Agenda item

A motion to defer the application was proposed by Councillor Webb and seconded by Councillor Young.

This motion was carried unanimously. The Sub-Committee agreed to defer the application to allow for the consideration of the matter at the next Planning Sub-Committee meeting.

6.1  PROPOSAL: Submission of details pursuant to conditions 3 (Materials), 4 (Detailed Drawings), 5 (Construction Management Logistics Plan), 7, (Contaminated Land), 11 (Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement) 12 (Landscaping), 13 (Green Roof) & 16 (Obscure Glazing) attached to planning permission 2018/4324 dated 13/07/2020.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Revised Construction Management and Logistics Plan received revised facade drawings received.

6.2  The Council’s Planning Service’s Senior Planning Officer - North Team introduced the planning application as set out in the published papers. During the course of the officer’s presentation reference was made to the addendum and the following amendments to the application:

  Revised Construction Management (Rev B) received 07/09/2022

Email requesting omission of Tree Protection condition (condition 11) from this application, received 07/09/2022

In connection with the omission of condition 11 (Tree Protection) from this application, revised description of proposal:

Submission of details pursuant to conditions 3 (Materials), 4 (Detailed

Drawings), 5 (Construction Management Logistics Plan), 7, (Contaminated Land), 12 (Landscaping), 13(Green Roof) & 16 (Obscure Glazing) attached to planning permission 2018/4324 dated 13/07/2020.

Drawing Numbers: PL04 Rev A; PL05 Rev C; PL07 Rev A; Land Science

Phase I and Phase II Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Report reference

LS5267;

Construction Management Plan Rev B dated 07/09/2022

In connection with the omission of condition 11 (Tree Protection) from this application, delete paragraphs 6.1.6 and 6.1.13 and renumber retained paragraphs accordingly

6.3  The Sub-Committee first heard from a local resident speaking in objection to the application. They raised concerns about how access to other premises would be maintained during construction works. It was also unclear from the proposals how noise and disturbance from construction process would be managed.

6.4  A local Councillor spoke next in objection, speaking on behalf of local residents. They echoed the local residents' concerns about local residents' access to the private road and the wording of condition 5.

The Sub-Committee noted that no persons were registered to speak in support of the application.

6.5  The Sub-Committee meeting entered the discussion phase where the following points were highlighted:

·  Regarding access to the private road, the Senior Planning Officer stressed that ultimately it was a private matter. A revised Construction Management Plan (CMP) had been received on the day of the meeting which indicated that there would be no parking for operatives on Springdale Mews. The CMP had already stated that there would be no parking on Springdale Road which the Council did have jurisdiction over;

·  The Planning Service understood that the unloading of any equipment relating to the construction phase may lead to a  short term interruption;

·  The Sub-Committee noted that the Council’s transport team had reviewed the CMP, however as previously mentioned, that Council did not have jurisdiction over the private road because it was not part of the public highway;

·  Objectors disputed the assertion from the Planning Service that the constructors would not park on the private road. It was suggested that because of the nature of the construction involved that they would have to park on the driveway and that it would impact on local residents’ amenity access;

·  As part of the s106 agreement the access road to the rear of the site would be resurfaced. It was discussed whether the owner of the access road was included in the legal agreement. The Planning Service was of the view that ownership of the land was not a material planning issue. When the original application was submitted notice was served on all those who had title that the applicant could find in the driveway in question. The Legal Officer reminded Sub-Committee members that they were there to consider the details only.  Potential underlying issues relating to the s106 agreement was a separate matter;

·  It was noted that a revised CMP had been received on the day of the meeting and that only minor revisions had been made to the CMP and had been prior to publication was shared with the transport and network team. The revised CMP was also available on the Council’s Planning website. Any noise breakout  on site would be covered by building regulations;

·  The Planning Service would seek with any planning application that construction equipment would of a low emission quality;

·  Any waste material would be stored on site as indicated on the drawings;

·  The CMP had been reviewed by members of the Council’s Network Management Team and they were satisfied with its contents. Based on the details that had been submitted the team found the plan satisfactory. The only amendment that was made to the plan was that stating  that there was a private road and that the constructor would show goodwill to ensure that there was no operative parking on site;

·  Sub-Committee members were reminded that the Council did not have jurisdiction over the private access road. The CMP had been assessed, linked into the previous approved application and the Planning Service was satisfied with the revised plan and its adherence to the relevant policies;

·  The Sub-Committee were reminded that they had to consider whether or not they were satisfied with the level of detail in the application  before them;

·  It was highlighted that the CMP had been on the planning portal for a number of months and was available to view. The Planning Service had asked for a number of minor amendments and overall the CMP was deemed to be satisfactory.

In light of concerns raised from some of the Sub-Committee members about the CMP and ongoing concerns over local residents' access to the private road, the Chair recommended that the application be deferred. The CMP would be considered at a future meeting and also that the applicant be present at that meeting. The Sub-Committee agreed to defer making a decision on the application.

Decision:

A motion to defer the application was proposed by Councillor Webb and seconded by Councillor Young.

This motion was carried unanimously. The Sub-Committee agreed to DEFER the application to allow for the consideration of the matter at the next Planning Sub-Committee meeting.