Advertising
 
Posted by: John Brace | 28th October 2011

Planning Committee 25th October 2011 APP/11/00977 & APP/7/00887 Part 11

Cllr Keeley asked a question about appearance and amenity. He referred to a recent appeal decision, where the committee’s decision had been overturned. The A4 use was upheld at appeal, but it was not mentioned in the report which he felt was subjective.

Matthew Davies said the planning regulations were clear, planning appeals are material as long as they are relevant to the application being assessed.

Cllr Keeley said it was material as it was on the same road, however it was subjective and they had to be careful.

Matthew Rushton said he hadn’t got a copy. Cllr Elderton said he had raised valid points.

Cllr Keeley moved refusal on the grounds it contravened guidance in SPD 3 & would led to a proliferation. Cllr Realey seconded refusal. Cllrs Stuart Kelly, James Keeley and a number of other councillors voted to refuse the application. Cllr Dave Mitchell and Cllr Wendy Clements voted to accept the planning application. The application was refused.

Cllr Elderton said they had all got the gist, but they would require something specific afterwards.
Cllr Keeley said it had not met the separation distances in SPD 3 & would lead to a proliferation. Cllr Elderton asked Cllr Keeley to email Matthew.

Cllr Bernie Mooney returned (having previously declared a prejudicial interest in this item).

The Planning Committee then considered Planning Application APP/7/00887. The officer said there would be temporary accommodation for the residents who would need relocating and that the closest dwelling was at number twenty, it was recommended for approval.


Categories