider the viability of a proposed additional condition to conduct a building survey of adjoining buildings to the proposed development boundary.


2.    Member’s concerns regarding the tree that was off site within the neighbouring property at 15 Orkney Close could be addressed through details yet to be submitted with condition 4 of the outline permission. The details submitted to Officers concerning the mitigation of risk to the tree were not satisfactory and additional information had been requested from the developers.


3.    Officers would consider the concerns raised by Members regarding the proximity of plot 17 in relation to no. 15 Orkney Close along the western boundary of the site. This included suggestions to move properties along the northern boundary of the site eastwards towards the access point to allow a greater distance between the western boundary and increase the gap between no. 15 Orkney Close and plot 17, or moving the properties along the western boundary down to better accommodate properties 16 and 17 at the top of that row.


4.    The density of properties within the site was 18 dwellings per hectare as detailed in paragraph 11.22 of the Case Officer’s report. It was considered to be in keeping with the density of the existing properties around the proposed development site.


5.    The twenty-five visitor car parking bays had been requested by the applicant and exceeded the required number of spaces for the development. It was the opinion of the Officers that the layout of the visitor parking was not an unusual arrangement in development.  However,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.