Agenda item

1.        The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 24/00955/FUL in respect of a retrospective change of an area of waste land approx. 200sqm in the south of the site to provide car park space for up to six cars. Removal of storage shed (7.3m x 4.3m) and a derelict greenhouse.

2.       Ms Alice Attwood introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard did not have any further observations.

4.       The Chairman noted that nobody had registered to speak on the application.

Member Questions to Officers

5.       Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·       Mrs Attwood stated that there was a condition for an Arboricultural Method Statement, which would ensure there was oversight of what happened on site, and secondary triggers for mitigation and compensation. Officers noted that there could be a need for remedial work to make sure that there was longevity.

·       Ms Attwood stated that the current surface was type one, which was semi permeable and partly loose.

·       Regarding restrictions on opening times, Mrs Atwood stated that this was partly due to objections raised by local residents to car doors being shut at night by carers. Officers understood the extra capacity was not required at night and this was why the hours had been agreed. It was expected that administrative staff and contractors who were only present during the day would use the staff parking.

·       Ms Attwood noted the need to balance priorities when resurfacing the car park. Tarmac would be quieter but would likely harm the trees covered by the Tree Protection Order (TPO). Officers noted that the noise management plan set out where the sensitive receptors were, and other mitigation methods could be introduced. 

·       Ms Attwood confirmed that no lighting was included as part of the scheme, but a lighting condition was included so that all external lighting details would need to be submitted to the planning department so it could be checked and confirmed as being necessary.

·       Regarding why the application was retrospective, Mr Till commented that there were permitted development rights for commercial organisations to put hard standing down on their land, and it was not unusual for an applicant to be confused as to when the permitted development rights applied.

Debate

6.       Councillor Lewis opened the debate by supporting the application. She proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Kander.

7.      The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Kander, to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions in the main report and update report.