Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 21 July and 4 August 2011 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the meetings held on 21 July and 4 August 2011 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Members were advised that the above two applications had been withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.

The report before members detailed an application for permission for the part change of use of the site in order to reinstate vehicle servicing. The site was currently in operation as an MOT testing station which would remain.

It was noted that three letters of representation had been received.

It was noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Frederick Thompson on the grounds that the development was unsuitable within a residential area.

With its agreement, Councillor Thompson addressed the Committee.

Councillor Thompson remarked that the proposal, if approved, would lead to an intensification of usage of the area and would create a noise nuisance for local residents. Councillor Thompson urged the Committee to refuse the application.

During the debate, members discussed whether servicing works would take place inside or outside of the site’s buildings. Officers confirmed that there was a condition in place ensuring that vehicle servicing and MOT works would only take place within identified buildings.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The report before members detailed an application for an infill extension of the existing patients entrance, the relocation of the patients entrance with a front canopy and a single storey rear extension with external alterations.

Members noted that consideration of the application had been deferred at a previous meeting of the committee on 30 June so that staff could  provide further information on various issues which were addressed in the report before members.

It was also noted that one letter of representation had been received.

It was noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Steven Kelly on the grounds that No. 39 Wood Lane was a medical centre, which needed to be developed and expanded. The single storey rear extension would not be intrusive on neighbouring properties. The Medical Centre had short opening hours, as it was closed from 7pm until 9am.

With its agreement, Councillor Kelly addressed the Committee.

Councillor Kelly advised that the medical centre would provide increased patient consultations, services offered to patients and ensured that centre’s continued compliance with the Care Quality Commission. Councillor Kelly remarked that the new report before members was a more balanced report which lent itself towards approval. Councillor Kelly urged that the Committee approve the application.

Councillor Kelly also asked if an informative could be place within the application to remove the proposed canopy.

During the debate members discussed the possible impact of the extension on neighbouring properties and sought clarification of the type of roof that the extension would have.

A motion was proposed by Councillor Ower and seconded by Councillor Brace that planning permission should be granted on the basis that the proposal as submitted in particular the single storey rear extension element, by reason of its excessive depth, would have a harmful effect on the rear garden setting of the attached neighbouring property creating a relationship contrary to supplementary planning guidance. However the flat roofed extension was of modest height such that the harm was limited in degree. However in these exceptional circumstances that harm was outweighed by the proposal’s benefits in meeting the local community’s medical needs by providing improved GP premises for existing and future populations of the area, consistent with the objectives of policy CP8 of the LDF.

Approval was subject to the 6 planning conditions listed within the body of the report and the replacement of drawing number 11.0026 PL01 Revision A with 11.0026 PL10 Revision  D

The vote for the motion to grant planning permission was carried by 8 votes to 2. Councillors Oddy and Tebbutt voted against the motion to approve planning permission

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be agreed contrary to officer recommendation. The vote for the resolution to grant planning permission was carried by 8 votes to 2. Councillors Oddy and Tebbutt voted against the motion to approve planning permission.

The report before members detailed an application for the restoration the existing premises on site, creating a dentist surgery at ground floor and retaining the three flats at first floor level. In addition to the restoration of the existing building, a detached block is proposed to the rear of the dwelling comprising of five 2 bedroom self contained flats.

Members noted that the proposed development allowed for seven parking spaces as opposed to nine which was stated in the report.

It was also noted that there had been four letters of representation including one from the Church situated adjacent to the site.

It was noted that the application had been called in by Councillor John Mylod as he considered there was an urgent need for the site to be redeveloped to improve the appearance of the area and prevent antisocial activities. Councillor Mylod was also concerned about losing the opportunity to achieve redevelopment of the site.

With its agreement, Councillor Mylod addressed the Committee.

Councillor Mylod advised that the properties had been empty for almost ten years and had attracted instances of anti social behaviour. Councillor Mylod also advised that ownership of the properties had been difficult to determine due to length of time the properties had been empty.

During the debate members questioned the issue of bulk and mass of the development which appeared negligible in view of the Mecca bingo hall situated adjacent to the site. Members also questioned the amount of parking spaces that were afforded to the development. Officers advised that the parking provision was low but considered acceptable for a town centre location.

Discussions also focused on the access/egress arrangements for the site and the provision of amenity space for residents.

A motion was proposed by Councillor Hawthorn and seconded by Councillor Ower that consideration of the planning application should be deferred to allow officers to provide further information regarding the provision of amenity space for residents.

The vote for the motion to defer was lost by 3 votes to 7. Councillors Hawthorn, Ower and Pain voted for the motion to defer planning permission.

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused as per officer recommendation. The vote for the resolution to refuse planning permission was carried by 7 votes to 2 with 1 abstention. Councillor Pain voted against the motion to refuse planning permission. Councillors Hawthorn and Ower abstained from voting.

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 vote for the resolution was 9 votes to 1. Councillor Tebbutt  voted against the proposal.

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 to delegate to the Head of Development and Building Control authority to grant Conservation Area Consent subject to referral of the application to the Secretary of State under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 and no contrary determination by the Secretary of State being received, subject to the conditions contained in the report.

The Committee considered the report and RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

To consider any other item in respect of which the Chairman is of the opinion, by reason of special circumstances which shall be specified in the minutes, that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

The Committee considered the report and RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

One late letter was reported to committee which objected to the proposal for reasons already summarised in the report.

The Committee considered the report and RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the report and RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.