Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ken Ellcome and Scott Harris. Standing deputies, Councillors Gemma New and Stephen Hastings were in attendance.

There were no declarations.

RECOMMENDED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 14 September 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chair.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2016 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Planning applications

The Assistant Director of Culture and City Development reported that at the request of members she had met with the Cabinet member for Planning Regeneration and Economic Development and the chair of the Planning Committee to discuss reviewing the HMO SPD. The review will now progress and as part of that process, an informal meeting was held last week with members to discuss the SPD. A report will be considered at a future PRED meeting.

Construction of two storey dwelling house adjoining existing property.

This application was being considered by the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Sanders.

The planning officer introduced the report and reported in the supplementary matters list that additional planning conditions are requested to be imposed in relation to the submission of details for approval before development commences for all external materials, for site contamination (including its verification) and implementation of flood mitigation measures identified in the flood risk assessment.

Deputations were heard from Mr Martin Critchley (Agent) and Councillor Sanders. Mr Critchley included the following points in his representation:

·         Application is entirely consistent with your established policies.

·         Garden is relatively small but there is plenty of open public amenity space nearby.

·         Terrace of properties is nicely kept and all are well presented.

·         This application will increase the housing stock.

·         This house is no more at risk of flooding than the rest of the terrace.

·         There is no on-site parking provided but there is on-street parking opposite.

Councillor Sanders included the following points in his representation:

·         Speaking on behalf of the neighbouring occupier of the top floor flat.

·         The neighbour is not objecting to the principal of housing but there are amenity issues which are of concern.

·         Access is required to the rear garden to access her flat.

·         The boiler flue and sky dish are located on the eastern side of the property.

·         The roof of 263 cannot be altered.

·         Suggest deferral to enable a meeting with the objector, developer and planning to take place.

Members' questions

Members sought clarification on the access arrangements for No. 263, the garden size and access, and boundary wall of the property.

Members' comments

Members were supportive of a deferral to enable a resolution to be reached with regards to the side and rear access for the neighbour.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred to enable further negotiations to take place.

Change of use from dwelling house (Class C3) to purposes falling within Class C4 (house in multiple occupation) or Class C3 (dwelling house).

This application had been referred to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor Robert New.

The planning officer introduced the report and reported in the supplementary matters list that at the time of completing the report the assessment indicated that there was one lawful HMO in use. However, since publishing the committee report closer examination of the Council's records indicate that none of the 39 properties are in use as an HMO and therefore this application would increase the proportion to 2.56% in the local area.

Members' questions

Members sought clarification on the notification and advertising process, parking and the works currently taking place.

Members' comments

Members recognised the number of objections from local residents but felt that most of the concerns raised were fears and that there were no planning reasons not to support the application.

RESOLVED that conditional permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined within the report.