Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Kaberry-Brown, Jacky Smith and Wren.

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

Councillor Judy Stevens declared a personal interest in Application JJ1 as she was particularly well acquainted with the premises that were the subject of the application.

                                                                                           (Enclosure)

The minutes of the meeting held on 13^th December 2011 were approved as a correct record of decisions taken.

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

Decision: -

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

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, NG31 9DE

Decision:                          Deferred.

Noting receipt by English Heritage of an application for the listing of 49 St Catherine’s Road, Grantham, pending further consideration at a future meeting.

JJ1

Application ref:                S11/2347/FULL

Description:                     Erection of bungalow in connection with exotic pet refuge.

Location:                          102 Station Road, Deeping St James, Peterborough, Lincolnshire, PE6 8RH.

Decision:                          Deferred

Noting comments made during the public speaking from:-

Darren Mansfield- in support

together with comments from the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, no objection from the Environment Agency or Highway Authority, and comments from a nearby resident; late information report circulated to members present at the meeting including additional information in support from the applicant and no objection from Heritage Lincolnshire or Natural England, report of site inspection and comments made by members at the meeting.

The Chairman said that in view of what had been said during the public speaking, there was clearly more information to be obtained in regard to this application and he accordingly proposed that it be deferred for further information. This proposal received no seconder.

A further proposal was made, and seconded, that the application be approved subject to a condition that the development would only be occupied by a worker (and family members) who are essentially engaged in the direct care of the animals at the exotic pet refuge, being the land upon which the dwelling stands, and is not to be used as an independent dwelling.

The Development Management Service Manager advised members that planning reasons for overturning the case officer’s recommendations must be recorded, although he was not unhappy with the suggested condition brought forward earlier. For the guidance of Members the Assistant Solicitor referred to the six tests which must apply to the consideration of all applications, and he suggested that the Committee should have regard to annex “A” of PPS7, which indicated that any condition should confirm that the dwelling was essential to the needs of the enterprise concerned. The proposer of the motion indicated that he would be happy if consideration at this meeting was deferred, with authority given to the Chairman or Vice Chairman to approve the application subject to standard conditions and incorporating an appropriately worded condition, along the lines noted below:-

“That the development is only to be occupied by a worker (and family members) who is essentially engaged in the direct care of the animals at the exotic pet refuge, being the land upon which the dwelling stands, and is not to be used as an independent dwelling.”

The Development Management Service Manager advised the Committee that it would be necessary to advertise the application and the intention to approve it as a departure from the Local Plan. This would also form part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

                                                                                           (To follow)

Decision:-

To determine the two applications as listed below:-

NB1

Application ref:                S11/0902/MJRF

Description:                     Creation of 3 flats from 12 bedsits and erection of 11 dwelling/flats with associated parking at land rear of 51-58 Scotgate

Location:                          Blenheim Court, 51 Scotgate, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 2YQ           

Decision:                          Minded to refuse.

Members noted the above application, which was before the Committee as an additional item 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 asked to support the proposed reason for refusing permission which would form part of the authority’s case at the appeal.

The Committee noted the full standard report on the application, which had been submitted in July 2011, in particular the objection from Stamford Town Council and comments from Lincolnshire Heritage, Public Open Space Officer, Primary Care Trust, Education Authority, Stamford Civic Society, English Heritage, the consultant architect , Environmental Health, Highway Authority and Partnership Project Officer, together with a number of objections from nearby residents and, in the event of approval, a note of the proposed Section 106 Heads of Terms, and comments made by Members at the meeting.

It was proposed, seconded and agreed that had the application been determined by the Committee, planning permission would have been refused for the following reasons (which should be the Councils’ case at the forthcoming appeal):

1.      The scale and height of parts of the scheme, in particular the 2½-storey element, would be taller rather than subservient to a number of Listed Buildings that front Scotgate.  Furthermore, the proposed scheme would have a relatively uniform eave and ridge height which would not respect the established character of the surrounding area which is varied in terms of townscape.  The proposed development is, therefore, considered to detrimentally affect the setting of adjacent Listed Buildings as well as not respect the character of the Conservation Area.  The proposal is therefore deemed contrary to policies HE7, HE9 and HE10 of PPS5; with no other material planning considerations to indicate that the application should be determined otherwise.

NB2

Application ref:                S11/0903/LB

Description:                     Partial demolition of Listed Building (elements to the rear) and alteration to form 3 apartments

Location:                          Blenheim Court, 51 Scotgate, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 2YG

Decision:                          Minded to approve

Noting comments from Stamford Town Council, no objection from the Consultant Architect and comments from English Heritage together with a number of comments from nearby residents and comments made by Members at the meeting.

It was proposed, seconded and agreed, that, had the Committee determined the application it would have been approved, subject to the summary of reasons set out by the case officer and subject also to the following conditions (and that this is the Council’s case at the forthcoming appeal):

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

2.    No development shall take place until samples of the materials (including colour of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

It was proposed and seconded that:-

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 100A OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972, THE PUBLIC BE EXCLUDED FROM THE MEETING BECAUSE OF THE LIKELIHOOD, IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED, THAT IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WERE TO BE PRESENT, THERE WOULD BE A DISCLOSURE TO THEM OF EXEMPT INFORMATION AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPHS 5 AND 7 OF PART 1 OF SCHEDULE 12A OF THE ACT.

This proposition was approved.

(16.29 – the press and public left the meeting).

Report No. PLA918 from the Planning Enforcement Officer   (Enclosure)

Decision: -

That the Development Management Service Manager be authorised to commence prosecution proceedings for failing to comply with the terms of the listed building enforcement notice in respect of the installation of unauthorised UPVC and wooden windows at The Black Bull Lobthorpe.

Members had before them report PLA918 from the Planning Enforcement Officer in relation to ongoing enforcement action and prosecution proceedings in connection with the installation of UPVC windows in a listed building, The Black Bull, Lobthorpe. Authority to commence proceedings had initially been given to the Corporate Head of Sustainable Communities. However, this post no longer existed and it was considered necessary, to avoid future problems during the process, to obtain formal authority to be given to the Development Management Service Manager.

It was accordingly proposed, seconded and agreed, that the authority formally given to the Corporate Head of Sustainable Communities be amended to the Development Management Service Manager in regard to enforcement and prosecution proceedings with respect to the installation of unauthorised UPVC windows at The Black Bull, Lobthorpe.

Report No. PLA921 by the Development Management Service Manager.       (Enclosure)

The Development Management Service Manager submitted his report PLA921 listing details of applications not determined within the 8-week time period. Also submitted was a list of applications dealt with under delegated powers and a planning appeals update/summary, including copies of appeal decisions, as at the end of July 2011. Also included was a table showing the planning application performance figures as at November 2011.

The meeting closed at 16.35.