Agenda and minutes

The Chief Executive to notify the Committee of any substitute members

The committee was notified that a notice under Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 had been received, appointing Councillor Bob Sandall in place of Councillor Howard for this meeting only.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Sam Jalili.

Members are asked to declare an interest in matters for consideration at the meeting

There were none declared from members.  However, the Committee Support Officer informed the committee that he was Clerk to Barkston and Syston Parish Council, who had commented on Application FF1, on which there was also public speaking by the Parish Council.

   (Enclosure)

The minutes of the meeting held on 4 January 2011 were approved as a correct record of decisions taken.

To consider applications received for the grant of planning permission – reports prepared by the Area Planning Officers

                                                          (Enclosure)

Decision:-

To determine applications, or make observations, as listed below:-

JST1

Application ref:                S09/2806/LB

Description:                    External canopy to front

Location:                         Cafe Black, 21, High Street, Stamford, PE9 2AL

Decision:                        Refused

Noting objections from Stamford Town Council, Historic Buildings Advisor, Highway Authority, Stamford Civic Society and English Heritage, representations from nearby residents, one in support and one objecting, and comments made by Members at the meeting.

It was proposed, seconded and agreed that the application be refused for the following reason, and that appropriate enforcement action be authorised to remove the canopy:-

1.          In the opinion of the local planning authority the canopy for which retrospective consent is sought is visually intrusive and architecturally out of place, and thereby detrimental to the character and appearance of the listed building, this part of the Stamford Conservation Area and the streetscene in general.

Furthermore, the large box that houses the retracted canopy also appears incongruous within its setting and unsympathetic to the existing attractive shopfront.

The application is therefore considered to be contrary to Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5), Policy 27 of the East Midlands Regional Plan (2009) and Policy EN1 of the South Kesteven Core Strategy.

PG1

Application ref:                S10/1876/HSH     

Description:                    Erection of classic car storage unit for domestic use

Location:                         The Old Rectory, Carlby Road, Greatford, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 4PR

Decision:                        Deferred

Noting comments made during the public speaking session from:-

                   Martin Brebner - Greatford Parish Council

                   Mr G Rose - Objecting

                   Mr G Campbell - Objecting

together with comments from Heritage Lincolnshire (Archaeology), no objection from the Highway Authority, Environment Agency or Ramblers’ Association, comments from Greatford Parish Council and objections from nearby residents, report of site inspection and comments made by Members at the meeting.

(1.19pm - Councillor Helyar entered the meeting).

(1.31pm - Councillor Turner entered the meeting).

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved subject to, in addition to the conditions in the report, a condition in regard to the removal of permitted development rights.  Following further discussion, this proposition was withdrawn and it was proposed and seconded that further consideration be deferred to enable discussions with the applicant in relation to amended plans showing a smaller development with more appropriate materials.

PG2

Application ref:                         S10/2088/FULL

Description:                    Retention of 8 floodlights and install 2 portable buildings

Location:                         Sports Fields, Manor Close, Langtoft, Peterborough, PE6 9NB

Decision:                            Deferred

Noting comments made during the public speaking session from:-

                   Mrs Taylor - Objecting

together with comments from Environmental Protection and a letter from a local resident, together with comments made by members at the meeting.

It was proposed, seconded and agreed that the application be deferred for one month to enable the floodlights to be re-angled to ensure that the impact on neighbouring residents is lessened, and if this is not done then the application be refused.

PWM1

Application ref:                S10/2416/ADV

Description:                    Replacement signage

Location:                         McDonalds Restaurants Ltd, Bridge End Road, Grantham, NG31 7ES

Decision:                        Approved

Noting comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Report No. PLA865 by the Acting Lead Professional

          (Enclosure)

The Acting Lead Professional submitted his report PLA865 listing details of applications not determined within the eight week time period.  Also submitted was a list of applications dealt with under delegated powers and a planning appeals update.

For the information of members, the Chairman said that he had instructed the Acting Lead Professional to ensure that, in relation to all applications currently deferred pending the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, that if they did not meet the current agreed standards (ie completion of the Agreement within 6 weeks), then the application will be refused unless the delay is as the result of circumstances outside the applicant's control, eg awaiting a decision from the County Council.

Report PLA863 by the Head of Development and Growth

(To follow)

The Acting Lead Professional introduced Report PLA863 from the Head of Development and Growth in relation to progress being made towards the finalisation of the Section 106 Agreement for the proposed development at Poplar Farm, Grantham.  The report set out the background to the situation as at present, pointing out that since the decision to approve in principle in September 2009 members had been kept aware of the current state of negotiations with regard to the completion of the Section 106 Agreement on a regular basis.  The report set out in detail progress of the Agreement in relation to transport matters, highlighting in particular discussions which had taken place in relation to the delivery of the bridge over the railway, including the threshold at which the bridge was to be provided, "the bridge fund" clause in the Section 106 and the estimated cost of the bridge.  It was considered that there were no grounds to review the earlier decision as the facts upon which the committee's decision were based were fair, reasonable and known and there had not been any material change in circumstances since the decision to approve in 2009.

One matter highlighted during the review was the need for an additional explicit clause to be included in the Section 106 Agreement to ensure that the applicant/developer used their reasonable endeavours to secure an "assignable easement" across the railway land to deliver the bridge.  It had been agreed between the main parties to the agreement that the intent to secure an easement was implied through the proposed development and this section would make it an explicit provision.  Another benefit of this would be that the easement could be assigned to another party and would provide for greater flexibility for the delivery of the bridge in due course.

In conclusion the report noted that there had been a variety of minor amendments to the Section 106 proposed and agreed between the main parties, but the main provisions and principles as reported last year remained unaffected.  It was anticipated that subject to final proof reading and amendment the Section 106 could be signed and permission issued by the Acting Lead Professional, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman, hopefully before the end of February 2011.

(2.55pm - Councillor Mrs Jalili returned to the meeting).

In conclusion, the Acting Lead Professional referred to a letter which had been recently received from agents acting for the owners of the large site to the west of the Poplar Farm site, in relation to the way in which development on this land was being treated in isolation from the larger allocation of which it formed part.  The owners were concerned to ensure that the outline planning permission and Section 106 for Poplar Farm was not prejudicial to the delivery of the overall development in the north west quadrant and that development of the western element was not adversely affected from both legal and viability perspectives.  Particular concern had been expressed about vehicular access arrangements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Briefing Paper No.PLA862 by the Planning Enforcement Officer

(Enclosure)

The committee noted briefing paper PLA862 from the Planning Enforcement Officer summarising the level of enforcement activity for the period September to December 2010.  The report also included a report on action taken following recommendations made by the auditors into Section 106 activity, and a statement of Section 106 monies received since September 2010.  Members noted the report.

Decision:- that the Full Council be recommended to continue with the 4 week cycle of meetings.

The Chairman reminded the committee that they had proposed, and the Council had agreed, that the committee move to a 4 week cycle of meetings for a trial period of 1 year with effect from the 1^st meeting after the annual meeting of the Council in 2010.  That trial period was now coming to an end, and it would be necessary to consider whether or not to continue with this frequency so that an appropriate report could be made to the Annual Council in April.

It was proposed, seconded and agreed that the Council be advised that the Development Control Committee support the continuation of a 4 week cycle for their meetings.

A brief discussion took place on the administration of site inspections, in particular whether it would be possible to arrange combined transport for members on the various rotas. The Committee Support Officer explained that these difficulties had been considered by the committee on many occasions in the past, but bearing in mind the size of the district and the fact that it was not known when the rota was drawn up where the site inspections would take place, the current system of members combining transport wherever possible would be the best solution.  However, he agreed that when drawing up the rota for the next series of site inspections he would attempt to list members in such groupings so as to minimise travel.  In addition, the Committee Support Officer was asked to ensure that postcodes were included on the list sent with the site inspection notice so that satellite navigation technology could be used to find sites more easily.

The meeting closed at 3.15pm.