The Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Everett (with Councillor V E Guglielmi substituting) and Councillor Bennison (with no substitute).

Councillor Cawthron was absent.

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on 28 March 2018.

The minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on 28 March 2018, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Personal Interest, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

Councillor White declared a Personal Interest in Planning Application 15/00578/FUL, insofar as he had relatives who owned an adjacent property to the site. Councillor White also declared that he was pre-determined and that he would vacate the Chair for this item, speak from the gallery and would not take part in the determining of this application.

Erection of 4 bungalows and 6 houses, following demolition of no.21 The Street and alterations to no.19 The Street.

It was reported that this application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Bucke, a local Ward Member.

Members recalled that this application had been included in the 31 October 2017 Planning Committee agenda, however, the item had not been discussed and instead it had been deferred in order to enable further assessment of information by Officers.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Head of Planning (CB) in respect of the application.

An update sheet was circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of errors within the committee report that required correction.

Councillor Everett, speaking in his capacity as a member of the public, spoke against the application.

John Spencer, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Hones, seconded by Councillor Fowler and RESOLVED that the Head of Planning (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the following conditions:

1.     Standard conditions for submission of reserved matters and time limit for commencement.

2.     Accordance with approved plans.

3.     Highways conditions (as recommended by the Highway Authority).

4.     Surface water drainage/foul drainage scheme.

5.     SuDS maintenance/monitoring plan.

6.     Hard and soft landscaping plan/implementation.

7.     Tree protection plan.

8.     Details of lighting, materials and refuse storage/collection points.

9.     Broadband connection.

10.  Contamination.

11.  Noise.

12.  Emission Control.

13.  Archaeology – Trial Trenching.

14.  Compliance with the Great crested nest assessment and precautionary method statement.

It was requested that any reserved matters application for this development should come back to Planning Committee for its consideration.

Submission of reserved matters pursuant to outline planning permission 13/00745/OUT with details pursuant to Conditions 1 (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale), 3 (Strategic Phasing Plan), 4 (Design Code), 5 (phasing arrangements),6 (levels), in part 7 (external materials), in part 12 (roundabout), 15 (landscaping), 18 (loading, turning and parking) and  in part Schedule 7 (details of an air quality monitoring programme) of Legal Agreement for the development of the site to provide a new industrial park for B2 and B8 uses.

It was reported that outline Planning Application 13/00745/OUT had been approved on 4 August 2014 by the Council.

Members were informed that the application before them sought the approval of reserved matters for appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, pursuant to condition 1 imposed upon the grant of outline planning consent; together with details pursuant to conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (in part), 12 (in part), 15, 18 and Schedule 7 (in part) of the Unilateral Undertaking for the development.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Team Leader (SC-E) in respect of the application.

An update sheet was circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of additional comments that had been received from the Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer.

Peter Le Grys, the agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Baker and unanimously RESOLVED that the Head of Planning (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the following condition:

1.     Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

Demolition of all existing buildings (use classes C1 Hotels, A3 Restaurants, A4 Drinking Establishments and Sui Generis Nightclub). Construction of building fronting Rosemary Road containing three A1 retail/A3 restaurant units at ground floor with 17 holiday flats above; Construction of 34 holiday flats in an up to six storey building to the rear; and construction of basement cycle and car parking access from rear service road (off Beach Road), and egress onto Rosemary Road.

Councillor White had earlier declared a Personal Interest in Planning Application 15/00578/FUL, insofar as he had relatives who owned an adjacent property to the site. Councillor White had also declared that he was pre-determined on this item. He therefore vacated the Chair and sat in the public gallery whilst the Committee considered the application and reached its decision. Councillor Heaney Chaired the Item.

Members recalled that this application had originally been considered at Planning Committee on 22 September 2015 when it had been resolved that the application be deferred in order to discuss possible amendments to overcome concerns relating to the retention of the façade of the Villas, parking and the relationship of the rear block to dwellings to the east.

Members also recalled that an amended application had returned to Planning Committee on 5 January 2016 when it had been resolved that planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation, which had included provision that the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse planning permission in the event that the legal agreement had not been completed within six months i.e. by 5 July 2016.

It was reported that the buildings had been demolished in February 2016 under a Building Notice as they had posed a serious safety risk. The site was cleared and fenced.

It was further reported that, following the Planning Committee’s resolution to approve the application, the applicant had stated that the Section 106 contributions would render the proposal financially unviable and that he had intended to submit a viability assessment to confirm this and to also amend the proposal to add five additional flats.

Members were informed that the applicant had now submitted an alternative proposal which had been subject to full re-consultation prior to returning to the Committee for its determination. Members were further informed that the applicant had confirmed that this was their final proposal and had stated that this level of development was required in order to make the proposal viable. However, no viability assessment had been provided to confirm this statement.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a split recommendation of approval and refusal.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Team Leader (AN) in respect of the application.

An update sheet was circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details of:

(1)   Errors within the committee report that required correction;

(2)   Comments received from ECC SUDs on the amended surface water drainage information;

(3)   An amendment to recommended reason for refusal No. 4;

(4)   A request from the applicant requesting that the application be deferred and details of the Officers’ response to his request; and

(5)   An email received from the applicant confirming agreement to an amended description of the proposed development.

Councillor White, speaking in his capacity as a member of the public, spoke against the application.

Royston Simons, the applicant,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.