To consider report of the Deputy Chief Executive
Construction of 10 dwellings with associated retaining walls, parking, access and new footpath.
The Chair advised that the Deputy Chair was not in attendance and a vote was taken to appoint a Chair to take Item 5 – P/18/0330. Councillor C Jones was voted Chair to take this item as Councillor H Barrett declared a personal and prejudicial interest and left the Council Chamber.
Councillor M Colbran requested the item be deferred on behalf of Councillor J Amos.
The Legal Officer addressed the committee and explained that there was no valid reason for the deferment.
The committee referred to Councillor J Amos email in relation to the possible deferment which was read to the committee and addressed the letter that was sent to residents in relation to the modification to the width of the footpath from 2m to 1.5m.
Councillor G Lewis questioned whether enough time had been given for residents to respond to the proposed changes to the width of the footpath
The Planning Officer responded to the question in detail.
The Planning Officer led the committee through the application and highlighted the changes in relation to the width of the footpath.
The following questions were raised by the committee and were responded to in detail by the planning officers.
· If it was deemed to be a loss of amenity to the Cancer Aid Site, would it be a consideration under planning law
· Ground Conditions – The report recommends an intrusive site investigation be carried out to confirm the ground conditions and inform the appropriate foundation design. Can you explain an intrusive site investigation.
· The report states ‘to minimise any issue concerning pollution and fumes (i.e. dust), which may impact on the amenities of the surrounding properties during construction, a condition can be imposed to ensure a construction management plan is agreed’. Can you please explain what a construction management plan entails
After comments and further consideration by the committee the Planning Officer offered to write to the applicants to highlight the committees concerns if the application be approved.
The recommendation of the Head of Town Planning and Countryside for the application to be approved was not accepted.
The Legal representative addressed the committee and requested the detailed reasons for the refusal and the names of the committee members who will be called to make representations if any appeal is lodged.
After a brief adjournment the committee provided the following reasons for the refusal
· Substantial loss of a voluntary organisation that provides palliative care
· Width of the highway even with the proposed widening, committee does not deem wide enough
· Due to the excavation of the site the water run off that could lead to stability concerns of the voluntary organisation and residential homes
The Legal Officer addressed the committee confirming the reasons for refusal and explained that the item will need to be brought back to the next committee for approval.
The Committee confirmed that the following members will represent to Council at any public Enquiry or written representations
· Councillor K Gibbs
· Councillor G Lewis
· Councillor D Chaplin
It was resolved that:
The item be brought back to the next Planning Committee to confirm the reasons for refusal.