Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 10 March and 31 March 2016 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meetings held on 10 March and 31 March 2016 were agreed as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

The report before Members was for the installation of a climbing play frame on the approved patio and installation of two customer order displays and associated canopies.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Frederick Thompson on the grounds that he considered the site to be unsuitable for the children's play equipment as it would be subject to much airborne pollution from vehicular traffic. The site was next to Waterloo Road which was heavily

trafficked and which frequently had extended lines of traffic with idling engines as a result of queuing traffic around the Brewery entrance. Cars picking up food from the drive through facility would add to this. There were no objections to the two information boards.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector without a response from the applicant.

The objector commented that exposure to harmful emissions would be dangerous to children using the proposed climbing play frame, the objector also commented that climbing frames were usually found in parks and not close to car parks.

With its agreement Councillor Frederick Thompson addressed the Committee.

Cllr Thompson commented that diesel engines contributed to releasing Nitrogen micro-particles that if humans were exposed to over a period of time could cause irreversible lung damage to children. Councillor Thompson also commented that children would be consuming food after playing on the climbing frame that would be exposed to the micro-particles and other airborne bacteria. Councillor Thompson concluded by asking that the Committee refuse the planning application.

During the debate Members discussed the possible pollution problems and the proposal’s proximity to the main roads surrounding the site.

Members also sought and received clarification of the robustness and height of the fencing surrounding the site.

It was RESOLVED that the granting of planning permission be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services subject to the applicants providing details of a minimum 1.5m high fencing to the curtilage of the play area. If this was not secured then the application was to come back to the Committee for determination.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that Listed Building Consent be granted subject to no contrary direction from the Secretary of State.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report with an additional condition preventing any mobile home(s) being stored or placed on the site for whatever purpose.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that the application was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

•           That the residential annexe hereby approved shall be permanently retained as an annexe to the existing dwelling at 24 Rosebank Avenue and shall not be sub-divided or sold off separately from the main dwelling.

•           The Developer/Owner pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a legal agreement, prior to completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the legal agreement was completed.

•           The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the agreement.

That the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement was carried by 10 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.

Councillor Nunn abstained from voting.

The report before Members detailed an application for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new block comprising of three retail units at the ground floor and six two bedroom flats above.

During the debate Members sought and received clarification of the parking arrangements and the access and egress arrangements for the proposed development.

Several Members raised concerns regarding the lack of parking provision that would be made available to the development both in retail and residential use.

Members also discussed the issue of resident parking permits not being issued to future occupiers of the residential units and the possibility of displaced parking taking place in the surrounding area.

The report recommended that planning permission be approved however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was carried by 9 votes to 2.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds:

·           The proposal would by reason of its overdeveloped scale of development and complete absence of on-site car parking would fail to cater for the reasonable needs of future occupiers and would materially worsen parking conditions and congestion in the locality to the detriment of amenity.  This could not be reasonably mitigated by denying parking permits as no CPZ existed.

·         The proposal by reason of cramped overdevelopment of site failed to provide amenity space reasonably meeting needs of future residents.

·         Failure to provide legal agreement to secure contribution to education.

The vote for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission was carried by 9 votes to 2.

Councillors Misir and Chapman voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.

The Committee considered the report and without debate RESOLVED that the application was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

• That the residential annexe hereby approved shall be permanently retained as an annexe to the existing dwelling at 57 Rockingham Avenue and shall not be sub-divided or sold off separately from the main dwelling.

• The Developer/Owner pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a legal agreement, prior to completion of the agreement, irrespective of whether the legal agreement was completed.

• The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the agreement.

That the Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grantplanning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement was carried by 10 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.

Councillor Nunn abstained from voting.