Agenda and minutes
Venue: Conference Chamber, West Suffolk House, Western Way, Bury St Edmunds
Contact: Helen Hardinge: Democratic Services Officer
Email: helen.hardinge@westsuffolk.gov.uk
Items
No. |
Item |
80. |
Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from
Councillors David Gathercole and David Roach.
|
81. |
Substitutes
Any Member who is substituting for another
Member should so indicate, together with the name of the relevant
absent Member.
Minutes:
The following substitution was declared:
Councillor Carol Bull substituting for
Councillor David Roach.
|
82. |
Minutes PDF 229 KB
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held 8
January 2020 (copy attached).
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 8 January
2020 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair,
subject to the following correction to a typographical error in
respect of minute 76:
‘….Dead of
Variation….be amended to
read…..’Deed of
Variation…’
|
83. |
Planning Application DC/19/1609/RM - Former Howard Community Primary School, St Olaves Road, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/20/005) PDF 196 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/005
Reserved Matters Application - Submission of
details under DC/17/1047/OUT appearance, landscaping, layout and
scale - (i) up to 79no. dwellings (ii) a new community centre also
incorporating a replacement Carousel Children’s Centre (Class
D1) with associated parking (iii) open space, landscaping and
infrastructure
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Reserved Matters
Application - Submission of details under DC/17/1047/OUT
appearance, landscaping, layout and scale - (i) up to 79no. dwellings (ii) a new community
centre also incorporating a replacement Carousel Children’s
Centre (Class D1) with associated parking (iii) open space,
landscaping and infrastructure
This application
was referred to the Development Control Committee at
the request of Members of the former St Edmundsbury Borough Council
(SEBC) when the original outline application for up to 79 dwellings
was considered in December 2017.
The
outline application for this site was previously referred to (the
now dissolved) SEBC’s Development Control Committee as one of
the applicants was SEBC who was the owner of part of the site. West
Suffolk Council was now the owner of part of the site, which had
been sold subject to contract.
A Member site visit was held prior to the
meeting.
Attention was drawn to the supplementary
‘late paper’, which was issued following the
publication of the agenda and reports for this meeting. The late
paper contained final comments on the application from Suffolk
County Council’s (SCC) Highways and from SCC’s Flood
and Water Management teams, which were duly noted by the Committee.
The full wording for the proposed conditions were also set out.
The Principal Planning Officer updated the
Committee with additional information that had been received
following the publication of the report and late paper, that:
- Further to paragraph 25 of the
report, which addressed the housing tenure mix, the Strategic
Housing team had now confirmed the submitted plans did adequately
show that two bed/three person and three bed/four person dwellings
could adequately accommodate growth in the form of additional
person occupancy.
- An additional pre-occupation
condition had been proposed in connection with the management and
maintenance of non-adopted roads, as follows:
‘Before the
occupation of any dwelling, full details of the future management
and maintenance of the non-adopted estate roads for the site shall
be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The roads shall be managed and maintained in accordance
with the agreed details for the lifetime of the
development.’
Reason: In the
interests of highway safety and for the benefit of the occupiers of
the dwellings.’
- SCC’s Flood and Water
Management team had stated that the proposed drainage was
satisfactory, but the landscaping and proximity to the SUDS
features were still to be agreed. This was capable of being dealt
with in compliance with pre-commencement conditions attached to the
outline permission.
Speaker: Kate Wood (agent) spoke in
support of the application.
The Committee noted that SCC Highways would
adopt the junctions and the first section of the entrance road to
the estate; however, some concern was expressed that some of the
roads within the estate would not be adopted and that these would
be managed by a private management company. Some Members were
concerned whether these would be adequately maintained and to an
acceptable standard in years to come. In response, Members were
informed that the freehold owners within ...
view the full minutes text for item 83.
|
84. |
Planning Application DC/19/1711/OUT - Land West of Three Counties Way, Three Counties Way, Withersfield (Report No: DEV/WS/20/006) PDF 379 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/006
Outline Planning Application (Means of Access
to be considered) – up to 155no. dwellings, associated
infrastructure and open space
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Outline Planning
Application (Means of Access to be considered) – up to 155no.
dwellings, associated infrastructure and open space
This application, being a
proposal for a ‘major’ development, had been referred
to the Development Control Committee because Withersfield Parish Council had given support to
the proposal contrary to the Officer recommendation of
refusal.
A briefing note from the applicants,
Jaynic Investments LLP, had previously
been circulated directly to the Committee. The Principal Planning
Officer responded to each of the paragraphs contained in the
briefing note in turn, which were duly noted by the Committee.
Speaker: Paul Sutton (agent) spoke in
support of the application.
Before the debate commenced, the Service
Manager (Planning – Development) introduced the Service
Manager (Economic Development and Business Growth) to the
Committee, who was in attendance to respond to any technical
questions Members may have on the application regarding employment
and economic development matters.
The Committee considered the area in which the
development site was located was an extremely important gateway for
Haverhill, which had been allocated for employment use and not for
residential use. The Council’s relevant planning policies
were up to date and Members considered the relevant criteria of
those policies had not been met to allow this proposal to
continue.
Members considered that the loss of future
employment and investment that would support the planned housing
growth of some 4,000 homes for the town and the loss of such a
strategic employment site was significantly harmful. The Innovation
Centre was also likely to be a form of anchor development that was
anticipated to attract other interest in the site from companies
considering locating or relocating to Haverhill. The proposed
residential development would prevent this expansion of the site
from happening.
It was moved by Councillor Peter Stevens that
the application be refused, as per the Officer recommendation. This
was duly seconded by Councillor Ian Houlder.
Upon being put to the vote and with the vote
being unanimous, it was resolved that
Decision
Outline planning permission be REFUSED
for the following reasons:
1. It is important to
ensure that employment land is available in the right locations.
Haverhill is one of the fastest growing towns in Suffolk and it is
essential that this residential growth is matched by employment
opportunities. There is not considered to be an oversupply of
employment land in Haverhill. The site is one of five key
Enterprise Zone sites that the Cambridge & Peterborough
Combined Authority (CPCA) has designated around
Cambridge. The site also benefits from
Employment Zone status until the year 2041. Haverhill Research Park
(HRP) is a key employment site within the Cambridge Norwich Tech
Corridor and as this brand becomes established, more opportunities
are likely to come forward for HRP.
The benefits of a
residential development of up to 155 dwellings are acknowledged
(these include affordable housing, public open space, contribution
towards housing supply, potential reduction in traffic and job
creation and promotion of local economic prosperity). The weight to
be attached to these last two benefits is ...
view the full minutes text for item 84.
|
85. |
Planning Application DC/19/1712/FUL - 28-34 Risbygate Street, Bury St Edmunds (Report No: DEV/WS/20/007) PDF 505 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/007
Planning Application - Construction of (i) 48no. apartments (ii) communal
facilities (iii) access, car parking and landscaping as amended by
plans received 04 November 2019 (increasing number of apartments by
1no.)
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning Application
- Construction of (i) 48no. apartments (ii) communal facilities
(iii) access, car parking and landscaping as amended by plans
received 13 December 2019
The application was presented to the
Development Control Committee on 4 December 2019. The Committee had resolved to defer the
application in order to allow additional time for Officers to
consult with the applicant to establish whether it would be
possible to amend the scheme to reduce the height of the building
by way of removing the seven units on the top floor, in order to
address the concerns regarding overlooking as raised by
neighbouring residents.
The Principal Planning Officer reported that
the applicant amended the scheme following the December meeting of
the Development Control Committee by removing the two units on the
fourth floor that faced the rear of properties on Nelson
Road.
A further period of consultation had been
carried out on the amended plans and the application was now being
brought back to the Development Control Committee for
determination.
The Principal Planning Officer reported a
typographical error in the report, whereby the words (increasing
number of apartments by 1no.) should be removed from the
wording within the proposal as this no longer applied.
Speaker: Rosie Roome (agent) spoke in
support of the application.
Members expressed their support for the
amended application, commending the applicant for taking into
account the previous concerns of the Committee and neighbouring
residents. A particularly acceptable
scheme had now been achieved, which was in compliance with relevant
development plan policies and the National Planning Policy
Framework.
It was moved by Councillor Roger Dicker that
the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.
This was duly seconded by Councillor John Burns.
Upon being put to the vote and with the vote
being unanimous, it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be GRANTED subject
to the completion of the s106 Agreement and the conditions detailed
below.
The s106 Agreement will secure the following
financial contributions:
• Affordable
housing contribution of £523,284.20
• Library
contribution of £768.00
• NHS CCG
contribution of £14,504.95
1 The
development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than 3 years
from the date of this permission.
2 No above
ground development shall take place until a scheme for the
provision of fire hydrants within the application site has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied or brought
into use until the fire hydrants have been provided in accordance
with the approved scheme. Thereafter the hydrants shall be retained
in their approved form unless the prior written consent of the
Local Planning Authority is obtained for any variation.
3 Prior to
commencement of development, including any works of demolition, a
Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement
shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The
Statement shall provide for:
i) The
parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ...
view the full minutes text for item 85.
|
86. |
Planning Application DC/19/1714/FUL - Marlows Home and Garden, Hepworth Road, Stanton (Report No: DEV/WS/20/008) PDF 418 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/008
Planning Application - (i) 6no. dwellings with
off-street parking (ii) 1no. A1 (shop) with service yard, car park
and associated works (following demolition of existing
buildings)
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning Application
- (i) 6no. dwellings with off-street
parking (ii) 1no. A1 (shop) with service yard, car park and
associated works (following demolition of existing buildings)
(At this point, at
1pm, the meeting resumed to commence Part B of the agenda.)
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee as the application has been called in
by the Member for Stanton ward, Councillor Jim Thorndyke. Concerns
had been raised by neighbours and Stanton Parish Council with
regards to the site layout, impact on neighbour amenity and the
street scene, as well as concerns about asbestos present on the
site.
The site was an employment site which had a
retail element; however, the former business had relocated and the site was now vacant. This
application followed an application that had been withdrawn for
this site for a residential scheme for up to nine dwellings which
could not be supported because it was purely for housing.
A Member site visit was held prior to the
meeting.
Attention was drawn to the supplementary
‘late paper’, which was issued following the
publication of the agenda and reports for this meeting. The late
paper contained additional representations of concern received from
the occupants of neighbouring properties.
The Senior Planning Officer informed the
Committee that two further objections from neighbouring residents
had been received since the circulation of the late paper. These
contained similar concerns to those previously contained in the
report.
Speakers: Councillor Brian Brown (Stanton Parish
Council) spoke in general support of the application; however, the
Parish Council considered a principal concern remained in respect
of maintaining access to Foundry Cottage.
Councillor Jim
Thorndyke (Ward Member for Stanton ward) spoke in support of the
application; however, Councillor Thorndyke considered some issues
needed to be addressed prior to commencement of the
development.
Adam Tuck (agent)
spoke in support of the application.
The Committee considered this was a sensible
mixed development that was an excellent use of the site and would
be a beneficial asset to Stanton. Concerns had been expressed by
local residents regarding potential
adverse effects on amenity and overlooking to neighbouring
properties; however, Members felt that adequate controls would be
in place to mitigate this.
Members queried the access to the proposed
residential parking and car park for the retail unit, and the
maintenance of the private right of way to both Foundry House and
Foundry Cottage. However, upon further consideration of the element
of the report which addressed highway matters, and as the Highways
Authority had not objected to the amended scheme (subject to
conditions), the Committee considered the proposal to be
acceptable. The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the
maintenance of clear access for Foundry Cottage and Foundry House
remained a private matter.
It was moved by Councillor Peter Stevens that
the application be approved, as per the Officer recommendation.
This was duly seconded by Councillor Jim Thorndyke.
Upon being put to the vote and with the vote
being unanimous, it was resolved that
Decision
Planning permission be ...
view the full minutes text for item 86.
|
87. |
Planning Application DC/19/1700/FUL - Caravan Site South, Pigeon Lane, Fornham All Saints (Report No: DEV/WS/20/009) PDF 413 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/009
Planning Application - (i) Change of use of
part of golf course for the siting of 35no. caravan lodge holiday
homes (ii) new access from A1101 (iii) construction of access
roads, parking spaces and associated infrastructure (as amended by
email on 14.01.2019 to omit 2 caravans)
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning Application
- (i) Change of use of part of golf course for the siting of 35no.
caravan holiday homes (ii) new access from A1101 (iii) construction
of access roads, parking spaces and associated infrastructure (as
amended by email on 14.01.2019 to omit 2 caravans)
The application was
a re-submission of a recently withdrawn application for Change of
Use of two sites on part of a golf course (one in the north and one
in the south) for the siting of 70no. caravan holiday homes, with
associated works including the creation of a new access from the
A1101 and the B1106. This current application related to the
southern part of the previous application only.
The application
site and large parts of the golf course fell within the parish of
Fornham All Saints. The All Saints Hotel and parts of the golf
course was within the parish of Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve.
Therefore, both Parish Councils had been consulted.
The application was
referred to the Development Control Committee because Fornham All
Saints Parish Council had made comments in support of the
application and Fornham St Martin cum St Genevieve Parish Council
had objected. One of the Ward Members for The Fornhams and Great
Barton Ward had asked for the application to be considered by the
Committee due to the number of representations received and one of
the Ward Members of the adjoining Tollgate Ward had objected to the
proposal.
The Senior Planning Officer informed the
Committee that the amended application was for 35 caravans and
therefore the word ‘lodge’ should be removed from the
title of the proposal.
A Member site visit was held prior to the
meeting.
Speakers: Malcolm Johnson (local resident) spoke
against the application.
Enid Gathercole
(local resident) spoke against the application.
Frank Stennett
(local resident) spoke against the application.
Councillor Beccy
Hopfensperger (one of the Ward Members for The Fornhams and Great
Barton ward) spoke against the application.
David Harris
(applicant) spoke in support of the application.
A detailed discussion was held and the
majority of Members expressed several concerns with this
application. The Officers had considered that the application
accorded with relevant planning policies, particularly Policy DM34
– Tourism Development of the Joint Management Policies
Document. This sought to direct larger scale tourism activities and
overnight accommodation to the larger urban areas. The policy
permitted new tourism facilities, including overnight visitor
accommodation such as holiday lodges, static and touring caravans
provided that a number of criteria were being satisfied. The policy
required proposals to:
a) be connected to and
associated with existing facilities or located at a site that
related well to the main urban areas and defined settlements in the
area and could be made readily accessible to adequate public
transport, cycling and walking links for the benefit of non-car
users;
b) not adversely affect the
character, appearance or amenities of the area and the design was
to be of a standard acceptable to the Local Planning Authority;
c) vehicle access and
on-site ...
view the full minutes text for item 87.
|
88. |
Planning Application DC/19/0225/FUL - Land NE Haverhill, Wilsey Road, Little Wratting (Report No: DEV/WS/20/010) PDF 258 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/010
Planning Application - Temporary construction
access off Chalkstone way associated with wider work at Great
Wilsey Park
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning Application
- Temporary construction access off Chalkstone Way associated with
wider work at Great Wilsey Park
(Councillor John
Burns declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as he lived
within the vicinity of, but not adjacent to, the application site.
He remained in the meeting, took part in the debate and the voting
on the item thereon.)
The North-East Haverhill Great
Wilsey Park site was granted outline
planning permission for a development of 2,500 homes and associated
development under application DC/15/2151/OUT.
The applicants, Redrow Homes
Limited, were looking to deliver the first phases of the
development and the access sought in this application was proposed
to facilitate the construction work associated with two of the
development parcels within those phases. A main compound was
proposed at the north of the site, accessed from Haverhill Road,
which was approved by the Development Control Committee under
application DC/19/0224/FUL.
The application had been
submitted at this time to ensure that construction infrastructure
was in place ready to support the delivery of the
development.
This application was referred
to the Development Control Committee as a result of a call-in by
one of the Ward Members for Haverhill East, having considered the
context of the strategic nature of the wider site.
A Member site visit was held prior to the
meeting.
The Principal Planning Officer informed the
Committee that in respect of proposed Condition 2 referred to an
incorrect drawing number; however, the drawing itself contained in
the report was correct. The correct
drawing number was 183821-002 Rev D.
Speakers: Councillor John Burns (one of the Ward
Members for Haverhill East ward) raised some concerns with the
application.
Chris Gatland
(applicant) spoke in support of the application.
Councillor John Burns raised a number of queries, including technical questions
to which the Officers duly responded. He acknowledged that this was
only a temporary construction access but wished to clarify
a number of issues principally relating
to the impact on the existing road infrastructure and to
neighbouring residents in the locality of the proposed access
route. The Committee found the local knowledge extremely useful in
supporting their determination of the application.
The debate included consideration of attaching
a condition to request that when the access was no longer required
for the intended purpose, it should be stopped up and the land
reinstated. This was agreed.
Having considered the content of the report,
including that the Highways Authority had not objected to the
application (subject to conditions), the Committee considered that
the proposed access from Chalkstone Way would have no significant
adverse effect on the operation of the highway or on its physical
structure and the non-Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic movements
would have no significant adverse effects on residential amenity.
Members acknowledged that the routing of HGV construction traffic
was to be dealt with separately under a condition attached to the
outline permission and therefore, should not be considered as part
of this application.
It was moved by Councillor John Burns that the
application be approved, ...
view the full minutes text for item 88.
|
89. |
Planning Application DC/19/0947/FUL - Dwelling 1, Herringswell Manor, Herringswell Road, Herringswell (Report No: DEV/WS/20/011) PDF 261 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/011
Planning Application - Conversion of garages
and stores to 2no Dwellings
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning Application
- Conversion of garages and stores to 2no dwellings
(At this point, at
3pm, the Chair resumed the meeting.)
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel. Herringswell Parish
Council had objected to the application.
A Member site visit was held prior to the
meeting.
Speakers: Liz Wilkinson (resident of Herringswell Manor) spoke against the
application.
Richard
Winsborough (applicant) spoke in
support of the application.
Having acknowledged a number of the
representations in opposition to the application, some Members
questioned whether the garages that were proposed for conversion
into residential dwellings were redundant as claimed by the
applicant. In addition, some concern was expressed in respect of
whether sufficient parking would be provided for those that
currently resided at Herringswell Manor
and those that would occupy the proposed new dwellings.
Other concerns raised included the
justification for the proposed development in the countryside and
the potential overlooking to neighbouring residents’ private
amenity space.
In response, the Principal Planning Officer
stated that the two garage block buildings were not redundant in
their entirety. The Officers were satisfied that the first floor
level of the garage blocks were completely redundant and were
previously used for storage. As a result of the proposed
development, there would be a loss of two garages on the ground
floor. It was understood that these were currently let out to
residents; however, it was within the site operator’s gift to
no longer lease them. Whilst the ground floor garages would be
lost, sufficient parking spaces would remain on the site as a
whole, as explained further below. The buildings were structurally
sound and capable of conversion and having considered and
discounted other potential uses, together with taking into account
other considerations, as set out in the report, the Officers had
considered the conversion to residential use was an appropriate use
in this case.
In respect of the provision of adequate
parking spaces, the Committee noted that Block 1 had two spaces
plus one visitor space proposed immediately adjacent to the block.
Parking for Block 2 (also two spaces) was further away within an
existing area of surplus parking to the east. The proposal would
result in the loss of two garage spaces and it was understood that
these were currently rented out to residents, some of which were
used for storage and some for parking. Any displaced parking as a
result of the loss of the two garage spaces would be accommodated
within the surplus parking area. The Highways Authority had
considered this arrangement to be acceptable.
The report provided details of how the
proposal would comply with relevant planning policies applicable to
development in the countryside and reference was made to the
reasons given by the Planning Inspector following their allowing of
an appeal for the change of use of an existing gymnasium facility
to residential on the same site, which made further justification
for this proposal.
In addition, Officers were satisfied that
there would be no ...
view the full minutes text for item 89.
|
90. |
Planning Application DC/19/1918/FUL - Land at Chardale, Dale Road, Stanton (Report No: DEV/WS/20/012) PDF 253 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/012
Planning Application - 1no dwelling and cart
lodge
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning Application
- 1no dwelling and cart lodge
The application was originally
referred to the Development Control Committee on 8 January 2020
following consideration by the Delegation Panel.
Stanton Parish Council
supported the application, which was contrary to the Officer
recommendation of refusal.
A Member site visit was held prior to the
previous meeting on 6 January 2020.
At the meeting on 8 January
2020, Members resolved that they were ‘minded to
approve’ the application contrary to the Officer
recommendation of refusal. Accordingly, the Committee’s
Decision Making Protocol was invoked in order for a risk assessment
to be produced for Members’ further consideration and as set
out in the report before the Committee at this meeting.
On 8 January 2020, the
Committee had passed a resolution of ‘minded to
approve’ the application as Members considered it to be a
sustainable development situated in a sustainable location. It had
been highlighted that a ‘cluster’ of dwellings’
was subjective and considered the scheme would marginally
contribute to the District’s housing supply and
economy. The Committee felt the
proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character of the
countryside and would not contravene Joint Management Policies
Document Policy DM27, which addressed Housing in the
Countryside.
Officers were continuing to
recommend that the application be refused, for the detailed reason
set out in paragraph 14 of the report, which in summary was
contrary to the Development Plan.
The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) reported that paragraph 29 of the Working Paper
referred to Hundon; however, this was a typographical error and
should refer to Stanton. Members were then informed that following
reconsideration of the application and given due consideration to
the implications of approving the application as set out in the
risk assessment contained in the report, if the Committee were
still ‘minded to approve’ the application, the Council
as Local Planning Authority would need to advertise the application
as a departure from the development plan as required by law. If it
was resolved to approve the application, it would be asked that the
decision to grant planning permission be delegated to officers, in
consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Committee
following the conclusion and outcome of the advertising of the
application.
Speaker: Councillor Jim Thorndyke (Ward
Member for Stanton) spoke on the application.
Clarification was sought on the requirement to
advertise the application. The Service Manager (Planning –
Development) explained that it was not initially anticipated by
Officers that the application would need to be advertised. However,
in order to meet statutory publicity requirements, if the Committee
approved the application, it would need to be advertised locally as
a departure from the development plan.
Some clarity was sought on the proposed
conditions should the application be approved, including that
proposed condition 7 should require an electric charging point to
be installed with the capability of providing a minimum of a
7 kilowatt charge.
Whilst the risk assessment had been taken into
account, some Members remained consistent with their previous
...
view the full minutes text for item 90.
|
91. |
Planning Application DC/19/2326/FUL - 18 Victoria Close, West Row (Report No: DEV/WS/20/013) PDF 246 KB
Report No: DEV/WS/20/013
Planning Application - (i) two storey side
extension (ii) single storey rear extension to dwelling approved
under DC/15/1450/RM
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Planning Application
- (i) two storey side extension (ii)
single storey rear extension to dwelling approved under
DC/15/1450/RM
This application was referred to the
Development Control Committee following consideration by the
Delegation Panel. West Row Parish Council had objected to the
application.
A Member site visit was held prior to the
meeting.
The Principal Planning Officer reported of a
printing error whereby overprinting of text had occurred within the
Planning History section of the report and gave a short
presentation.
Speaker: Councillor John Smith (Ward
Member for The Rows) spoke against the application.
During the debate concern was expressed by
Members that the proposal constituted overdevelopment and was not
in keeping with the street scene as the
majority of properties in this location were of relatively
small scale in comparison to the proposed development. The proposal
was considered not to respect the character, scale, design and form
of the existing dwelling and adversely impacted on the character
and appearance of the neighbouring properties in the immediate and
surrounding area.
It was moved by Councillor Susan Glossop that
the application be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment and
for not being in keeping with the street scene, which was contrary
to the Officers’ recommendation of approval. This was duly
seconded by Councillor Andy Drummond.
Upon being put to the vote and with 10 voting
for the motion, 3 against and no abstentions, it was resolved
that
Decision
Planning permission be REFUSED on the
grounds of overdevelopment and for not being in keeping with the
street scene.
|
|
In this section
|