Agenda and minutes

Councillor Khan welcomed everyone to the meeting. Members of the Committee and officers introduced themselves and the Chair outlined the procedures for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Convery.

None.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a)     Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

None.

The order of business would be as per the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2016 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them subject to Councillor Alice Donovan being marked as present.

Members noted the tabled paper proposing the memberships of the Planning Sub-Committees.

RESOLVED

a)         That the Sub-Committees be confirmed as five member Sub-Committees and the Terms of Reference be noted.

b)         That it be noted that the allocation of seats was determined in accordance with the advice in the report.

c)         That Councillors Klute, Convery, Nicholls, O’Halloran and Poyser be appointed as members of Planning Sub-Committee A for the current municipal year or until their successors are appointed.

d)         That Councillors Donovan, Khan, Nick Ward, Chowdhury and Picknell be appointed as members of Planning Sub-Committee B for the current municipal year or until their successors are appointed.

e)         That it be noted that Councillor Klute had been appointed Chair of Planning Sub-Committee A and Councillor Donovan had been appointed Chair of Planning Sub-Committee B for the municipal year or until their successors are appointed.

f)          That it be noted that any member who was a member or substitute member of the Planning Committee could substitute at any meetings of either Sub-Committee if they had not been appointed as a member of the Sub-Committee.

g)         That Councillor Nicholls be appointed as Vice-Chair of Planning Sub-Committee A and Councillor Picknell be appointed as Vice-Chair of Planning Sub-Committee B for the current municipal year or until successors are appointed.

Demolition of existing building and erection of a 6 storey building to provide 21 residential units (8 x1 bed, 12 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bedroom flats) with associated landscaping and amenity space.

(Planning application number: P2015/5306/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer advised that there should be an additional condition requiring the submission of a bat survey.

·         The application had not been to the Design Review Panel.

·         In response to a member’s query about whether the existing building was built in commemoration of those who died in the war, the planning officer advised that the existing building was built on a bomb site but she understood it was not a memorial. Members could, if they chose, add a condition to require a plaque in the proposed development to commemorate those who died in the war.

·         Concern was raised at the suggestion that adding more affordable housing units would require a separate servicing core which would result in a reduction in affordability. 

·         Concern was raised that the applicant had not yet signed the statutory declaration to verify the deliverability of the project. The applicant stated this was due to legal advice being sought.

·         The proposed development was not considered to have a detrimental impact on the nearby Hillmarton Conservation Area.

·         The planning officer advised that the existing building had a lawful development certificate in July 2013 to turn it from a public house into a shop. Therefore policies to protect public houses were not relevant. Planning permission would be required to turn the building back to a public house.

·         In response to a member’s question about the potential loss of the community use of the building, the planning officer advised that the lawful use of the building was as a retail unit. There was no planning permission for community use space. In relation to the benefit to the community of having the shop, there were other shops nearby.

·         If the building had been designated as an asset of community value, this would give it more protection but it had not been.

·         The committee were in agreement that as the council had not objected to the demolition of the existing building to the inspector, it still did not object.

·         The proposed development was not policy compliant.

Councillor Khan proposed a motion to defer the consideration of the application to enable the applicant to sign a statutory declaration and to investigate the possibility of an increased number of social rented units in the scheme. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the planning application be deferred for the reason outlined above.

Redevelopment of the site to provide for a mixed use development comprising 2,601sqm (GEA) of Use Class B1 office floorspace (representing an uplift of 996 sqm on existing 1,605sqm office floorspace) and 1,208 sqm (GEA) of Use Class D1 education floorspace, including the erection of a part 5/part 6-storey building fronting Rodney Street with associated outdoor learning terrace at 6-storey level, along with partial demolition of the building to the rear and ground floor extensions covering the plot of the site, part 2/part 3-storey extensions adjoining the retained building to the rear of the site with external terrace areas at 2^nd storey, 3^rd storey and roof level, along with associated access and servicing/parking arrangements along Rodney Street.

(Planning application number: P2016/0199/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer reported that Paragraph 10.43 Bullet Point 3 should state 3 out of 36 windows and not 5 as currently stated. Paragraph 10.43 Bullet Point 4 should state 2 windows would have losses between 22 and 53% of its former value.

·         The proposed building was for D1 use. The prospective occupier would use it as a special needs school.

·         The only outside space was on the roof. However there was a park next door.

·         The planning officer confirmed the design officer’s comments had been balanced against the requirement by the school for a certain amount of floorspace to gain funding and the relationship of the building with the building next door.

·         Condition 7 required full details of the design and treatment of the entire north elevation to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

·         The planning application was largely generally policy compliant.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.

Demolition of existing National Grid building and replacement with a 4 and 5 storey building to create circa 4,240sqm (gross) B1 office floorspace including 600sqm National Grid office accommodation at part first and second floors and parking at ground floor both associated with depot use.

(Planning application number: P2015/4725/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         A mirror image test had been carried out using the windows of the building next door to measure the daylight and sunlight.

·         The application fitted the site allocations policy and provided the optimum use for the site.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the case officer’s report.

Use of existing building for Class C1 (hotel) and Class A3 (restaurant) purposes, and associated extensions and external alterations.

(Planning application number: P2015/4722/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer reported that Paragraph 6.6 of the officer report should refer to 27 wheelchair accessible units and not 26 as currently stated.

·         The level of training offer remained the same as in the previous scheme granted permission at appeal. The previous scheme had been implemented and the Section 106 money had already been paid and implemented.

·         The application was consistent with policy.

·         The addition of a restaurant created more jobs and meant more local residents could be employed.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.