Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors C Martin 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.

No declarations of interest were received.

To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 10 December 2024 as published.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 December 2024 be approved and signed as a true and correct record.

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.

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 of an error with the reference number on the block plan. This had been updated and re-published.]

[NOTE 2: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that since the report had been published an additional neighbour representation had been received. The representation had been sent to the Committee Members prior to the meeting and the Planning Officer advised it would therefore be taken as read and not verbally summarised.]

The Committee considered an application for the retention of container 6 to provide food concession, relocation of container 7 to position 7b to provide food concession, relocation of w.c. (container 5b), demolition of existing garage and provision of container in location 8b, provision of container in location 9b (w.c.), existing container 3 (food concession) to be relocated and container 1b to be stacked on container 3 with external staircase (part retrospective) (Amended description and amended plan received).

Following a request from the Committee the Planning Officer clarified the detailed times and restrictions of use, set out in condition 6.

Members of the Committee queried the definition of a permanent versus temporary structure. The Planning Officer explained that there were three main factors taken into account which were size, degree of permanence and physical attachment to the ground. If a structure was considered temporary, it would be expected that this would move around. It was noted that in the future the structures may be replaced, but as set out in the application, these were being considered as permanent structures.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions.

[NOTE 1: The Planning Officer advised the committee of an error with the application description on the block plan. This had been updated and re-published.]

[NOTE 2: The Planning Officer advised the Committee of an amendment to condition 7, where the reference to phase 1 would be deleted.]

[NOTE 3: The Planning Officer advised the Committee that an overage clause would be added to the S.106 in respect of affordable housing.]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a three-storey flat roof rear extension and rooftop extension to existing building to accommodate 10no residential units (Use Class C3) along with external alterations to existing building and cycle and vehicular parking with associated landscaping.

Following a question about the noise of the heat pump, the Planning Officer explained that condition 22 covered this and that a noise assessment would be carried out.

Some Member commented that the proposed design of the building was ugly and that it was a missed opportunity. There was also some concern that the brick colour would not complement surrounding buildings. The Planning Officer confirmed that the colour/materials of the building would need to come back to the Planning Authority to confirm as appropriate.

Although in line with parking policy, Member commented that the developer needed to be mindful of the parking proposed, as it would cause more congestion in the surrounding area. Member commented that if cycle storage was to be promoted, then more work needed to be done on local cycle routes. The Planning Officer commented that paragraph 70-73 of the report set out two parking scenarios.

The Chairman commented that CS12 dictated that 30% affordable housing should be provided for developments of this size. A viability statement had been provided, affirming this could not be provided. Members were frustrated by this, but pleased that an overage agreement had been made, which was positive.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to recommended conditions and SAMM (TBH SPA) contribution secured by S106 Legal Agreement.