Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G Cosnahan and S Mukherjee.

(i)    To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary and other interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.

(ii)   In accordance with the Officer Procedure Rules, any Officer who is a Council- appointed Director of a Thameswey Group company will declare an interest in any item involving that Thameswey Group company. The interest will not prevent the Officer from advising the Committee on that item.

No declarations of interest were received.

To consider any business that the Chairman rules may be dealt with under Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of Urgent Business.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on XXX as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25 July 2023 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

The Committee received a report on the planning appeals lodged and the appeal decisions.

Resolved

That the report be noted.

The Committee determined the following applications subject to the conditions, informatives, reasons for refusal or authorisation of enforcement action which appear in the published report to the Committee or as detailed in these minutes.

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that two further letters of objection had been received. One mainly reiterated the comments already summarised within the representations section of the report and the second was regarding the removal of class B2 from the site.]

[NOTE 2: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mrs Karen Cronan attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application. The applicant chose not to speak in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of all existing buildings and structures and construction of a new commercial/industrial estate of 12 units together with parking, hard and soft landscaping and associated ancillary works. Units 1, 4 and 5 within Use Class E(g) (Commercial, Business and Service) only, Units 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 within Use Class E(g) (Commercial, Business and Service) or Use Class B8 (Storage or distribution) (description amended 18.07.2023 to remove Use Class B2 from Units 11 and 12 and amended plans and 17.08.2023).

Councillor R Leach, Ward Councillor, commented that the residents were happy with the principal of the industrial site being developed, but had raised objections regarding the increased traffic on Mabel Street and he thought these objections were justified. There was a school at the opposite end of Mabel Street which already caused severe congestion in the road, and the addition of the new developed units gaining access from Mabel Street, would exacerbate issues. Councillor R Leach suggested that if an entrance was located on Mabel Street the times of access should be restricted, he also suggested that consideration be given to lowering the height of the units near to residential homes. Councillor R Leach queried whether units 11 and 12 could be reorientated so that their access was from Goldsworth Road; if this was not possible then the maximum acoustic protection be added, along with restrictions on access to the site.

Following a question from the Committee, the Planning Officer confirmed that there was already access from Mabel Street to the units, however the units were currently vacant. If leased in the current condition, this access from Mabel Street could recommence at any time and therefore the Planning Officers’ view was that continued use of this access was acceptable in the application.

Some members of the Committee did not understand why the applicant had kept the Mabel Street entrance as part of the plans when there was a very good access from Goldsworth Road. The Planning Officer commented that the entrance had been previously used and its use could recommence at any time , and that slide 38 showed the swept path analysis of the average delivery vehicle using this entrance. This was considered acceptable in Planning terms and the Highway Authority had raised no objection.

Some Members raised concern that the class B2 use had been removed from the site, which would effectively put a local company out of business if the application was approved. It was thought  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

The Committee considered an application for proposed three storey extension with accommodation in the roof served by dormers and rooflights to create 7no self-contained flats with associated landscaping works, refuse and parking.

Some concerns regarding parking were raised, however the Planning Officer advised that these concerns had been addressed in the report and that there was capacity on site. The parking provision in the application met the Parking Standards SPD.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions and S106 Legal Agreement.

The Committee considered enforcement action for the unauthorised construction of an aviary/enclosure in the rear garden.

Councillor S Hussain, Ward Councillor, commented that it was not possible to see the structure from the street and that he did not support the enforcement action. One of the previous reasons for refusal of this application had been based on the loss of amenity space. Councillor Hussain stated that it was clear from the photos provided that the resident did still use the area as an amenity space, as chairs and a lawn etc were present. There was only one representation ever made regarding this structure. This property belonged to the Housing Association, who had come back with no objections regarding this structure.

Councillor S Greentree, Ward Councillor, agreed with the points raised by Councillor Hussain and commented it was clear the space was still being used as an amenity.

Some members of the Committee thought that enforcement action was disproportionate as the structure was not permanent and the space beneath was still being used as an amenity to those residents at the property.

Councillor S Greentree proposed, and it was duly seconded by Councillor T Spenser, that no enforcement action be taken.

In accordance with Standing Orders, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above.  The votes for and against approval of enforcement action were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs S Dorsett, S Greentree, D Jordan, C Martin, S Oades and T Spenser.

                                 TOTAL:  6

Against:                              None.

                                 TOTAL:  0

Present but not voting:      Cllrs T Aziz and L Morales (Chairman).

                                 TOTAL:  2

Enforcement action was therefore not approved.

RESOLVED

            That no enforcement action be taken.