Agenda and minutes

Councillors Fisher, Stennett and Sudbury.

14/01276/OUT Land off Stone Crescent

Councillor Babbage – personal only - plays team football rugby at King George V Playing Field, adjacent to the site.

14/01276/OUT Land off Stone Crescent

Councillor Baker and Councillor Rowena Hay.

14/01632/FUL Hobart House, Princess Elizabeth Way

Councillor Lillywhite.

Present on Planning View:  Councillors Babbage, Barnes, Chard, Lillywhite, Mason, McCloskey, Seacome and Thornton.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th November 2014 be approved and signed as a correct record without corrections.

Councillor Barnes welcomed Councillor Lillywhite to the meeting, now representing PAB as a permanent Member of the Committee rather than as a substitute.

MJC introduced this outline application for residential development of a parcel of land identified in the map on Page 15 of the agenda.  It is an outline only, with all matters reserved, other than access.  Members must consider whether the principle is acceptable and whether access to the site is acceptable.  Officers recommend that planning permission be granted, subject to 40% affordable housing being achieved, and a contribution to education and playspace being made. 

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

AC:  doesn’t like outline applications, and is concerned about access to the site.  The roads the Planning View bus went down to reach the site are narrow.  MJC has said there could be 20 houses built on the site, which could mean 40 additional cars.  Highways officers have stated that this is alright, but what are the views of other Members and officers?

PT:  is also concerned about the access road to Wharfedale Square – on Planning View, this was blocked with cars from top to bottom.  Can double yellow lines be introduced to ensure proper access 24/7?  The area looked very congested.

PB:  considers this application to be excellent use of this piece of land, with 40% affordable housing a massive bonus.  If there is any concern about numbers, this can be discussed at the reserved matters stage, together with highways issues; the outline application aims to establish that residential use of the site is OK.

MB:  has the contaminated land officer any further information, for the future application?

JF:  this may be just an outline application to establish the use of the land for houses, but the decision made tonight regarding access will be set in stone.  Members have been caught out in this way before. The access road does seem rather narrow, and this will not change with the full application.

AC:  agrees with JF.  Outline applications often don’t even come back to Committee; this one might be nodded through by officers, which would be wrong.

CH:  is happy to go forward with this.  Understands the problems with the access roads, but is confident that officers are listening to Members’ concerns.  It will be recorded in the minutes that Members consider the outline application is OK but have some concerns about access as against the types of housing.  This will give the developer a clue about what will be acceptable, for example if for a tower block, it would not be acceptable.

PT:  can we ask for the full application to come back to Committee for determination?

MJC, in response:

-          appreciates Members’ reservations about outline applications, but reminds them that this is a perfectly legitimate application to make; the authority is being asked to consider simply if the principle of residential development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

CS introduced the application for replacement windows and doors as above, which was at Committee because it concerns a council-owned site.  The recommendation is to approve, subject to a condition in relation to commencement.

Public Speaking:

There was none.

Member debate:

AL:  had been concerned that the 2-inch concrete band surrounding the existing windows was to be removed leaving a white band which would not have looked good, but understands that this has since been amended and is acceptable.

AC:  was going to make the same point; missed the amendment.

CS, in response: 

-          there has not been any amendment. Officers have looked at supporting documents and clarified this evening that the windows will feature a timber surround sub frame with rosewood uPVC on top; there will be no thick white frame.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

13 in support - unanimous

PERMIT