Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from S. Britton, K. Chhapi, Malcolm Elliot, R. Gill, A. McWhirr, and D. Smith.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2007 are attached and the Panel is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

It was noted that R. Gill’s name was not included in the apologies for absence.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the Panel held on 16 May 2007 be confirmed as a correct record, subject to the above amendment.

Glenfield Railway Tunnel

The Chair reported back that those attending the site visit had been assured that the proposals for the maintenance works were appropriate and suitable.

Labour Group Attendance at CAP meetings

Councillor Patrick Kitterick, Cabinet Portfolio Holder – Regeneration and Transport, attended the meeting and outlined the position of the Labour Group with regard to attendance at CAP meetings. He noted that his group had discussed the matter. As far as Councillors who were members of the Planning and Development Control (PDC) Committee, there were still concerns about the issue of pre-determination, more specifically where a Councillor was seemed to have gained a pre-determined view on an application prior to considering it at a Committee meeting. He also pointed to case law arising from Islington which had shown that attendance at a body such as CAP was felt to have influenced Councillors in their decision making. Therefore his group didn’t feel it would be suitable for members of the PDC Committee to attend.

He did however comment that it would be acceptable for members of the Labour Group who weren’t members of the PDC Committee to attend, although he wasn’t presently aware of any interested persons. He also gave a commitment to providing support from the Committee Services section to the Panel.

He also said that he was happy to attend future meetings of the Panel to discuss any matters of policy which the Panel wanted to consider. Further he felt that there could be standing speaking rights on offer to CAP members at the Regeneration and Transport Scrutiny function. He commented further that the work of the Panel was valued and he was happy to consider further ways in which Panel Members thought that CAP could engage in the policy process.

Panel members made a number of comments.

It was commented that Councillors on the Planning and Development Control Committee must meet with and be contacted by constituents and developers as part of the application process on a regular basis. Cllr. Kitterick stated that members of the Committee would declare the fact that they had been contacted by anyone. He also stated that a Committee member would not meet with a developer independently.

It was felt that people attending the Panel were hearing more detailed information about planning applications; therefore it would actually be useful for decision makers to attend. Cllr. Kitterick in response stated that due to the quasi-judicial nature of planning decisions it would seem unfair to an applicant for them to not have similar access to the decision makers.

Officers noted that the Panel had been in existence for 20 years with Councillors attending and queried why their attendance was an issue now. Cllr. Kitterick noted that standards in Local Government were now more of an issue. The Standards Board requirements now put Councillors in the spotlight over their conduct. He felt that they were perhaps too officious in their application of the rules. He also commented that his group didn’t judge other political  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

The Service Director, Planning and Policy submits a report on decisions made by the Planning and Development Control Committee on planning applications previously considered by the Panel.

Members raised no comment on this report.

The Service Director, Environment submits a report on planning applications received for consideration by the Panel.

LATE ITEM

COLLEGE HALL, KNIGHTON

Listed Building Consent 20080981, Planning Application 20080980

Change of use, extensions and new development in grounds

The Director said that the application was for the conversion of the building to flats.

The Panel were pleased that Latimer House was being retained and had no objections to the conversion to flats. They noted that the scale of the buildings with their different heights was very important on the site and the roof extensions would ruin the whole ensemble. They accepted the need for the change of use and the addition of staircases, however commented that additional storeys would destroy the character of the site. The Panel also stated that the doubling in height of block D would be particularly damaging to the buildings character.

The Panel were informed that it was the demands of affordable housing that was creating the need for extra storeys and stated that there were plenty of sites in the City to provide affordable housing and it was a shame they had to put it in this location. The Panel suggested that more development could be added to the car park area perhaps with the loss of one large tree to create the extra affordable houses required.

In terms of the new build, the Panel thought that the proposed town houses were not very well designed and the block to replace the bike shed would obscure views into the site and should be omitted. The Panel stated that the new build next to Latimer house was considered acceptable

Overall the Panel though that the scheme was detrimental to the character of the buildings, the other listed buildings nearby and the conservation area. 

The Panel recommended refusal on this application.

A) WALNUT STREET BRIDGE

Listed Building Consent 20080789

Repairs to bridge

The Director said that the application was for repairs to the bridge following damage caused by a traffic accident. The work involves the reinstatement of a section of the cast iron parapet. The Panel made observations on the replacement of another section of the parapet in 2006.

The Panel had no objections to the use of spheriodal graphite to repair the bridge as they commented that it was logical to use the best materials available. They asked if measures could be implemented to prevent further accidents.

The Panel recommended approval on this application.

B) 53B JARROM STREET, ST ANDREWS CHURCH VICARAGE

Listed Building Consent 20080916, Planning Application 20080902

Change of use, alterations

The Director said that the application was for the change of use of the building from educational use back to residential. The proposal involved internal and external alterations.

The Panel opposed the French windows as they thought it would upset the integrity of that side of the building and commented that they would have liked to see the existing window retained. They had no objections to the other work but stated that the steps should be retained underneath the ramp.

The Panel recommended seeking amendments on this application.

C) 119-121  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

To consider such other business as, in the opinion of the Chair, ought, by reason of special circumstances, to be considered urgently.

Members are asked to inform the Chair and Committee Administrator in advance of the meeting if they have urgent business that they wish to be considered.

Officers noted that the Article 4 Direction came into effect at the end of the week following the meeting.

It was noted that the date of the next meeting would be Wednesday 20 June.

The meeting closed at 6.57pm.