Minutes for Planning Committee meeting, Nov 12 2009, 2.30PM official page

Members will be asked to make any declarations of interest in respect of items on this agenda.

The following declarations of interest were made in accordance with the Code of Conduct in relation to items under discussion at this meeting –

Name

Minute No. and Subject

Reason

Interest

Councillor Lock

56.3 – Twin Oaks, Ridge Road, Plympton, Plymouth 09/00562/FUL

56.4 – Land at Ridge Road, Hardwick, Plymouth 09/00983/FUL

56.5 – Plympton Cattle Market, Market Road, Plymouth 09/01432/FUL

56.6 – Phase 6 Site, Tamar Science Park, South of Research Way, Plymouth 09/01379/REM

56.9 – Embankment Lane, Plymouth

09/01223/FUL

Engaged with members of the public and spoken to the press

Engaged with members of the public and spoken to the press

Worked with the developer and spoken in public

Held discussions with the applicant

Trustee of Plymouth Charities Trust (owners of

Alms Houses at Heles Terrace)

Prejudicial

Prejudicial

Prejudicial

Prejudicial

Personal

Councillor Mrs. Stephens

56.9 – Embankment Lane, Plymouth

09/01223/FUL

Trustee of Plymouth Charities Trust (owners of Alms Houses at Heles Terrace)

Personal

Councillor Ball

56.10 – Leaves Yard, Windsor Road, Higher Compton, Plymouth

08/01700/OUT

Ward Councillor

Personal

Councillor Mrs. Foster

56.10 – Leaves Yard, Windsor Road, Higher Compton, Plymouth

08/01700/OUT

Applicant is a ward councillor colleague and personal friend

Personal

Councillor Wheeler

56.12 – Former Baylys Yard, Oreston, Plymouth 09/01060/OUT

Member of the Cattewater Harbour Commission

Prejudicial

The Committee will be asked to confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 15 October, 2009.

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 15 October, 2009, be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the voting schedule being amended to reflect the fact that –

(i)

with regard to 6.6 – Land at Ridge Road - the vote against the officer’s recommendation to Grant Conditionally was unanimous;

(ii)

with regard to 6.7 – Twin Oaks, Ridge Road - the vote against the officer’s recommendation to Grant Conditionally was unanimous.

To receive reports on business which, in the opinion of the Chair, should be brought forward for urgent consideration.

The Chair was pleased to report that the Committee’s Code of Good Practice was now in effect and, for the benefit of public speakers, he highlighted the significant differences as follows –

• Speakers now had 5 minutes instead of 3
• Speakers were no longer restricted to only being able to speak once on an application

(In accordance with Section 100(B)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the Chair brought forward the above item of business because of the need to inform members).

The Chair will receive and respond to questions from members of the public submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures. Questions shall not normally exceed 50 words in length and the total length of time allowed for public questions shall not exceed 10 minutes. Any question not answered within the total time allowed shall be the subject of a written response.

There were no questions from members of the public.

The Assistant Director of Development (Planning Services) will submit a schedule asking Members to consider Applications, Development proposals by Local Authorities and statutory consultations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.  Members of the Committee are requested to refer to the attached planning application guidance.

The Committee considered the following applications, development proposals by local authorities and statutory consultations submitted under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990.

Addendum reports were submitted in respect of minute numbers 56.2, 56.3, 56.4, 56.5, 56.7, 56.8, 56.9, 56.11 and 56.13.

Applicant:

Mrs. J. Pomeroy

Ward:

Plympton St. Mary

Recommendation:

Grant Conditionally

(Mrs. J. Pomeroy)

Decision:

Application GRANTED conditionally.

Applicant:

Mr. & Mrs. G.P. & S.A. Johns

Ward:

Plympton Erle

Recommendation:

Refuse

(Mr. and Mrs. G.P. and S.A. Johns)

Decision:
Application WITHDRAWN (determined at last meeting and included on agenda in error).

Applicant:

Mr. J. Keating

Ward:

Plympton Erle

Recommendation:

Grant Conditionally

(Mr. J. Keating)

The officer referred to the addendum report and advised that a further letter of representation had been received from an MP.

Decision:

Application REFUSED for the following reasons –

(1) The site is in a relatively isolated location and the Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal would not accord with sustainable development principles as it is remote from adequate services, employment, education, public transport, etc, and the gypsy sites would therefore increase the need for journeys to be made by private vehicles, which is not sustainable. It is therefore considered to be contrary to the aims of policies, CS16 and CS28 of the Core Strategy of Plymouth's Local Development Framework 2007 and to Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport).

(2) The Local Planning Authority considers that the site is not well located on the highway network and the proposals fail to provide safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access to the site as well as safe and convenient access to schools and local facilities. For these reasons the Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed gypsy site is not adequately integrated into the local community and is therefore contrary to policy CS17 of the Core Strategy of Plymouth's Local Development Framework 2007.

(3) The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal would result in isolated development on a strategically important greenscape area beyond the limits of any existing urban/suburban area. It would be detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the greenspace and set an unwelcome precedent for further sporadic development. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policy CS18 of the Core Strategy of Plymouth's Local Development Framework 2007.

(4) The site falls within the area identified for designation as a countryside park in the Area Action Plan for North Plymstock. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal would be detrimental to the character and function of this area of greenscape and therefore be contrary to the aims of proposal NP11 of the Area Action Plan for North Plymstock and policy CS18 of the Core Strategy of Plymouth's Local Development Framework 2007.

(5) There is a potential for contamination to be present at the site as a preliminary risk assessment including an adequate desk study, conceptual model and initial assessment of risk has not been submitted with the application.  The Local Planning Authority considers that this risk is unacceptable because there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.  The proposals are therefore contrary to policy CS34 of the Core Strategy of Plymouth’s Local Development Framework 2007.

(CouncillorLock, having declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the above item and the following three items, withdrew from the meeting).

(CouncillorMrs. Stephens took the Chair).

(CouncillorDelbridge, having been proposed by Councillor Mrs. Stephens and seconded by Councillor Ball, took the Vice-Chair).

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard from Councillor Beer, Ward Member, speaking against the application).

(  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.3

Applicant:

Mr. Alfred and Peter Reilly

Ward:

Plympton Erle

Recommendation:

Grant Conditionally

(Mr. Alfred and Peter Reilly)

Decision:

Application REFUSED for the following reasons -

(1) The site is in a relatively isolated location and the Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal would not accord with sustainable development principles as it is remote from adequate services, employment, education, public transport, etc, and the gypsy sites would therefore increase the need for journeys to be made by private vehicles, which is not sustainable. It is therefore considered to be contrary to the aims of policies, CS16 and CS28 of the Core Strategy of Plymouth's Local Development Framework 2007 and to Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport).

(2) The Local Planning Authority considers that the site is not well located on the highway network and the proposals fail to provide safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access to the site as well as safe and convenient access to schools and local facilities. For these reasons the Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed gypsy site is not adequately integrated into the local community and is therefore contrary to policy CS17 of the Core Strategy of Plymouth's Local Development Framework 2007.

(3) The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal would result in isolated development on a strategically important greenscape area beyond the limits of any existing urban/suburban area. It would be detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the greenspace and set an unwelcome precedent for further sporadic development. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policy CS18 of the Core Strategy of Plymouth's Local Development Framework 2007.

(4) The site falls within the area identified for designation as a countryside park in the Area Action Plan for North Plymstock. The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposal would be detrimental to the character and function of this area of greenscape and therefore be contrary to the aims of proposal NP11 of the Area Action Plan for North Plymstock and policy CS18 of the Core Strategy of Plymouth's Local Development Framework 2007.

(5) There is a potential for contamination to be present at the site as a preliminary risk assessment including an adequate desk study, conceptual model and initial assessment of risk has not been submitted with the application. The Local Planning Authority considers that this risk is unacceptable because there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.  The proposals are therefore contrary to policy CS34 of the Core Strategy of Plymouth's Local Development Framework 2007.

(CouncillorLock, having declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the above item,

withdrew from the meeting).

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard representations

in support of the application).

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard representations

against the application).

Applicant:

BDW Trading LTD

Ward:

Plympton Erle

Recommendation:

Grant Conditionally subject to S106 Obligation, Delegated Authority to Refuse by 23/12/09

(BDW Trading Ltd.)

Decision:

Application GRANTED conditionally, as amended by the addendum report, subject to S106 Obligation, delegated authority to refuse by 23 December, 2009, should S106 not be completed by that date.

(CouncillorLock, having declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the above item,

withdrew from the meeting).

 (At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard from Councillor Lock, Ward Member, speaking in support of the application).

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard from Councillor Beer, Ward Member, speaking in support of the application).

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard representations

against the application).

Applicant:

Resound Health Ltd.

Ward:

Moor View

Recommendation:

Grant Conditionally

(Resound Health Ltd.)

Decision:

Application GRANTED conditionally.

(CouncillorLock, having declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the above item,

withdrew from the meeting).

Applicant:

Messrs K.A. and M. Leaves

Ward:

Compton

Recommendation:

Refuse

(Messrs K.A. and M. Leaves)

Decision:

Application DEFERRED to allow finalisation of S016 Obligation, delegated authority to refuse by 10 December, 2009, should S106 not be completed by that date.

(Councillor Lock returned to the Chair).

(Councillors Ball and Mrs. Foster declared personal interests

inrespect of the above item).

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard from the applicant).

(This item was moved up the agenda in order to facilitate better management of the meeting).

Applicant:

Brook St. Properties Ltd.

Ward:

Ham

Recommendation:

Grant Conditionally subject to S106 Obligation, Delegated Authority to Refuse by 23/12/09

(Brook Street Properties Ltd.)

Decision:

Application DEFERRED for further consideration of the car park management proposals.

(CouncillorMrs. Stephens returned to the Vice-Chair).

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard from the applicant’s agent).

(CouncillorMrs. Nicholson’s proposal to defer, having been seconded by Councillor Mrs. Foster, was put to the vote and declared carried).

(This item was moved up the agenda in order to facilitate better management of the meeting).

Applicant:

Pillar Land Securities

Ward:

Moor View

Recommendation:

Grant Conditionally subject to S106 Obligation, Delegated Authority to Refuse 23/12/09

(Pillar Land Securities)

Decision:

Application REFUSED for the following reasons –

HARM TO VISUAL AMENITY

(1) The proposed development by reason of its height, scale and massing represents overdevelopment of the site which would be out of keeping with its surroundings and harmful to the visual amenity of the area contrary to policies CS02 and CS34 of the Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006-2021) 2007.

HARM TO RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

(2) The proposed number of students of 123 that would occupy the proposed development on a site of 0.17 hectares close to dwellings would be out of character with the area and would be likely to give rise to unacceptable noise and disturbance  to nearby properties harmful to the residential amenity of the area contrary to policies CS22 and CS34 of the Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006-2021) 2007.

LACK OF ON-SITE PARKING

(3) Notwithstanding the applicant’s offer to provide a car club the under-provision of on-site parking is likely to cause additional on-street parking on the surrounding streets that would be likely to cause increased danger on the highway and conditions prejudicial to the free flow of traffic contrary to policies CS28 and CS34 of the Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006-2021) 2007.

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard representations

against the application).

Applicant:

Plymouth City Council

Ward:

Sutton & Mount Gould

Recommendation:

Grant Conditionally

(Plymouth City Council)

Decision:

Application GRANTED conditionally, as amended by the addendum report.

(CouncillorsLock and Mrs. Stephens declared personal interests

in respect of the above item).

Applicant:

Hydon Developments

Ward:

Budshead

Recommendation:

Grant Conditionally subject to S106 Obligation, Delegated Authority to Refuse by 23/12/09

(Hydon Developments)

Decision:

Application GRANTED conditionally, as amended by the addendum report, subject to S106 Obligation, delegated authority to refuse by 23 December, 2009, should S106 not be completed by that date.

Applicant:

Geosa Ltd.

Ward:

Plymstock Radford

Recommendation:

Refuse

(Geosa Ltd.)

Decision:

Application REFUSED.

(CouncillorWheeler, having declared a prejudicial interest in respect of the above item, withdrew from the meeting).

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard from Councillor Michael Leaves, Ward Member, speaking against the application).

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard from the applicant).

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard representations

against the application).

(CouncillorStevens’ proposal to defer for a site visit, having been seconded by Councillor Vincent, was put to the vote and declared lost).

Applicant:

Mr. and Mrs. Ian Crabb

Ward:

Drake

Recommendation:

Refuse

(Mr. and Mrs. Ian Crabb)

Decision:

Application DEFERRED for publicity and consideration of the amended plans.

(At the invitation of the Chair, the Committee heard representations

against the application).

The Assistant Director of Development (Planning Services) acting under powers delegated to him by the Council will submit a schedule outlining all decisions issued from 5 October to 2 November, 2009, including –

1)  Committee decisions;

2)  Delegated decisions, subject to conditions where so indicated;

3)  Applications withdrawn;

4)  Applications returned as invalid.

Please note that these Delegated Planning Applications are available for inspection at First Stop Reception, Civic Centre.

The Committee received a report of the Assistant Director of Development (Planning Services) on decisions issued for the period 5 October to 2 November, 2009, including –

• Committee decisions
• Delegated decisions, subject to conditions where so indicated
• Applications withdrawn
• Applications returned as invalid

Resolved that the report be noted.

A schedule of decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate on appeals arising from the decision of the City Council will be submitted.  Please note that this schedule is available for inspection at First Stop Reception, Civic Centre.

The Committee received a schedule of decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate on appeals arising from the decisions of the City Council.

Resolved that the report be noted.

To consider passing a resolution under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the press and public from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds that it (they) involve(s) the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph(s) … of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

There were no items of exempt business.

***PLEASE NOTE***

A SCHEDULE OF VOTING RELATING TO THE MEETING IS ATTACHED AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THESE MINUTES.