Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Barnfather.  Councillor Smith attended as substitute.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the above meeting, having been circulated, be approved as a correct record.

The Chair declared a collective non-pecuniary interest in item 7 on the agenda on behalf of all members, as the Council owns the application site and had submitted the planning application.

Construction and operation of a hand car wash and valeting business to include construction of canopies and welfare building; new access and fencing.

Russell Coughtrey, a local resident, spoke against the application.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report.  He informed Members that further to publication of the report an additional five letters of representation had been received that expressed concern about the recommendation, but that the comments had raised no new issues to those covered within the report.

Following debate, the Committee resolved not to grant permission for the proposed development. An alternative proposal to refuse planning permission was moved and duly seconded and it was

RESOLVED:

To refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would, by reason of its form and appearance in this prominent location, have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The development would therefore be contrary to Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy 10 of the Aligned Core Strategy.

2. The proposed development would, by reason of the intensification of the use of the site, have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining residents and would therefore be contrary to Policy LPD32 – Amenity.

Single storey extension to rear elevation and change of use from C3 to sui-generis, 6 bedrooms, 7 occupants House in Multiple Occupation

A written representation from Clare Selwood, a local resident in objection to the application, was read by Alec Dubberley, Service Manager – Democratic Services.

Matthew Edwards–Silk, Director of Silk Projects (The Applicant), spoke in support of the application.

The Head of Development and Place introduced the report.  He informed Members that further to the publication of the report he had received 11 representations, however they raised no new material planning considerations to those already contained within the report.

Following debate, the Committee resolved not to grant permission for the proposed development. An alternative proposal to refuse planning permission was moved and duly seconded and it was

RESOLVED:

To Refuse the application for the following reason:

1.    The proposed development would, by reason of the intensification of the use of the site, have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining and nearby residents and the character of the area. The proposal would also result in additional demands for very limited on street car parking, to the detriment of existing residents.  The development would therefore be contrary to Policy LPD32 – Amenity

Change of use from C3 dwellinghouse to seven bedroom (Sui-generis) HMO including loft dormer extension.

Russell Whiting, a local resident, spoke against the application.

Rae Murphy, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The Head of Development and Place introduced the report.  He informed Members that 37 letters of objection were summarised in the report and that a petition, signed by 57 residents had also been received.  Further to the publication of the report, he had received eight letters of representation, however they raised no new material considerations.

Following debate, the Committee resolved not to grant permission for the proposed development. An alternative proposal to refuse planning permission was moved and duly seconded and it was

RESOLVED:

To Refuse the application for the following reason:

1. The proposed development would, by reason of the intensification of the use of the site, have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining and nearby residents and the character of the area. The proposal would also result in additional demands for very limited on street car parking, to the detriment of existing residents.  The development would therefore be contrary to Policy LPD32 – Amenity

Install 12m cabinet style galvanised column including concrete base for CCTV camera.

The Head of Development and Place introduced the report. 

RESOLVED:

To Grant Conditional Planning Permission.

Conditions

1         The development herby permitted shall commence before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

2         This permission shall be read in accordance with the application form and following list of documents and approved drawings:

Application Form, received 5th November 2020 and amended Certificates, received 13th November 2020

Site Location and Block Plan, received 18th November 2020

Drawing no. TC.10.400.01 entitled 400 Sq Cabinet Based 10 Mtr Pole, received 5th November 2020

Appendix One Image of CCTV Dome Type Camera, received 5th November 2020

Appendix Two Image of Proposed Transmitter, received 5th November 2020

Appendix Three Diagram of CCTV Column, received 5th November 2020

Drawing no. WEC-467586A1 entitled CS2000 showing Plastic Bung, received 18th November 2020

The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with these plans/details.

Reasons

1         In order to comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 2         For the avoidance of doubt

Reasons for Decision

The proposed development is consistent with Gedling Borough planning policies. The proposal represents an acceptable form of development which seeks to reduce crime, the detection of crime and the fear of crime. The proposal is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the area. The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal will not increase flood risk in the area. It is considered that the proposal is appropriate for its context and is in accordance with the NPPF (Sections 8 and 12), Policy 10 of the GBCAS (2014) and Policies LPD 3 and 32 of the LPD.

Notes to Applicant

The applicant is advised that all planning permissions granted on or 16th October 2015 may be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Full details of CIL are available on the Council's website. The proposed development has been assessed and it is the Council's view that CIL is not payable on the development given that there is no net additional increase of floorspace as a result of the development.

Planning Statement - The Borough Council has worked positively and proactively with the applicant in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework. During the processing of the application there were no problems for which the Local Planning Authority had to seek a solution in relation to this application.

The applicant should be aware that the site is within a flood zone and therefore it would be advisable to set any control equipment as high as possible to offset the risk of any control equipment becoming damaged.

Date Recommended: 16th December 2020

The construction of an unauthorised building.

The Head of Development and Place introduced the report. 

RESOLVED:

That the Head of Development and Place, be authorised to take all enforcement action including the service of any enforcement notices and in conjunction with the Head of Governance and Customer Services take proceedings through the courts if required to ensure the unauthorised outbuilding is removed.

Material change of use of residential dwelling and garden to a mixed use of residential dwelling and garden and a warehousing/storage and distribution facility.

The Head of Development and Place introduced the report.  He informed Members that following the senior management restructure that took place on the 4^th of January, the recommendation should be updated as follows:

The Head of Development and Place, be authorised to take all enforcement action including the service of any necessary enforcement notices and in conjunction with the Head of Governance and Customer Services take proceedings through the courts if required to ensure the cessation of the unauthorised storage and distribution use.

RESOLVED:

That the Head of Development and Place, be authorised to take all enforcement action including the service of any necessary enforcement notices and in conjunction with the Head of Governance and Customer Services take proceedings through the courts if required to ensure the cessation of the unauthorised storage and distribution use.

Construction of an unauthorised building.

The Head of Development and Place introduced the report. 

RESOLVED:

That the Head of Development and Place, be authorised to take all enforcement action including the service of any necessary enforcement notices and in conjunction with the Head of Governance and Customer Services take proceedings through the courts if required to ensure the cessation of the unauthorised storage and distribution use.

Two-storey front extension.

RESOLVED:

To note the information.

RESOLVED:

To note the information.

RESOLVED:

To note the information.

RESOLVED:

To note the information.

None.