Agenda and minutes

Before the Chair commenced the meeting, he reminded Members that the politically restricted pre-election period for the May 2021 elections had now commenced and that this had two consequences. Firstly, the Council could not carry out publicity or events which were designed to show support for a political party. The Chair therefore asked Members to be careful to address the issues and not use the meeting as a platform for political purposes. He warned that anyone who infringed the rule would not be allowed to speak further in the meeting. Secondly, this meant that any person who used this meeting for political publicity took the risk that the cost of this meeting would be counted towards their election expenses or of the candidate they were supporting.

Members and Officers are reminded to make any declarations of pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial interests that they may have in relation to items on this agenda and are reminded that they should re-declare their interest before consideration of the item or as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

Members and officer should make their declaration by stating :

a) the application they have the interest in

b) whether it is a pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial

c) the nature of the interest

d) if it is a prejudicial or pecuniary interest, whether they will be exercising their right to speak to the application

No declarations of interest were made.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on     (attached).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 2021 were approved by the Committee.

Variation of condition 20 imposed under LU/229/10/ to amend wording so as to remove specific reference to 'cars' within the condition & replace word with 'vehicles' in each instance where it features.

The Principal Planning Officer presented her report.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised including whether the term ‘vehicles’ was too broad and whether some restrictions were wanted, issues around more permanently parked and larger vehicles such as caravans taking up more than one parking space with cars then having to be parked on pavements and whether these could be restricted, the potential for residents-only parking, whether not changing the terms would have been overly restrictive to future residents, the absence of any enforcement mechanism and planning conditions being meaningless and open to legal challenge if not enforceable, whether the approval for the original application should have been more restrictive and district-wide implications for planning approvals more generally if only parking for specific vehicles were permitted in future.

The Principal Planning Officer and Group Head of Planning provided members with answers to all points raised during the debate.

The Committee

          RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions outlined.

1 Public Speaker

     Joseph Pearson - Agent

Erection of 1 No new dwellinghouse.

The Principal Planning Officer presented her report. This was followed by a Public Speaker.

Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised including the type of materials proposed and whether these would be the same as those used in the pre-existing adjoining properties, issues with parking in the area and the application reducing parking space further, the Council not following its own parking standards, the visual impact of having a solid wall at the end of the terrace of houses on the street scene and whether this was sufficiently mitigated by the pre-existing trees and landscaping on the edge of the site.

The Principal Planning Officer and Group Head of Planning provided members with answers to all points raised during the debate.

The Committee

               RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions outlined.

The Committee received and noted the appeals list within the agenda. Members then discussed concerns about the Appeals system and in particular appellants making use of information provided by Officers to Members for explanation of refusal. Members were reminded that they needed to be careful with what they said in committee meetings as well as being mindful of other statements they have made in public as these comments could be used in support of subsequent appeals, especially now that meetings are recorded and easily available. It was noted that where inspectors had allowed an appeal, if the original reasons for refusal were reasonable then costs would not be awarded to the appellant.