Agenda and minutes

The following site was inspected before the meeting:

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda. None were declared.

It is at this point in the meeting that members of the public who have registered their wish to speak can do so. The deadline for registering is by 5pm the working day before the meeting. Members of the public can speak on specific planning applications or on other agenda items or matters within the remit of the committee.

To register please contact the Democracy Officer for the meeting, on the details at the foot of this agenda.

It was reported that nobody had registered to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme, on general issues within the remit of the Sub- Committee.

Members will consider a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable Development), relating to planning applications with an outline the proposals and relevant policy considerations and the views and advice of consultees and officers.

Members considered a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable Development), relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views and advice of consultees and Officers.

Conversion and extension of existing rear outbuildings to create 1 no. single storey pitched roof dwelling [Guildhall Ward] [Site Visit].

Members considered a full application, submitted by Mr D Beeson, for the conversion and extension of existing rear outbuildings to create one single storey pitched roof dwelling.

Officers updated the Sub-Committee on the following points:

·        The Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) had no objections to this application. In view of information received indicating that the site may have been a slaughterhouse a search was carried out by EPU who could find no evidence that 86 Gillygate had been used as a slaughterhouse. In view of the possibility that there had been a slaughterhouse on the site a watching brief in the form of an Informative was suggested. This is shown in the resolution below.

·        There was an amendment to the report and PPG3 had now been replaced by PPS3 ‘Housing’. This continued the thrust of national planning policy to re-use sustainable brownfield sites. National housing objectives are to deliver high quality housing, both affordable and market, and to widen opportunities of home ownership; to improve affordability by increasing the supply of housing, and to create sustainable, inclusive mixed communities.

·        Condition 8 iv) to be amended to add ‘with timber gate’ to the end of the condition.

·        Further Informatives regarding noise control, operating hours, working standards, plant machinery, control of pollution, emissions and bonfires are to be added and these are detailed in the resolution below.

Members asked if there had been any comments from the Guildhall Planning Panel and were informed that no responses had been received.

Representations were received, in objection, from a local resident who said that she had received information from a former owner of 86 Gillygate that the premises had once been a slaughterhouse. She stated that any ground disturbance might result in contamination of a wider area. She believed that this was an issue for the Public Health Authority and not the Environmental Protection unit. She also raised various concerns regarding the proposed development’s proximity to Moatside Court which was a sheltered housing complex.

Members discussed the application and raised the following points:

·        The proposed development was on the same footprint as the present buildings

·        Local residents would not see any change in relation to overlooking the proposed development

·        Access at the back of the proposed development should be kept clear by contractors at all times

·        The application was not beneficial to the area and was inappropriate considering its proximity to a sheltered accommodation complex

·        The fact that the building had been vacant for many years

·        The fact that the building could lawfully be used ancillary to the retail premises without seeking further planning permission

·        The fact that the Council would have no control in relation to who bought or let the premises if the proposed development were approved

·        There were other similar developments in the area

RESOLVED:             That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report, the following amended conditions and additional Informatives.

                                    Amended Condition 8

                                    iv) Design of the replacement sliding timber gate

                                    INFORMATIVES

                                    Remediation of contaminated land

                                    If, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87a