Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors’ Maxfield and Spence.

Councillor Reddish stated that she had a ‘perceived predetermination’ in application 18/00482/REM which she did not agree with but would leave the room during its consideration.

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting(s).

Resolved:                 That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 July, 2018 be agreed as a correct record.

Councillors’ Gary and Simon White spoke on this application.

Revised recommendation proposed by Councillor Proctor and seconded by Councillor Holland. 

Resolved:     That the application be refused on the grounds that the layout in

the northern corner of the development, and in particular the inclusion of the house on plot 22, by reason of its size, massing and limited space around it constitutes inappropriate overdevelopment which would not be in keeping with, and be detrimental to, the character and appearance of the area and accordingly contrary to policies in the development plan and the Supplementary Planning Document on Urban Design and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor Gary White spoke on this application.

Revised recommendation proposed by Councillor Proctor and seconded by Councillor Reddish.

Resolved:     That the application be refused on the grounds that the scale,

size and massing of the plots 7-12 (the flatted development)  constitutes inappropriate overdevelopment which would not be in keeping with, and  be detrimental to, the character and appearance of the area and quality of the landscape by virtue of its edge of village location and accordingly contrary to policies in the development plan and the Supplementary Planning Document on Urban Design  and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Resolved:     That a decision on the application  be deferred to enable  

officers to obtain and consider a final report from the District Valuer on the financial ability or otherwise of the scheme to make policy compliant contributions, and to then advise the committee of the position in the light of such a report.

Revised recommendation proposed by Councillor Tagg and seconded by Councillor Northcott.

Resolved:     That a decision on the application be deferred to enable officers to obtain and consider a final report from the District Valuer on the financial ability or otherwise of the scheme to make policy compliant contributions, and to then advise the committee of the position in the light of such a report

Resolved:     That the application be refused for the following reasons:

(i)            The proposed development would, by virtue of the scale and design of the bund and acoustic fence and the inward-facing dwellings fronting Watermills Road, have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.

(ii)          The footpath proposed through the site, by virtue of it being enclosed and not overlooked, would be unsafe and unattractive to users being likely to be prone to anti-social behaviour.

Councillor Kearon spoke on this application.

Resolved:      That the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned conditions:

(i)            Approved plans/documents

(ii)           Prior to commencement of the construction of the

dwellings details of the house types and location of the affordable housing units at the level stipulated within the relevant S106 Agreement shall be agreed by the Local Planning Authority (LPA).

(iii)         Prior to commencement of the construction of the

dwellings details submission and approval of all external facing materials and hard surfacing materials.

(iv)         Prior to commencement of the construction of the

dwellings full details of the pedestrian/cycle links from the development onto Hollywood Lane shall be agreed by the LPA and implemented prior to occupation of any of the dwellings.

(v)           Prior to commencement of construction of the dwellings

on plots 1-3 and 93-97 and the access to those plots, details of the depth of dig above the tunnel, foundation works and excavation /earthworks

(vi)         Approval of tree protection plans (including of hedgerows)

(vii)        Approval of a schedule of works to retained trees

(viii)       Prior approval of further landscaping details (planting

numbers, density and sizes), including replacement woodland planting to supplement the approved Strategic Landscape Masterplan.

(ix)         No levels alterations within RPAs of retained trees unless

prior written consent obtained

(x)           Approval of an Arboricultural Method Statement for all

works within RPAs of retained trees

(xi)         Approval of proposals for boundary treatment

(xii)        Prior approval of revised internal access road details

providing 6m internal access road junction radii.

(xiii)       Prior approval of surfacing materials and surface water

drainage of private, parking and turning areas.

(xiv)       Provision of visibility splays.

(xv)        Private drive to have a minimum length of 6m.

(xvi)       Retention of roadside hedgerow along Pepper Street

except where removal is required to provide the access.

(xvii)     Tree Protection Plans (to include hedgerows)

(xviii)    Approval of a Schedule of works to retained trees.

(xix)       Full Landscaping proposals including replacement

woodland planting (positioned on the burning tip area)

(xx)        No levels alterations within RPAs of retained trees

(xxi)       Approval of an Arboricutural Method Statement to all

works within RPAs of retained trees.

(xxii)     Approval of proposals for boundary treatment

(xxiii)    Prior approval of the full and precise details of the LEAP

including the type of equipment to be installed, its location, surfacing and means of protection/separation from the road and the pond.

Resolved:     That the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned

conditions:

(i)            Link to outline planning permission and conditions

(ii)           Approved plans

(iii)         Provision of internal roads, parking and turning areas in

accordance with the approved plans

(iv)         Completion of vehicular and pedestrian access point onto

Mucklestone Road and the footpaths along the development frontage

(v)           Materials (facing, roofing and surfacing)

(vi)         Landscaping and tree protection conditions

(vii)        Approval of Elevations of substation

Resolved:     (a)       That, subject to the applicant entering into a planning obligation and/or  any required Deed of Variation of the original Section 106 agreement, by 14^th September 2018 that preserves the Council’s position in respect of obligations secured prior to the grant of permission 15/00202/OUT unless the Head of Planning in consultation with its Solicitor is satisfied that the matter can be dealt with via another mechanism such as a condition, the  application be permitted subject to the undermentioned conditions:

(i)         Time limit

(ii)        Approved plans

(iii)       Materials

(iv)       Landscaping scheme for public open space

(v)        Revised access details

(vi)       Provision of private drive, parking and turning areas

(vii)      Surfacing materials for private driveway, parking and

turning areas

(viii)     Off-site highway works

(ix)       Vehicular access to remain ungated

(x)        Construction Method Statement

(xi)       Noise levels

(xii)      Construction hours

(xiii)     Report of unexpected contamination

(xiv)     Importation of soil/material

(b)       Failing the securing  by the date referred to in the above

resolution (A) of the above mechanism, that the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to either refuse the planning application on the grounds that in the absence of a secured mechanism the development would fail to secure the provision of adequately maintained public open space, appropriate provision for required education facilities and measures to ensure that the development achieves sustainable transport  outcomes;  or, if he considers it appropriate, to extend the period of time within which such obligations can be secured.

Councillor Reddish left the room during consideration of this item.

Resolved:     That the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned

conditions:

(i)            Standard Time Limit

(ii)           Approved Plans

(iii)         Acoustic fence to be erected in accordance with the

approved details prior to occupation of any of the dwellings

(iv)         Retain garages for vehicles only

(v)           Parking and Turning Areas on site prior to occupation

(vi)         Prior approval of Construction Method Statement

(vii)        Provision of a surface water drainage interceptor to rear

of highway

(viii)       Gates 5m back into site

(ix)         Prior approval and implementation of Tree Protection

proposals

(x)           Prior approval and implementation of an Arboricultural

Method Statement

(xi)         Prior approval and implementation of a schedule of works

to retained trees

(xii)        Prior approval and implementation of full Landscaping

proposals

Plan to follow.

Revised recommendation proposed by Councillor Fear and seconded by Councillor Tagg.

Resolved:     That the application be deferred to allow for further information

                        to be provided to substantiate the claim that the site is

previously developed land.

Resolved:     That the appeal decision be noted.

Resolved:                 (i)         That the report be noted.

                                    (iii)       That the Head of Planning continue to report, on a

quarterly basis, on the exercise of his authority to extend the period of time for applicants to enter into Section 106 obligations

Resolved:     (i)         That the report be noted

(ii)          That internal management procedures within the Service including the  assessment of case officers’ recommendations by more senior officers continue to be applied;

(iii)         That, as previously resolved, Members of the Committee, and their substitutes, draw to Case Officers’ attention any concerns that they have with an application, coming to the Committee for determination, as soon as possible having received notice of the application in the weekly list, so that potential solutions to the concerns are sought with the applicant in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework;

(iv)         That, as previously resolved, full advantage be taken of the use of conditions in planning permissions to make developments acceptable;

(v)          That, as previously resolved, Members of the Committee, and their substitutes, who are disposed to move refusal of a proposal contrary to recommendation be urged to contact the Head of Planning  no less than 24 hours before the Committee, with details of the reasons they are minded to give for such a refusal;

(vi)         That, as previously resolved, when a proposal to refuse to grant planning permission is made at the Committee contrary to the officer’s recommendation, advice be sought as to the most appropriate way to meet the requirement upon the LPA to work in a proactive and positive manner with applicants;

(vii)        That, as previously resolved, the mover and seconder of a resolution of refusal contrary to officer recommendation be identified by the Chair and recorded in the Minutes and in the event of an appeal being lodged there be an expectation that those members will make themselves available as witnesses on behalf of the Council in the appeal proceedings should either the Head of Planning  or the Councils’  solicitor or their representatives deem that appropriate; and

(viii)      That a proactive approach be taken by officers to appeal handling with early holding of case conferences where appropriate, the strength of the case being continually reassessed in the light of any new evidence received.

There was no Urgent Business.