Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillor McHugh.

Councillor Chowdhury substituted for Councillor McHugh.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair stated that as Item B1 was deferred from the previous committee meeting, the entire item would not be reheard and only the point of deferral would be considered. Therefore only the members present at the previous meeting would take part in this item. These would be Councillors Klute, Clarke, Convery and Hamdache.

The order of business would be as per the agenda. The Chair stated that Item B5 would not be considered as it had been deferred due to a procedural issue.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2022 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Demolition of the existing buildings and structures and the construction of a new building ranging from two to six storeys (plus basement) to provide light industrial and flexible workspace (Use Class E(g)); along with external amenity spaces; associated access and service yard; plant area; car and cycle parking; refuse storage; and other associated works.

(Planning application number: P2022/1067/FUL)

Only Councillors Klute, Clarke, Convery, Hamdache and McHugh (who were present at the last meeting when this item was considered) took part in the consideration of this item.

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       A member asked if it could be secured through the Section 106 that Small Green Shoots collaborate on recruitment with the council for the work experience, internships and business incubator programmes, potentially through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with officers specifying annual targets regarding people with protected characteristics on the grounds of sex, disability, race and care-experienced young people. The planning officer stated the wording of the Section 106 would enable this.

·       A member asked if there was now a different policy objective for the application of £100,000. The planning officer advised that the Section 106 agreement enabled funding to be allocated to the council and then officers could allocate funding to where it would benefit local residents and be more effectively targeted at local initiatives. This contribution was being allocated to the Council’s inclusive entrepreneurship scheme. The officer stated that wording in the report would be updated to refer to the inclusive entrepreneurship scheme.

·       A member commented that the financial contribution appeared to only provide funding for one year. The applicant advised that the funding would be allocated to a range of training initiatives and could last longer depending on how it was allocated. Funding would continue above and beyond this contribution.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein) and the presentation to Committee, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report with the wording in the report updated to refer to the inclusive entrepreneurship scheme, 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.

Hybrid planning application for: 1. Outline application (detailed design reserved) for the demolition of the existing Block P and replacement building, new servicing core between Blocks C and D and single storey extension to the existing energy centre. 2. Full planning application for replacement single storey extension at Block E, single storey extensions to main entrance at Block N and new three storey infill extension adjacent to Block C and D to provide upgraded clinical services along with associated landscape improvements and infrastructure.

(Planning application number: P2022/2614/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       A member asked whether the use of air source heat pumps had been conditioned. The planning officer advised that there was no specific condition but they were included in the Energy Strategy.

·       The number of parking spaces included in the scheme and whether they were all necessary was discussed. The planning officer advised that discussions had taken place with the applicant and the scheme would reduce the number of spaces in place currently. Accessible spaces were required and there would be eight of these. In addition, there would be three midwife bays and two dedicated patient bays as well as an £8,000 accessible transport contribution.

·       In response to a member’s question about the provision of electric charging bays, the planning officer advised that this was a constrained site but there were already electric charging bays on the north side of the maternity ward.

·       In response to a member’s question about cycle bays, the planning officer advised that the approximate 45 existing cycle bays would be removed and re-provided and in addition there would be 10 short term cycle spaces.

·       A member raised concern that a masterplan for the whole site had not been provided and piecemeal applications were being submitted. The planning officer stated that there was a long-term plan for possible future developments to the north east of the site but this could not form part of this application. The hospital had to compete for funding so had to submit smaller schemes. Planning officers were satisfied that the applicant had provided as much detail as possible. The applicant confirmed that smaller schemes had to be submitted as and when funding was received.

·       In response to a request from a member that the installation of rain gardens be considered, the applicant stated that they would consider this as part of the landscaping being undertaken.

·       A member commented that the proposed extensions were sympathetic in design.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to amend Condition 4 to require solid bricks to be used. This was seconded by Councillor Clarke and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, and submitted representations, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report with the amendment to Condition 4 as outlined above and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Construction of a 2 to 7 storey building (above ground level) together with the change of use of the Grade II listed underground vaults within the basement to 2,539sqm (GIA) of office floorspace (Class E(g)(i)) along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements (in association with Listed Building Consent ref:P2021/3677/LBC).

(Planning application number: P2021/3656/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       The planning officer reported that a further representation had been received and members had been updated.

·       A member raised concern about potential overlooking. The planning officer advised that the angle between the rooms was oblique, and the windows were to offices rather than habitable rooms.

·       A member raised concern about planters being used for trees. The planning officer advised that with the existing basement below, trees could only be planted in planters.

·       A member asked if the northern elevation could be a green wall. The planning officer stated that the wall had to remain as a brick wall so as not to prejudice future schemes.

·       In response to a member’s question, the planning officer stated that those using the affordable workspace would have access to toilet and shower facilities and they would pay a 50% service charge rate.

·       The existing basement was discussed. The planning officer advised that some of the basement was under 1 Lambs Passage and was used for plant. A member commented that one of the reasons the previous scheme had been refused was the accommodation in the basement and the planning officer advised that the planning inspector had allowed that element of the scheme.

·       In response to a member’s question about whether the exact materials to be used were the ones outlined in the officer presentation, the planning officer stated they were and that Condition 3 secured samples of these materials being submitted.

·       A member commented that the previous scheme had been refused on daylight reasons. However, the planning inspector did not comment on this, suggesting they considered the daylight acceptable.

·       A member raised concern about the view from Shire House on to the west elevation. The applicants confirmed they would be willing to accept a condition to investigate further treatments of this wall.

·       A member requested that consideration be given to installing a blue roof. The applicants stated they would be willing to accept a condition and stated that consideration would also have to be given to weight as this could put more pressure on the listed vaults below.

·       In response to a member’s question about consultation, the applicant confirmed that an exhibition had been held, there had been a mailout to the local community and information had been put on the website. They stated that the comments received were largely positive, including from those in Shire House.

Councillor Clarke proposed a that consideration be given to the installation of a blue roof. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

Councillor Clarke proposed that further treatments to the west elevation including green treatment of the wall be investigated. This was seconded by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Listed Building Consent for Construction of a 2 to 7 storey building (above ground level) together with the change of use of the Grade II listed underground vaults within the basement to 2,539sqm (GIA) of office floorspace (Class E(g)(i)) along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements (in association with full Planning Application ref: P2021/3656/FUL).

(Planning application number: 2021/3677/LBC)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       The planning officer reported that a further representation had been received and members had been updated.

·       A member raised concern about potential overlooking. The planning officer advised that the angle between the rooms was oblique, and the windows were to offices rather than habitable rooms.

·       A member raised concern about planters being used for trees. The planning officer advised that with the existing basement below, trees could only be planted in planters.

·       A member asked if the northern elevation could be a green wall. The planning officer stated that the wall had to remain as a brick wall so as not to prejudice future schemes.

·       In response to a member’s question, the planning officer stated that those using the affordable workspace would have access to toilet and shower facilities and they would pay a 50% service charge rate.

·       The existing basement was discussed. The planning officer advised that some of the basement was under 1 Lambs Passage and was used for plant. A member commented that one of the reasons the previous scheme had been refused was the accommodation in the basement and the planning officer advised that the planning inspector had allowed that element of the scheme.

·       In response to a member’s question about whether the exact materials to be used were the ones outlined in the officer presentation, the planning officer stated they were and that Condition 3 secured samples of these materials being submitted.

·       A member commented that the previous scheme had been refused on daylight reasons. However, the planning inspector did not comment on this, suggesting they considered the daylight acceptable.

·       A member raised concern about the view from Shire House on to the west elevation. The applicants confirmed they would be willing to accept a condition to investigate further treatments of this wall.

·       A member requested that consideration be given to installing a blue roof. The applicants stated they would be willing to accept a condition and stated that consideration would also have to be given to weight as this could put more pressure on the listed vaults below.

·       In response to a member’s question about consultation, the applicant confirmed that an exhibition had been held, there had been a mailout to the local community and information had been put on the website. They stated that the comments received were largely positive, including from those in Shire House.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee and submitted representations, listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Demolition of 620.9 sqm community use part 1/part 2 storey building; the construction of 72 new dwellings with associated private amenity space for affordable and private homes, provided in three blocks of 13 storeys, 8 storeys, and 2 to 6 storeys; the provision of a Medical Centre (735 sqm) and a library (826 sqm), associated bicycle parking, mobility scooter stores, refuse stores and improvements to the public realm.

(Planning application number: P2022/1221/FUL)

RESOLVED:

That this item would not be considered at this meeting as it had been deferred due to a procedural issue.