Agenda and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest.

The following declarations of interest were made:

Application 24/00195/FUL – Elgar Park Retail Park, Blackpole Road

(Minute No. 7)

Councillor Kimberley – Was involved with door knocking prior to the May election, regarding the previous iteration of this application. Councillor Kimberley was approaching this application as new and elected to speak and vote on the item.

Application 23/01004/HP – 112 Comer Road

(Minute No. 9)

Councillor Udall – Has had correspondence with objectors but has not declared a view either way.  Councillor Udall elected to speak and vote on the item.

The following declaration of other disclosable interest was made:

Application 24/00176/HP – 61 Spetchley Road

(Minute No. 8)

Councillor Agar – Had called in the application and felt that with the proximity of the election, there was a public perception that there was a conflict of interest.  Councillor Agar elected not to speak on the item and left the room during its consideration.

Of the meeting held on 21^st March 2024 to be approved and signed.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 21st March 2024 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel for 6^th March 2024 and 8^th May 2024 be received.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel meetings held on 6^th March 2024 and 8^th May 2024 be received.

Such inspections of current application sites as may have been recommended by Officers and as may be approved by the Committee.

Members of the Committee should inform the Service Manager – Development Management of any requests for site visits by 5.00 p.m. on Monday 17^th June 2024 and reasons for the request.

Site visits will be conducted in accordance with the procedure attached which forms part of the Council’s Good Practice Protocol for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters.

The Committee visited the following site, which was the subject of an application to be determined, prior to the commencement of the meeting:

Application 24/00195/FUL – Elgar Retail Park, Blackpole Road

Up to a total of fifteen minutes can be allowed, each speaker being allocated a maximum of five minutes, for members of the public to present a petition, ask a question or comment on any matter on the Agenda or within the remit of the Committee in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 10.

None.

Members of the public will be allowed to address the Committee in respect of applications to be considered by the Committee in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 11. Members of the public will address the Committee during the Committee’s consideration of the respective item.

Those representations made are recorded at the minute to which they relate.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a drive-thru restaurant with associated car parking and landscaping at Elgar Retail Park, Blackpole Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Desayrah for the reasons as set out in paragraph 1.2 of the officer’s report.  These have been considered within the report.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late papers which related to the following:

·         Correction to condition 8;

·         Additional recommended conditions for opening hours and a 5-year Landscape Management Plan; and

·         Pictorial evidence provided by Councillor Desayrah to support her address to the Committee as local Ward Member

Officer Presentation

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

Public Representations

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

Matthew Brown – Objector (on behalf of local residents)

Katie Russell-Smith – Agent for the Applicant (Carney Sweeney)

Councillor Matthew Jenkins – County Council Divisional Ward Member for St Stephen

Councillor Jill Desayrah – local Ward Member

Key Points of Debate

·         The Objector, on behalf of local residents, highlighted the concerns of local residents for the proposal on this retail park.  Resident’s currently experienced overflowing bins, resulting in vermin and gulls, boy racers, noisy plant equipment, unsocial hours opening hours, LED lighting causing light pollution, noise disturbance from tanoy systems.  Main concerns of residents related to traffic congestion on Blackpole Road.

·         The objector responded to questions from Committee Member based on his address to Committee, related to the ANPR system and its effectiveness, gridlock of traffic and regularity, timing of deliveries and operating hours. Ease of accessibility to the site. Noise from the tanoy systems and how it impacts.

·         The agent for the applicant in addressing the Committee, confirmed that the applicants, Legal and General Assurance, manage both retail parks in this area.  She touched on key issues such as the principle of the new drive thru, highways issues, noise, general amenity, design layout and landscaping.  In policy terms the site is considered outer centre and are therefore required to undertake a sequential assessment, a number of alternative locations were considered but none were deemed preferable or suitable.  The project team have worked with the City Council officers to agree the principle of development.  She stated that all technical matters and residents’ concerns have been addressed comprehensively.

·         The agent for the applicant responded to questions from Committee Members, based on her address to Committee, relating to opening times, cycle storage and its proposed location, penalty notices and those that do not pay, marketing of the drive-thru, delivery of goods and the hours of operation.  Transport assessment and the movement of traffic, the flow of traffic within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grants planning permission subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a proposed first floor side extension and single storey rear extension at 61 Spetchley Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Agar, highlighting the issues of overdevelopment, affecting enjoyment of amenity of a neighbouring property.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

There were no late papers circulated.

Officer Presentation

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

Public Representations

The following person had registered to speak on the application:

Matthew Brown – Objector

Key Points of Debate

·         The objector in addressing the Committee outlined his concerns for the proposed development stating that this would be an overdevelopment for a plot of its size which would have an impact on the character of the area and the amenity of his property.  The west side of the property at the 1^st floor would overshadow his property.  Other concerns related to the west end roof, guttering and two downpipes which would overhang his property and concerns about a risk to trees and hedges in the vicinity.

·         The objector responded to questions from Committee Members in relation to the impact on the distance between him and the neighbouring property and the roof and guttering issues.  The Service Manager – Development Management also clarified some of the points raised.  The objector stated that if the proposal was set back a metre or so it would be more acceptable, as it stands it is right up to the boundary line. 

·         Committee Members asked if in planning terms was it permissible to build right up to a neighbouring boundary and what happens in relation to maintenance issues, the Service Manager in response stated that it was permissible in design terms and explained this.  For maintenance purposes it would be between the neighbours and not a planning matter.  The applicant would need to get permission as it is not a given right to go onto another person’s property.

·         The Chair asked about how it is built, and the prospect of scaffolding being erected on neighbouring property or is this not a planning matter.  The Service Manager stated that it was not a planning matter in terms of how it is built but if Members were concerned about access there could be an additional condition for further details on construction methods.

·         As there had been concerns raised over the proposal by the objector, which had not necessarily been appreciated by Committee Members,  a proposal was made for a deferral of the application to enable a site visit to take place to look at in more detail. This was seconded. 

·         The Chair agreed that more details could also be obtained in terms of drainage and construction/maintenance of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grants planning permission subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for extensions to an existing House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) to provide a total of 6 bedrooms at 112 Comer Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Norfolk for the reasons set out in paragraph 1.2 of the officer’s report.  These have been covered within the report.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

There were no late papers circulated.

Officer Presentation

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

The Senior Planning Officer provided Committee Members with three updates to the report, since agenda publication, which were received after the deadline for the submission of late papers.   These were as follows:

·         A change to condition 2 (approved plans condition) to change the drawing number, as it was picked up at Chair’s briefing that there was an error on the submitted plan relating to the set down of the proposed extension.  The revised plan to address this has been received.

·         It was recommended that an additional condition was added to the officer recommendation to ensure that the materials of the extension match those of the existing property unable to circulate; and

·         With regards to page 73, this was an error on the printing/ drafting where the label for the side elevation plans shown had switched around, so for the avoidance of doubt the left plan is of the proposed side elevation is on the left and the existing is on the right.

The original submitted proposal had raised concerns and revised plans had been submitted omitting the two-storey rear extension element and reducing the number of proposed bedrooms at the site to six from 8.  The HMO is currently 4 bedrooms and increase in bedrooms do not in themselves require planning permission as the HMO remains within the same use class.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.

Key Points of Debate

·         It was commented that more active sustainable travel should be encouraged and to this end Members should be able to see plans with all the details, in particular cycle racks/storage, and should not rely on conditions to ensure that this is covered.  This also applies to refuse storage.  It was asked why Members cannot have the designs beforehand with the detail rather than rely on officers.

·         In response the Service Manager – Development Management referred to the conditions and advice that that the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Guidance gives us.  If there are elements that can be conditioned, then we will do so to make an application acceptable.  In terms of this application, we are looking at an existing HMO and not a new one for which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Which in the opinion of the Chair is of sufficient urgency as to warrant consideration.

None.