Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Barrett, Buckwell, Sylvia Griffin, McDonald and Potter.

To approve the record of the meeting held on  5 February 2020.

The record of the meeting held on 5 February 2020 was agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct. 

The Head of Planning drew attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out the following updated information:

Minute 662 - Planning application MC/19/1911 – Deangate Golf Club, Dux Court Road, Hoo St Werburgh, Rochester

An informative was appended informing the applicant of Members’ concerns as follows:

The Planning Committee was of the view that Deangate is not an appropriate location long term for the Norse works Depot and so have approved it for 18 months only on the basis that within that time a permanent site can be found, the necessary permissions gained and the site laid out. The Committee indicated that based on information currently available that they would not be minded to approve any extension to the temporary period.

Minute 666 - Planning application MC/19/2949 – 272 – 274 Luton Road, Luton, Chatham

The following reason for refusal was agreed:

As a result of the scale of the development in relation to the surrounding and adjacent properties which are predominantly two storey, the proposal for the number of residential units at first and second floor levels, would constitute overdevelopment of the site contrary to Policies H4 and BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraph 127 of the NPPF 2019.

Minute 669 - Planning application MC/19/2535 – 120 Maidstone Road, Chatham ME4 6DQ

The following reasons for refusal were agreed:

1.    The proposed development in combination with the other existing properties and those being constructed along the eastern side of King Edward Road would constitute overdevelopment of the area contrary to Policies H4 and BNE1 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraph 127 of the NPPF 2019.

2.    The proposed development is likely to result in the loss of the tree labelled T1 on drawing number TPP-CC/2004 AR4178 Rev 1 which would result in a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the locality contrary to Policies H9 and BNE43 of the Medway Local Plan 2003 and paragraph 170 of the NPPF 2019.

There were none.

Members are invited to disclose any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Significant Interests in accordance with the Member Code of Conduct.  Guidance on this is set out in agenda item 4.

Disclosable pecuniary interests

There were none.

Other significant interests (OSIs)

Councillor Rodney Chambers OBE referred to the following planning applications and advised that he would withdraw from the meeting for the consideration and determination of the planning applications for the reasons stated:

Planning application - MC/19/3106 - Site adjacent to Eastcourt Green, Twydall, Gillingham - on the basis that, as a member of the Council’s Cabinet, he had been party to the decision to release this land for housing and the Council was the applicant.

Planning application - MC/19/3107 - Site adjacent to Woodchurch Crescent, Twydall, Gillingham - on the basis that, as a member of the Council’s Cabinet, he had been party to the decision to release this land for housing and the Council was the applicant.

Other interests

Councillor Hubbard referred to planning applications - MC/19/1820 and MC/19/2202- Allhallows Holiday Park, Allhallows Caravan Park, Allhallows, Rochester. He declared that his parents’ in-law’s house backed onto the site and reserved the right to speak on the items.

The Head of Planning referred to planning application MC/19/2588 – 89 Ingram Road, Gillingham and advised the Committee that, as a friend had objected to the original planning application, he had had no involvement in the processing of this application to amend the scheme.

Twydall

Construction of 14 two-bed four-person (2B4P) residential dwellings facing Eastcourt Lane and ancillary car parking access from Eastcourt Green together with associated works and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and reminded the Committee that consideration of this application on 5 February 2020 had been deferred to allow further investigation as to the availability of brownfield sites in the area. The applicants had provided a report in response to Members concerns and this was summarised within the agenda report.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Prenter addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following issues:

·           The proposal for 14 units in an already congested area would impact local residents, particularly with regard to traffic congestion and parking. Nearby Beechings Way was a heavily used road.

·           The replacement trees would take years to grow to maturity.

·           Alternative sites should be investigated and development should be restricted to existing brownfield sites with green space only being developed as a last resort.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Browne addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following issues:

·           Green spaces should be protected as once they are developed they would be lost forever.

·           The Council needs to be more ambitious in tacking the housing crisis and the climate crisis.

·           Alternative brownfield sites which had already been given planning permission were available.

·           This application should be refused on ecological and environmental grounds. 

The Committee discussed the planning application in detail noting the presentation from the Senior Planner and the points raised by the Ward Councillors.

Concern was expressed that the application might be compromising a number of planning policies and it was questioned whether the application would be considered acceptable if it had been submitted by a private developer. In response, the Head of Planning explained why the site was not identified on the proposals map as protected open space but was still covered by Policy L3 of the Local Plan. The Council was considering all options and had discounted a number of sites in Twydall. He confirmed that an application from a private developer would not have been considered sympathetically but the application under consideration was in response to a need for social housing and that was a material planning consideration that the Committee needed to give some weight to.

During Members’ discussion it was suggested that, given the need for 30,000 new homes in Medway, the development of some green space was necessary. Brownfield sites were not always viable for social housing because of the costs of remediation. The Committee had asked the Council’s Housing Team to justify this application and that justification was included in the agenda report. Other sites and options were also being considered but due to the housing need in Medway these were in addition to the proposals being put forward, not as an alternative, and some had been dismissed as unviable due to their limited size. 

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)  A Section 106 under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 being entered into to secure the following:

i.             £35,721.00 on improvements at Goudhurst Play Area and/or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 725.

Twydall

Construction of 9no. one-bed two-person (1B2P) residential terraced bungalow dwellings and ancillary car parking accessed from Woodchurch Crescent together with the refurbishment of the existing playground equipment and relocation within the site.

Discussion: 

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and reminded the Committee that consideration of this application on 5 February 2020 had been deferred to allow further investigation as to the availability of brownfield sites in the area. The agenda report included the results of that further investigation and identified a number of sites which were considered to be unviable.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Browne addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following issues:

·         This development would add to the environmental crisis; it would be inadequate to plant two new trees to replace the ones that would be lost.  

·         As a result of the previous planning permission, 0.6 hectares of green space had been lost. If the current application was approved that would mean over one hectare of green space would be lost in total.

The Committee discussed the application and it was clarified that one third of the open space, or 0.2 hectares, would be developed. It was further clarified that the proposed disabled parking bay would be located off street rather than on street.

It was suggested that a condition should be attached to any planning permission requiring two trees to be planted for every tree lost as a result of the development. The view was expressed that there was a need for bungalows and the development would enable people to move from larger properties that were currently under occupied, resulting in the availability of much needed family accommodation.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)        A Section 106 under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 being entered into to secure the following:

i)   Contribution to bird disturbance mitigation (unless secured separately by a SAMMs Mitigation Contribution Agreement)

b)        Conditions 1 – 17 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

c)         The Head of Planning being given delegated authority to impose a condition or amend existing conditions/informatives requiring that two trees to be planted for every tree lost as a result of the development.

Gillingham North

Variation of condition 2 (drawing numbers) on planning permission MC/17/3455 (demolition of existing buildings and re-development of the site to provide 22 residential apartments alongside associated parking, access and infrastructure works) to allow a minor material amendment for additional 2 flats to block A, resiting of bin/cycle store, reduction of 2 flats to block B, provision of communal lounge with wifi to ground floor, amendments to undercroft parking, re-positioning of parking spaces, retention of garage walls to boundary and provision of sub station.

Discussion:  

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application in detail and drew Members’ attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out a number of amended conditions and an amendment to the parking layout with the loss of four under croft spaces to be replaced by two additional spaces adjacent to Block B.

Members also noted that an additional letter of objection had been received raising concerns relating to overlooking from the development towards the neighbouring property. The Senior Planner reported that the applicant had agreed to an additional condition requiring that the Local Planning Authority approve measures to mitigate overlooking.

The Committee discussed the application and it was suggested that the additional condition to address overlooking be worded to require that obscure glazed windows be used rather than a film or anything that could easily be removed.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            Subject to the applicant entering a Deed of Variation in respect of the Section 106 agreement attached to planning permission MC/17/3455; and

b)            Conditions 1, 3-10, 13, and 15-18 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and amended conditions 2, 11, 12 and 14 and new condition 19 as set out below:

2.         The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Drawing numbers: 2019/02/P03 and 2019/02/P06 received on 11 November 2019; 2019/02/P04/F, 2019/02/P05/E, received on 2 January 2020; 2019/02/P02/K received on 5 February 2020; 2019/02/P01/F received on 20 February 2020; and 2010/02/P010/D and 2019/02/P11D received on 27 February 2020.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

11.       No part of the development herein approved shall be occupied until the area shown on the approved layout drawing number 2019/02/P01/F as vehicle parking space and garaging has been provided, surfaced, drained and marked out on site. Thereafter it shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space and garaging.

            Reason: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking or garaging of vehicles is likely to lead to hazardous on-street parking and in accordance with Policies T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

12.       No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until details of secure private cycle parking provision shown on drawing numbers 2019/02/P01/F, 2010/02/P010/D and 2019/02/P11D has been provided. The cycle parking shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: To ensure the provision and permanent retention of bicycle spaces in accordance with Policy T4 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

14.       Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development herein approved, the refuse storage arrangements as shown on drawings numbers 2019/02/P01/F, 2010/02/P010/D  ...  view the full minutes text for item 727.

River

Part demolition of the existing buildings, construction of new buildings and conversion of the former St Bartholomew's Hospital to provide 155 residential units together with associated car parking, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping, tree removal, boundary treatment, access, utilities and other associated works, restoration, part demolition and conversion of the Grade II listed mortuary to provide 88 sqm community space (Class D1/D2).

Discussion: 

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and referred to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out suggested amendments to conditions 2, 27 and 28 and two additional conditions, 31 and 32.

He stated that the application, which had the support of Historic England on heritage grounds, would bring a building of local importance back into use and bring vitality and viability to Rochester High Street. With reference to the proposed S106 agreement, he advised the Committee that the cost of repairs and alterations of the listed waterworks building (the mortuary building) and public realm improvements and landscaping, would be in the region of half a million pounds.

The Committee discussed the application and, whilst the proposal to bring the building back into use was welcomed and the cost of developing the site was acknowledged, the view was expressed that the viability case had not been sufficiently made. The proposed S106 agreement was considered to be insufficient, particularly with regard to the absence of affordable housing. The proposed parking provision was also questioned, in terms of the level of parking to be provided and the access via very narrow roads. A further concern was that the mix of residential units was insufficient in respect of their being too many 1 bed units proposed.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred to enable officers to undertake further investigations into the viability calculations and the design and mix of the proposed dwellings.

River

Listed building consent for part demolition of the existing buildings, construction of new buildings and conversion of the former St Bartholomew's Hospital to provide 155 residential units together with associated car parking, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping, tree removal, boundary treatment, access, utilities and other associated works, restoration, part demolition and conversion of the Grade II listed mortuary to provide 88 sqm community space (Class D1/D2).

Discussion:

The Head of Planning clarified that amended condition 2 on the supplementary agenda advice sheet only referred to the mortuary building.

It was suggested that, In light of the deferral of planning application MC/19/2709, consideration of this report should also be deferred.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred to enable officers to undertake further investigations into the viability calculations and the design and mix of the proposed dwellings.

Gillingham North

Construction of a Foodstore (Use Class A1 - Retail)  together with associated car and cycle parking, servicing, landscaping, and associated works.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application seeking permission for a food store with pedestrian and vehicular access being from the existing access in Medway Road. He explained that although the site was not within an area allocated for retail in the Local Plan, a sequential test had been undertaken and looked at other sites in the retail areas of Gillingham and Chatham. None were considered suitable for the development proposed. He further explained that the proposal fell below the threshold for a retail impact assessment, specified in paragraph 89 of the NPPF.

During discussion it was noted that whilst Ward Councillors were in favour of the development in principle, there were concerns as to the proposed hours for deliveries, the resultant highway congestion that would require traffic calming measures, the loss of 8 on street parking spaces and the lack of tree planting as part of the proposed landscaping scheme.

The Committee discussed the application and the principle of the development was generally supported. Concern was expressed that insufficient consideration had been given to the additional traffic that the store would generate. The potential for vehicles accessing the site from different directions coming into conflict was highlighted and it was suggested that this could be resolved through highway improvements, including the installation of a mini roundabout and only allowing access to the site from the left.

Decision:

Consideration of this application be deferred to enable officers to undertake further investigations into highway implications, including access arrangements and congestion, and the impact on amenity including delivery hours and landscaping.

Peninsula

Construction and operation of a cement production plant, ancillary facilities and access.

Discussion: 

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application and referred to the corrections and additions to the agenda report detailed in the supplementary agenda advice sheet. This also provided a summary of additional letters of objection received on behalf of National Grid Grain LNG regarding the Dust Management Plan; a letter of objection from a Ward Councillor and an additional letter of comment from the Dickens Country Protection Society.

The applicant’s response in relation to the Dust Management Plan was summarised in the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Senior Planner advised that the concerns initially raised by Highways England about the possible impact on the strategic road network had been addressed through the inclusion of proposed conditions to address these concerns.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Pendergast addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following issues:

·         It was unacceptable that the identification of contamination would be self-policing given that it would require work to cease and for the matter to be reported.

·         The infrastructure was already at capacity.

·         The application lacked detail and no development should take place until the construction plans were in place.

The Committee discussed the application and raised the issues of the potential impact to other businesses in the area and the impact to the environment. The Head of Planning stated that an environmental permit had already been granted. He added that when the site had operated as a container port, prior to the construction of the bridge, it had generated significant traffic movements.

The view was expressed that the proposed development was in area allocated for employment and this should be encouraged.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 19 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Peninsula

Construction of 21 dwellings including affordable housing, together with access, parking, landscaping and infrastructure works.

Discussion: 

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application for 21 dwellings and advised the Committee that, should it be minded to approve the application, an extra item be added to the S106 agreement for a £5,978.49 heritage contribution towards improvements to Upnor Castle. Also included in the supplementary agenda advice sheet was amendments to proposed conditions 9, 10, 18 and 21 and an update to the planning appraisal section of the agenda report relating to Impact on the Countryside, Design and Trees.

The Senior Planner advised that the site was located outside of any defined urban area and therefore comprised development in the countryside. However, with regard to sustainability, the development was considered to provide some economic and social benefit providing houses (including affordable housing provision). 

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Sands addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and raised the following issues:

·         This was another development in Hoo village and would result in the loss of a number of special trees which was inconsistent with Medway’s approach towards the climate emergency.

·         It would further erode the gap between Hoo and Chattenden.

·         The proposed access by the recreation ground would enable the developer to avoid providing a playground.

·         Consideration of the application should be deferred for a site visit.

The Committee discussed the application and in particular the provision of affordable housing and the highways implications. The Senior Planner advised that all of the proposed dwellings were considered to be acceptable. The affordable housing provision would be four 2- bedroom and one 3-bedroom properties. The Head of Planning added that no objections had been raised by Highways as Ratcliffe Highway was considered to be adequate for the proposed development.

The Head of Planning advised Members’ that the scale and location of the development was not sufficient to affect the separation between Hoo and Chattenden and that the applicant would be providing a small childrens’ play area within the existing development under construction.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            A Section 106 under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 being entered into to secure the following:

i.          £53,581.50 towards improvements of open spaces within the vicinity of the site in consultation with Hoo Parish Council (£50,902.32) and Great Lines Heritage Park (£2,679.08).

ii.         £13,279.56 towards improvements to a healthy living centre or equivalent in Hoo.

iii.        £3,634.05 towards provision, maintenance and improvements to local waste centres.

iv.        £1,644.72 towards youth provision programme delivery for young people in the Rochester area.

v.         £5,112.87 towards sports facilities at Hoo Sports Centre

vi.        £3,848.04 for community facilities within the vicinity of the site.

vii.       £141,875.56 for Education consisting of:-

–    Nursery £28,958.58 and Primary £71,079.96 to one or more Chattenden Primary, Hundred of Hoo Primary, Hoo St Werburgh Primary, or a new free school.

-       Secondary  £41,837.02 to Hundred of Hoo, or a new free school.

viii.      £5,156.76 towards strategic measures in respect of the coastal North Kent Special Protection Area.

ix.        £3,468.15 towards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 732.

Peninsula

Application for the approval of reserved matters being layout, appearance, scale and landscaping pursuant to planning permission MC/18/0247 - Outline planning application with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale) for demolition of all buildings and structures and development of previously developed land and undeveloped land for up to 65 dwellings and associated works and infrastructure.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application and requested that, should the Committee be minded to approve planning permission, he be given delegated authority to impose any relevant conditions relating to ecology once a response from the Council’s consultants was received in relation to the applicants recent ecology submissions.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)     Conditions 1 – 5 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

b)     The Head of Planning being given delegated authority to impose any relevant conditions relating to ecology once a response from the Council’s consultants was received in relation to the applicant’s recent ecology submissions.

Peninsula

Upgrading of existing central facilities complex including the provision of a new marina stage bar building, activity hub and outdoor activity centre, creation of a replacement car park and associated access, hard and soft landscaping and associated.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and referred the Committee to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out an amendment to condition 5 and an additional condition, should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

She stated that the application sought to improve the facilities at the holiday park and would help promote Medway as a tourist destination.

The Committee discussed the provision of parking, the proposed ecological enhancements and the existing footpath.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)        A Section 106 agreement to secure:

i           A deed of variation to the term of the 2011 (MC/11/2330) dated 21/02/2013 legal agreement with respect to the provision of open space at the holiday park.

ii          The provision of 16 commercial vehicle parking space as shown in drawing 4283-271 Rev B; and

b)        Conditions 1-4 and 6-13 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and amended condition 5 and new condition 14 as follows:

5.         The development herein approved shall not be occupied until the area shown on the submitted layout plan (drawing number 4283-211) as vehicle parking space has been provided, surfaced and drained. Thereafter it shall be kept available for such use and no permanent development, whether or not permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending, revoking or re-acting that Order) shall be carried out on the land so shown or in such a position as to preclude vehicular access to this reserved parking space.

Reason: Development without provision of adequate accommodation for the parking of vehicles is likely to lead to hazardous on-street parking and in accordance with Policies T1 and T13 of the Medway Local Plan 2003.

14.       Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme to minimise the transmission of noise from the use of the premises, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Noise from the premises should be controlled, such that the noise rating level (LAr,Tr) emitted from the development shall be at least 10dB below the background noise level (LA90,T) at the nearest residential facade. All measurements shall be defined and derived in accordance with BS4142: 2014. All works which, form part of the approved scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard conditions amenity in accordance with Policy BNE2 of the Medway Local Plan 2003. 

Peninsula

Reconfiguration of hardstanding bases and golf course to enable installation of 95 hardstanding bases (an uplift of 84 static caravans) with associated infrastructure (above and below ground), internal access road, pedestrian footpaths and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application in detail and referred the Committee to the supplementary agenda advice sheet which set out an amendment to condition 15, should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

The application sought the reconfiguration of hardstanding bases and the golf course to enable the installation of 95 hardstanding bases for static caravans.

The Committee discussed the application and it was suggested that an additional condition be imposed to move the footpath away from the road and across the green space.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)            A Section 106 agreement to:

i)     Secure £3,794.13 contribution towards the improvement of premises, infrastructure or equipment at the Allhallows site – a branch of the Elms Medical Practice.

ii)    Secure £7,300 contribution towards the maintenance of footpaths RS4, RS9 and RS12 due to additional footfall impact resulting from the development.

iii)   A contribution of £13,751.92 towards bird mitigation measures.

iv)   To secure provision of 16 no parking spaces for commercial vehicles as shown in drawing 4283-271 Rev B and not to impose any restriction for commercial vehicles associated with the use or activities at the holiday park to enter the park.

v)    To secure a deed of variation to the term of the 2011 (MC/11/2330) dated 21/02/2013 legal agreement with respect to the provision of open space at the holiday park.

b)            Conditions 1-14 and 16 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report and amended condition 15 as follows:

15. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a construction and environmental management plan that shows details in respect of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

i)     the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors.

ii)    the routeing of construction traffic throughout the construction process and the mechanism for securing adherence to approved routes.

iii)   loading and unloading of plant and materials.

iv)   storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development and the erection and maintenance of security fencing.

v)    wheel washing facilities including removal of mud from the highway.

vi)   measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction.

vii) details of the construction hours and noise control

vii)  a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from the construction works.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and amenity of the area and in compliance with Policies BNE2 and T1 of Local Plan.

c)               The Head of Planning being given delegated authority to impose a condition to move the footpath away from the road and across the green space.

River

Conversion of existing restaurant to provide smaller restaurant (Class A3) premises on ground floor and formation of 3 flats (1 x one bedroom and 2 x two bedroom) with provision of access to flat 2 (102) via 106 High Street and installation of roof light to side and additional window and alteration to door at ground floor side; glass screen doors to provide security to existing entrance and provide associated parking to rear - Resubmission of MC/19/1749.

Discussion:

The Senior Planner outlined the planning application which sought permission for the conversion of an existing restaurant into a smaller restaurant and the provision of 3 flats.

The Committee discussed the application and the issue of extraction from the restaurant was raised. It was suggested that, should the Committee be minded to grant planning permission, an additional condition be imposed with regard to extraction.

The provision of a fire escape was also raised and the Committee was advised that compliance with fire regulations would be required. The Head of Planning suggested that, should a fire escape be required by building regulations, a condition be attached to any planning permission to this effect.

Decision:

Approved subject to:

a)     Conditions 1 – 8 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

b)     The Head of Planning being given delegated authority to impose an additional condition relating to flue extraction and also an additional condition relating to a fire escape if this was necessary following discussions with STG Building Control.

River

Listed Building Conversion for alterations to building to provide smaller restaurant (Class A3) premises on ground floor and formation of 3 flats (1 x one bedroom and 2 x two bedroom) with provision of access to flat 2 (102) via 106 High Street and installation of roof light to side and additional window and alteration to door at ground floor side; glass screen doors to provide security to existing entrance and provide associated parking to rear - Resubmission of MC/19/1750.

Discussion: 

Further to the approval of planning application MC/19/2762, the Senior Planner outlined the planning application for listed building consent.

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 4 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

Peninsula

Part change of use from residential to sun bed business.

Discussion:

The Planning Manager outlined the planning application.

The Committee discussed the application and noted that, should the Committee be minded to grant planning permission, a condition was proposed within the agenda report to minimise neighbour disturbance. 

Decision:

Approved with conditions 1 – 6 as set out in the report for the reasons stated in the report.

This report is presented quarterly to committee informing Members on current Planning performance and the Local Plan.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out current planning performance and an update on the Local Plan for the period 1 October – 31 December 2019.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.

This report informs Members of appeal decisions for the period 1 October 2019 – 31 December 2019.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report setting out appeal decisions for the period 1 October – 31 December 2019.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report.