Agenda and minutes

The Committee was notified by the Chief Executive that he had received notices under Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 and had appointed Councillor H G Wheat in place of Councillor Turner and Councillor Mrs M Radley in place of Councillor N Radley for this meeting only.

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

There were none declared.

     (Enclosure)

The minutes of the meeting held on 4^th July 2006 were confirmed as a correct record of decisions taken.

Report PLA599 by the Acting Development Services Manager

                                (Enclosure)

Decision:-

That, contrary to the decision made at the Development Control Committee on 16^th May 2006, application SO6/0366/35 – residential development, 201 Barrowby Road, Grantham, be permitted without the requirement for an educational contribution through a Section 106 Agreement, but with the imposition of the conditions previously suggested.

In report PLA599 the Acting Development Control Services Manager reminded members that the above application had been considered at the committee’s meeting on 16^th May 2006, when authorisation had been given to determine the application after consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman and subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to an educational contribution. 

In April, and as part of the written comment on the application, the County Council had indicated that they were seeking an educational contribution of £55,785.00.  The Acting Development Control Services Manager also reminded members that when an adjacent site (the Nissan garage) had been approved at the end of 2005 the County Council had also requested an educational contribution as part of that proposal.  However it was considered that as the required funds could not be apportioned to a nearby school and would have essentially been used by the County Council for any Grantham school, it was not deemed to be a direct requirement as a result of the development proposed and the request was not agreed.  Government Circular 05/05 provided the Secretary of State’s policy on planning obligations and stated that they should only be sought where they met certain tests, which were set out in full in the report.  It was considered that all of the tests were relevant, and further on the circular stated that obligations must be so directly related to proposed development that the development ought not to be permitted without them. There should also be a functional geographic link between the development and the item being provided.

In the light of the decision made on the adjacent site the County Council had been asked to justify their request, and their letter in response was set out in full in the report.

It was clear that the information received showed that the County Council were hoping to “bank” the requested contribution and they had in addition confirmed that there was no specific local school that the funds would go to as a direct result of the development proposed.  There was clearly no functional or geographical link between the development and the contribution being asked for, and in the opinion of the authority the request was contrary to the requirements of Circular 05/05 and should not be taken into consideration as part of the proposals.

During the ensuing general discussion, members queried whether or not a “community contribution” could be sought in place of the educational contribution now being specifically discussed.  The Principal Planning Officer responded that whatever the planning obligation was, it would be necessary for it to meet the criteria set out in Circular 05/05 and clearly the suggestions made would not.

It was accordingly proposed, seconded and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Report PLA601 by the Acting Development Services Manager

                     (Enclosure)

Noting that the requirement for amended conditions can be covered without committee intervention, this item was withdrawn.

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

 (a)          Straight forward list                                                (Enclosure)

(b)     List for debate                                                        (Enclosure)

Decision:-

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

SF.1

Application ref:              S06/0862/35

Description:                    Construction of summer house

Location:                         177a, Belton Lane, Grantham

Decision:                          Approved

Subject to the following condition:-

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

Decision:-

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

NU.1

Application ref:              S06/0576/54

Description:                    Three retail units & six flats

Location:                         Land Adj. Lytham Close, Sunningdale, Grantham

Decision:                          Refused

Noting comments from the Parish Council, Highway Authority and Arboriculturalist, numerous representations from local residents and submissions in support from the applicants.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that, notwithstanding the comments received from members, which were included in the report, the recommendation was still to approve the application subject to conditions.  At the request of the Committee Support Officer, all members who had voted that they were minded to refuse the application at the last meeting confirmed that they agreed with the reasons set out in the agenda.

It was then formally proposed and seconded that the application be refused.

The Committee Support Officer then reminded members that under the terms of the Constitution, having indicated that they were minded to refuse the application, and having submitted reasons for this and considered the comments of the Development Control Services Manager thereon, they could now proceed, if they wished, to formally refuse the application, although this must be by a recorded vote.

Those voting for or against the proposal are recorded below:-

The proposition was therefore carried, and the application was refused for the following reasons:-

Consent is sought for the development of the site with retail units at ground floor and 6 apartments at first floor.  It is considered that the erection of two storey building on this site, by reason of the site levels and the proximity of the building to the existing dwellings to the north, would result in an overbearing impact on those properties to the detriment of the residential amenity of the occupiers.  In addition it is considered that the proposal will from an overdevelopment of the site resulting in the provision of an overbearing structure that would not be in keeping with the surrounding area.  For these reasons it is considered that the development would be contrary to Policies S6 and EN1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan. 

NR.1

Application ref:              S06/0622/55

Description:                     Four dwellings & garage and replacement garage to Farbrooke

Location:                         Farbrooke, 17, Main Road, Long Bennington

Decision:                          Refused

Noting comments from the Parish Council, Highway Authority and Assets & Facilities Management, no objection from the Community Archaeologist, representations from nearby residents, submissions in support from the applicants and further comments from local residents. 

The Principal Planning Officer drew attention to the reasons for refusal which had been given to the committee at the last meeting.  His comments were set out in full in the report and he confirmed the recommendation was still to approve, subject to conditions.

The Committee Support Officer then reminded members that under the terms of the Constitution, having indicated that they were minded to refuse the application, and having submitted their reasons for this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Report PLA600 by the Acting Development Services Manager                                             (Enclosure)

The Acting Development Control Services Manager submitted his report PLA600 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 list of appeals and newly submitted appeals received during July 2006 and a summary of the Department of the Environment Statistical Returns for the period April to June 2006.

The meeting closed at 5.42pm