Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Jacky Smith.

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

Councillor Morgan declared an interest in agenda item 6, as a member of Grantham Conservation Group, to avoid the impression of pre-determination or bias.

Councillor Wilkins declared a personal and prejudicial interest in application PJM1, as he worked for a company associated with the scheme.

Councillor Adam Stokes declared a personal interest in application PJM1, as a member of Lincolnshire County Council, the owners of the site.

   (Enclosure)

It was proposed that the minutes of the meeting held on 6^th and 19^th March 2012 be approved as a correct record of decisions taken.

A member queried the accuracy of the minute in relation to application PWM1, and indicated that she had proposed a full site visit with the site being viewed from different locations.  The Committee Support Officer said that he had not minuted this request, as he had considered it to be an administrative matter to be actioned as and when the application returned to the Committee.  It could, however, be included as an amendment.

A member raised a query in regard to the minute on application KJC1, specifically about the accuracy of paragraphs 3 and 4 on page 3 of the minutes.  He said that the word “aims” in paragraph 3 should read “areas”, and that paragraph 4 should more accurately be amended as follows:

“That the application should be approved with the additional up front condition that within three months the applicant partners, including Network Rail, make available, either in whole or substantially, the areas of the two car parks in front of the station entrance within 24 months, in order to enable the pedestrian connection to the town centre to be completed up to the station front in similar fashion to the early Phase 1 works to the north”.

The Vice-Chairman, who had proposed the amendment in paragraph 4 at the last meeting, indicated that he was happy with the change and that he had in fact misunderstood the precise wording which had been suggested and which had been included in the minute. The Development Management Service Manager  said that the permission had been issued including conditions as per the suggested amendment above. The proposer of the motion to accept the minutes indicated that he was happy to include the amendments above, and the motion was then seconded.

Several members then queried the accuracy of the minute in relation to application PWM1, and indicated that matters which they had raised or propositions which they had made had not been recorded. A lengthy discussion ensued, during which the Committee Support Officer, Assistant Solicitor and Development Management Service Manager gave advice, and the Vice-Chairman pointed out that the type of issues raised were not, and never had been, included in minutes of the Committee. He was satisfied that the decisions recorded were correct. However, in regard to the surveys on noise and wildlife that it had been agreed should be carried out before the application returned to Committee, the Development Management Service Manager and Vice-Chairman assured members that the fullest discussions would take place on the methodology before the surveys were taken and the results reported to the Committee.

The proposition that the minutes be accepted as a correct record of decisions taken, subject to the two amendments noted above was then put to the vote and carried.

To consider applications received for the grant of planning permission – reports prepared by the Case Officer.

                                                          (Enclosure)

Prior to discussion on applications before the Committee, the Development Management Service Manager drew the attention of Members to the late report which had been circulated, and which referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This had been published on 27^th March 2012, and took effect from that date, replacing all previous Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and guidance notes, the Circular on Planning Obligations and a number of Chief Planning Officer letters. However, companion guidance to PPSs remained extant.

He outlined the key elements of the NPPF and noted the effect of it on applications before the Committee at this meeting, setting out in detail which of the PPS had been superseded, and by which section of the NPPF. In his view there were no fundamental or significant changes. It was intended that future committee reports would refer to the relevant sections of the NPPF.

Discussion then took place on the planning applications on the agenda.

(1.32pm – Councillor Wilkins left the meeting, having declared an interest).

Decision:-

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

PJM1

Application ref:         S12/0070/MJNF

Description:              Redevelopment of existing tennis club to include the erection of building to incorporate 4 indoor tennis courts with associated changing, café, bar studios, education room and gym together with 13 outdoor tennis courts, formation of new access, car parking and landscaping

Location:                   Grantham Tennis Club, Gonerby Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 8HU

Decision:                   Approved

Noting comments from Planning Policy, Lincolnshire Heritage and South Kesteven Arboriculturalist, no objection from the Highway Authority, Network Rail, Lincolnshire Police, Environmental Health, Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, the Environment Agency or the Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board, support from Sport England, objections from nearby residents, the submission of an amended Travel Plan and Flood Risk Assessment and submissions from the applicants in support; late information report circulated to Members at the meeting, including comments from the Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board, additional information from the applicant’s agent, additional consultee comments and officer comment on all the information received, together with a suggested amendment to condition 8, report of site inspection and comments made by Members at the meeting.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved. 

It was then proposed and seconded, as an amendment, that the open space to the south of the site be increased by the reduction of the southernmost block of courts from 3 to 2, and their re-alignment by 90 degrees.

On being put to the vote the amendment was lost. The proposition was then put to the vote and agreed, and the application was approved subject to the summary of reasons set out by the Case Officer in the circulated report, and subject to the following conditions:

1.      The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2.      No development shall take place until samples of the materials (including colour of render, paintwork or colourwash) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

The Committee Support Officer had circulated a list of proposed dates and site visit groups, to take effect from the visits before the next meeting. He said that the lists were based on, and an extension of, the last list but would depend on whether the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and composition of the committee was the same after the annual meeting of the Council in May. In the event that there were changes, the list would be re-drawn and circulated.

(3.12pm – Councillor Morgan left the meeting, having declared an interest).

Case Officer’s report.

(Enclosure)

Decision:-

To determine the application as follows:-

KJC1

Application ref:         S11/0967/MJRF

Description:              Demolition of 49 St Catherine’s Road, and 1A Dudley Road, and construction of retirement accommodation for the elderly including provision of communal facilities, landscaping and car parking

Location:                   49 St Catherine’s Road, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 9DE

Decision:                   Minded to refuse

Members noted the above application, which was before the Committee following an appeal against non-determination. The application would now be considered by the Planning Inspectorate and could not be determined by the authority. However, members were now being asked how they would determine the application in its current format so that this could form the local planning authority’s case at the appeal.

The Committee noted the full standard report on the application, which had been submitted in August 2011, in particular the comments from the Highway Authority, Anglian Water, Environment Agency, Open Space Officer, Lincolnshire Community Health Services, Historic Environment Officer (Archaeology), Crime Prevention Officer, Environmental Protection, Tree Officer and Planning Policy, confirmation from  English Heritage that the building does not meet the criteria for designation in a national context, lengthy comments from the Acting Principal Conservation Officer, comments from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and representations (including a petition) from neighbouring residents and letters in support, and a note of the required S.106 Heads of Terms.

The Development Management Service Manager outlined the reasons on which the application had been deferred at the meeting in February 2012, and suggested a view which could be taken on each of the four reasons as follows:-

1.    Bulk and size – officers could put forward a good case on these grounds.

2.    Access – there was no support from the Highway Authority for an access off St. Catherine’s Road, and it was not suggested that this ground be pursued.

3.    Car Parking – bearing in mind the applicant’s expertise in this regard, it was considered that car parking provision was acceptable, and that this ground should not be pursued.

4.    Incorporation of the existing building in the scheme – English Heritage had not considered the building worthy of protection, and the case for including this ground was insufficient.

In summary, he suggested that he would only be comfortable taking the Council’s case at the Hearing on point 1 above.

A lengthy discussion then took place, during which it was proposed and seconded that:-

“The Committee are minded to refuse the application on the basis of the adverse impact of the development on the street scene and the amenities of neighbours due to the scale and bulk of the proposed buildings.”

Further discussion took place on the Development Management Service Manager’s report and on the proposition. It was suggested by the Development Management Service Manager that the Council’s case should concentrate on the strongest point possible. However, members were of the opinion that all matters raised at the last meeting in objection should be part of the Council’s case. The Development Management Service Manager and Assistant Solicitor reiterated the advice against including all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Report No. PLA929 by the Development Management Service Manager

                                                                       (Enclosure)

The Development Management Service Manager submitted his report PLA929 listing details of applications not determined within the eight-week time period. Also submitted was a list of applications dealt with under delegated powers, a planning appeals update/summary including copies of appeal decisions as at 20^th March 2012, and a table showing planning applications performance as at February 2012.

In response to queries from members, the Development Management Service Manager gave an update in relation to various applications listed in the tables.  A Member made comment in relation to one of the appeal decisions, and this was noted by the Committee.

The meeting closed at 4.30pm.