Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber - Town Hall
Contact: Philippa Turvey; Senior Governance Officer
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cereste, Seaton and Thacker. Councillor Elsey was in attendance as substitute.
Declarations of Interest
At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification” that has been disclosed to the Solicitor of the Council. Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.
Councillor Lane declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 3, as he knew one of the objectors, Angus McDonald, from his work with the Parish Council. He stated that it would not affect his judgement.
In relation to agenda item 3 Councillor Martin declared that although he was part of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee whose decision was called in, he was not predetermined and had an open mind.
A planning application was presented for a new shop unit with two flats above at 70-80 Storrington Way, Werrington. The application outlined in the report was a resubmission, following refusal of a previous scheme in 2013.
The application was considered by the Planning Environmental Protection Committee on 7 October 2014 and planning permission was granted. This decision had been called-in under Part 3, Delegations Section 2 – Regulatory Committee Functions – Paragraph 2.6.2 of the constitution for the Planning Review Committee to consider.
The main considerations were:
· The Principle of Development
· Design and Visual Amenity
· Residential Amenity
· Neighbourhood Amenity
· Section 106
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the signing of a legal agreement.
The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:
· The Planning and Environmental Protection Committee had previously refused planning permission for an earlier version of this application, against officer recommendation.
· The past refusal had been on the grounds of highways. The footprint of the then proposed development would extend into the visibility slope of the roads.
· The decision was upheld at appeal, however the Planning Inspector was critical of the lack of detail presented to the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee and costs were awarded.
· The proposal now before Committee had been altered to eliminate the development’s impact on the forward visibility splay. As such, a corner of the development was now further set back from the road.
· The area required for forward visibility was calculated using the results of recent a speed survey. The distance required for forward visibility was established as 28 metres.
· Additional photos were displayed, which had been received from residents, highlighting the fly-tipping problems and internal conditions of the current flats.
· The trees on site were not considered worthy of Tree Preservation Orders, however a condition had been included in the proposal for replacement planting.
· The Committee were advised that the issues for consideration were the redesigned area of the development and the highways issues. All other matters had been previously tested by the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee and the Planning Inspector.
Councillor Thacker, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· Numerous complaints had been received from residents regarding anti-social behaviour, drugs, fires and fly-tipping. This usually results in a call to the Neighbourhood team.
· The state of the existing flats were disgraceful and the application would, if approved, add to this.
· The current properties were vacant, no more were required.
· The parking on the site was insufficient for the current residents. Adding further development would increase this problem. The site was adjacent to a main bus route and a school route, which resulted in traffic issues.
· The proposals were contrary to many Council policies, including those relating to adding quality, positive contributions, open space, overbearing impact, shop frontages, parking and trees.
· There was no further ... view the full minutes text for item 3.