Agenda and minutes

Any information received after the agenda has been published, relevant to the Applications on the agenda to be considered by the Committee, will be published here.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hiller and Sylvester.

         There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of intention from any Member of the Committee to make representation as Ward Councillor on any item within the agenda.

         The minutes of the meeting held on 4 September 2012 were approved as a true and accurate record.

The site was one of six small industrial units located within Milnyard Square, a small industrial estate within the Orton Southgate General Employment Area. The site was attached to unit No. 5 and had areas of open space to the side and rear of the unit.

Permission was sought for a change of use from light industrial/offices to a day care unit for dogs and dog training. Permission was also sought for solid external fencing to create an external area for the dogs. The applicant had given a figure of approximately 30 dogs as a maximum number of dogs to be located on the premises at any one time.

The application was a resubmission of application number 12/00708/FUL.

The Area Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. It was advised that the Applicant had submitted a mitigation strategy in order to address issues in relation to dog barking and car parking. This included staggering the arrival times of dog owners, offering a dog collection service, introducing a rigorous assessment process in order to identify a dog’s suitability and proposals for a heavy duty hardwood perimeter fence. Officers considered that, notwithstanding the mitigation proposals, development would still result in unacceptable noise disturbance from barking to the detriment of the amenity of adjacent sites, in particular the attached unit. Officers also considered that ten parking spaces were insufficient and this would have an adverse impact on the safety and freeflow of traffic along the adjoining public highway. It was further advised that the proposal to stagger drop off times could not be conditioned, as it would be impossible to enforce. The recommendation was therefore one of refusal.

Councillor Sue Allen, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant. In summary the issues highlighted to the Committee included:

·         The business would employ three to four members of staff;

·         There had been no objections raised from any of the three Ward Councillors;

·         The site was ideal for the proposed use;

·         Councillor Allen had visited a number of the surrounding units and talked to a number of employees. No one had raised any issues with the proposal;

·         There were a number of empty units in the area;

·         The dogs would be entertained and would therefore not bark;

·         You would not be able to hear dog barking over the traffic travelling around the A605 roundabout;

·         There was sufficient car parking on the site;

·         The Council strived to bring new businesses into the City, why was this application therefore not being supported?

Mrs Presland, the Applicant, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the issues highlighted to the Committee included:

·           Dogs that were entertained and supervised by experienced dog handlers did not bark excessively;

·           Mrs Presland had full support from Mr Mizen, a local veterinarian, Mr Stewart Jackson had also written a letter of support and the Parish Council and Ward Councillors were also in full support;

·           There were no other facilities of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

An application had been received to carry out works to a willow tree protected by Tree Preservation Order 7 of 1995. These works were to prevent crown failure and to provide clearances over the street light that was located next to the tree.

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the Applicant was Councillor Chris Ash and Members were advised that no objections or comments had been received.

The Group Manager Development Management addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal. The recommendation was one of approval.

Following questions to the Group Manager Development Management in relation to the last time the works had been carried out, this being 10 years; a motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously), to approve the application, as per officer recommendation.

Reasons for the decision:

It was the opinion of the Case Officer that the works were deemed appropriate for the following reasons:

-At the current time the light was partially obscured by the crown of the tree, this work was in fact an exemption under the TPO regulations;

-      The visual amenity value of the tree would be reduced in the short term, but within two growing seasons, the tree would have formed a new crown; and

-Once a tree had been pollarded, there was a need to manage it as such thereafter, if this was not done, failure could occur once the tree developed a full crown.

Members were asked to determine whether the item, which contained exempt information relating to an individual or would be likely to reveal the identify of an individual and information relating to the financial or business affairs of a particular person (including the authority holding that information), as defined by Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 12A of Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1972, should be exempt and the press and public excluded from the meeting during the item, or whether the public interest in disclosing the information outweighed the public interest in maintaining the exemption.

The Committee unanimously agreed to the exemption and the press and public were excluded from the meeting.

The Committee received a report requesting it to consider appropriate enforcement action in relation to unauthorised development.

Following debate, a motion was put forward and seconded to agree that no enforcement action be taken. The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously), to agree that no enforcement action be taken, as per officer recommendation.

Reasons for the decision:

The Committee considered that no enforcement action was required as per the reasons outlined in the exempt committee report.