1. law, govt and politics
2. government
3. legislative

Public Document Pack
Please ask for: Cheryl Clark
Direct Dial: (01892) 554413
E-mail: cheryl.clark@tunbridgewells.gov.uk
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
Date: 7 April 2015
Dear Councillor
PLANNING COMMITTEE - WEDNESDAY, 8TH APRIL, 2015
I am now able to enclose, for consideration at the next meeting on Wednesday, 8th April, 2015 the
minutes of the previous meeting that were unavailable when the agenda was printed.
Agenda No
5
Item
To approve the minutes of the meeting dated 25 March 2015 (Pages 1 - 12)
Cheryl Clark
Democratic services Officer
Encs
This page is intentionally left blank
Agenda Item 5
1
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 25 March 2015
Present: Councillor Mrs Soyke (Chairman)
Councillors Noakes (Vice-Chairman), Backhouse, Mrs Cobbold, Elliott, Dr Hall,
Patterson, Scholes, Sloan, Smith, Mrs Thomas, Tompsett, Ward and Webb
Officers in Attendance: Tim Archer (Principal Planning Officer), Cheryl Clark (Democratic
Services Officer), Jane Lynch (Head of Planning), Mark Stephenson (Principal Conservation
Officer), Peter Hockney (DM Team Leader), Jo Smith (Lawyer) and Charlotte Oben
(Planning Officer)
Other Members in Attendance: Councillors McDermott and Lockhart
APOLOGIES
PLA146/14
Apologies for absence were recorded from Councillor Weeden.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
PLA147/14
Councillor Mrs Soyke declared a ‘significant other interest’ with reference to
application 14/506664 as she was related to the applicant. She would
therefore leave the chamber and the Vice-chairman would take the chair
while the application was considered.
DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING (IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTOCOL FOR
MEMBERS TAKING PART IN THE PLANNING PROCESS, PART 5, SECTION 5.11,
PARAGRAPH 6.6)
PLA148/14
No declarations of lobbying were made.
SITE INSPECTIONS
PLA149/14
The Chairman advised that a brief site visit had been undertaken earlier in the
day in respect of application 14/501788 for a new Committee Member who
had not previously had the opportunity to view the site. The Chairman had
also taken the opportunity to re-visit the site.
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 11 FEBRUARY 2015
PLA150/14
RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting dated 11 February be
recorded as a correct record, except that the words ‘allegations of’ be
replaced by ‘apparent’ in paragraph i of the Committee Member Discussion in
respect of application 14/503849.
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 14/501788 - LAND ADJACENT THREE WINDS,
NORTH ROAD, GOUDHURST
PLA151/14
Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services
submitted a report in respect of application 14/501788 and this was
summarised at the meeting by Mr Archer, Principal Planning Officer and
illustrated by means of a visual presentation.
Updates and additional representation – Since publication of the agenda
Page 1
Agenda Item 5
2
report, the presenting officer advised that 3 additional conditions were
proposed. There were no new representations.
Registered Speakers - There were 2 members of the public and a Parish
Councillor, who had registered to speak in accordance with the Constitution
rules (Procedure at Meetings of the Area Planning Committees). Summaries
of their views are provided below:
i.
Mr G Young, a partner at Farrells, architects and urban planners,
spoke in support of the application and his main points were as
follows:
 The design by Sir Terry Farrell in December 2002 was inspired by
the site and his understanding of the local vernacular as well as
details of his own house designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens.
 Mr Young had worked with Sir Terry, his team and the Council’s
planning officers at length to refine the design to achieve the
current proposal.
 The proposed house was discretely set down within the site and
repositioned with a frontage to the east in line with houses on
North Road so that open views to the west were retained. The
curtilage had been reduced to enable greater retention of the rural
landscape to the west.
 The proposed external materials of local brick, tile and timber
would be used in conjunction with innovative materials involving
lower carbon emissions than standard building materials.
 In summary the resulting design incorporated exceptional and
exemplary architecture and landscaping to significantly enhance
the setting.
ii.
Mr I Bull, a Chartered Town Planner and Development Consultant,
spoke on behalf of the applicants and his main points were as follows:
 He also confirmed the application to be the culmination of 18
months of dialogue between the relevant parties resulting in a
development of exceptional quality and innovative nature which
would complement and enhance the character and visual amenity
of the area.
 The officer set out the policy context and concluded that the
application fully met the criteria set out in paragraph 55 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
 The proposal was supported by the Parish Council and 14 letters
from local residents. There was only one resident objection and
no objections otherwise from official consultees.
 He particularly drew attention to the supporting comments and
conclusion from the Council’s Urban Designer as set out in
appendix B of the report.
iii.
Councillor Harris, Chairman of Goudhurst Parish Council spoke in
support of the application and his main points were as follows:
 They considered the superior design and landscaping would
enhance rather than detract from the surrounding valley.
 Currently outside the Limits to Built Development (LBD), they
would support the re-drawing of the boundary to include only this
building.
 He also endorsed the views of the Borough Council’s Urban
Designer.
Page 2
Agenda Item 5
3

The Parish Council fully supported the principles and reality of the
AONB and did not consider that this proposal would cause a
precedent to other development.
Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions
to Officers:
i.
Councillor Tompsett asked whether the comments relating to unsightly
buildings were relevant in planning terms. Mrs Lynch advised that any
existing buildings would always be considered, whether derelict or not
but their loss in this case was not an issue.
ii.
Councillor Dr Hall asked about the use of the new cement free
material and Mr Archer confirmed that this would be used for internal
floors and walls with traditional clay bricks used externally.
iii.
Councillor Dr Hall asked how officers defined the difference between
enhancing and significantly enhancing the setting. Mrs Lynch
explained that it was a matter of professional judgement by officers
having taken all relevant matters into consideration and for members
to consider accordingly.
iv.
Councillor Dr Hall also asked whether the energy efficiency and
carbon neutral elements were of greater importance than all other
issues such as design. Mr Hockney reiterated and expanded on Mrs
Lynch’s previous comment that each of the key elements had been
considered fully and weighing these up overall they considered there
was a significant enhancement. Members of the Committee might
disagree but that was a decision for them to make.
v.
Councillor Mrs Thomas asked about comments from KCC Highways,
which were to be verbally reported to the Committee. Mr Archer
confirmed that he had spoken with the KCC Highways Officer who had
confirmed that the access arrangements and their comments were
unchanged from those of the previous application.
vi.
Councillor Mr Thomas also asked where there was more detail of the
3 extra conditions. Mr Archer advised these were not shown on the
agenda but would ensure:
1. use of the new cement free product;
2. inclusion of the sustainability credentials put forward in the
application; and
3. that the home reached code 5 for sustainable homes.
Committee Member Discussion:
i.
Councillor Tompsett referred to the comments of the Council’s Urban
Designer that although code 5 or 6 for sustainable homes was
laudable it was not exceptional in itself and queried whether this
should therefore be taken into account as part of an exceptional site.
Mr Hockney advised that whilst this alone would not have been
sufficient, this together with all the other architectural, innovative
design elements and enhancements, weighed in favour of the
proposal. Mrs Lynch also referred to the conclusion of the report and
the iterative process culminating in meeting the criteria of paragraph
55 of the NPPF.
ii.
Councillor Webb recalled the discussions when he sat on the previous
Committee and the application was refused that Sir Terry Farrell had
said that he did not usually undertake residential properties. In
respect of the current proposal Councillor Webb stated that it was
contrary to Core Policy 1 and outside the Limits to Built Development
(LBD). There had been suggestions that the LBD could be re-drawn
Page 3
Agenda Item 5
4
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
more sensibly but they had already been through that and the
boundary was where it was. The key considerations were unchanged
and he referred to paragraph 10.04 and he thought the proposal failed
on being truly outstanding or innovative. He referred to paragraph
10.05 that said that the proposal was not truly outstanding and to the
paragraph 10.25 quoted by Mrs Lynch but this did not confirm the
proposal to be truly outstanding. He referred to paragraphs 10.04,
10.05, 10.12, 10.19 and 10.23 and he still thought that in spite of the
18 months dialogue there was little difference from the previous
application. He was aware of other truly amazing designs that had
been refused because they were outside the LBD. He therefore
proposed refusal of this application and it was seconded by Councillor
Dr Hall. Mrs Lynch clarified that although Councillor Webb had
referred to paragraph 10.05, this had referred back to the previous
proposal not being truly outstanding and was not a comment relating
to the current application.
Councillor Mrs Thomas pointed out that Goudhurst Parish Council
supported the proposal and their Chairman had spoken to endorse
their view. Planning Officers also supported the application and she
therefore proposed approval and this was seconded by Councillor
Backhouse.
Councillor Ward thought that Councillor Webb’s views would probably
be right if this was a new build in the countryside but he thought it was
beneficial in this case as it would be replacing dilapidated buildings
and would result in an improvement to the countryside even if it was
not truly outstanding in itself. On balance he would therefore support
the application.
Councillor Dr Hall recalled that it had been suggested last time that
the applicant should wait for the review of the Core Strategy when the
LBD might be re-drawn. In the meantime, however, this proposal
remained outside the LBD and it was mainly for this reason that she
had previously supported refusal. She drew attention to comments
repeated in the agenda report, where officers accepted that this was a
finely balanced decision and therefore it could go either way. The
proposal would still have an impact as admitted by officers in
paragraph 10.19 and she disagreed over the weight given to the
matter of carbon neutrality bearing in mind the problems in this
respect worldwide. Finally she did not consider clearing the
countryside of an eyesore was a relevant reason for approval in this
case because the sheds were so low anyway that they were not
visible behind the hedge.
Councillor Noakes noted that a considerable amount of work had been
put into this application and he strongly supported approval. He
corrected the report that indicated that the site was not served by a
footpath and advised that there was a quick route, albeit very steep,
directly between North Road and the High Street.
Councillor Mrs Soyke also supported the application. Her visit earlier
that day had reminded her of the steepness of the slope and from the
plans she considered that the proposal would sit well down within the
site and would barely be seen from the opposite side of the road. She
also considered that the plans she had seen online had been very
interesting and innovative and although it was difficult to be
categorical in terms of design, taken altogether she supported
approval.
As Chairman, in respect of the first motion put forward for refusal,
Page 4
Agenda Item 5
5
Councillor Mrs Soyke asked Councillors Webb and Dr Hall for their
reasons. Councillor Webb advised that no special circumstances had
been established and the proposal and materials were not truly
outstanding. The proposal was contrary to CP1, outside the LBD and
the site was not allocated under policy H6 for new development. The
countryside needed to be protected and would not be enhanced but
the proposal would cause visual harm. Mr Hockney summed up their
reasons as being similar to the previous reasons for refusal except
that Councillor Webb wished to specifically add that the proposal was
not truly outstanding.
ix.
Decision/voting – The first motion for refusal proposed by Councillor
Webb and seconded by Councillor Dr Hall was put to the vote but the
motion was lost. Subsequently the motion proposed by Councillor Mrs
Thomas and seconded by Councillor Backhouse was put forward and
a vote was taken to approve the application in line with the officer
recommendation.
RESOLVED - That application 14/501788 be approved subject to the plans,
conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 14/505961 - 28 WATERDOWN ROAD, ROYAL
TUNBRIDGE WELLS
PLA152/14
Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services
submitted a report in respect of application 14/505961 and this was
summarised at the meeting by Mr Hockney, Team Leader and illustrated by
means of a visual presentation.
Updates and additional representation – None.
Registered Speakers - There was one member of the public who had
registered to speak in accordance with the Constitution rules (Procedure at
Meetings of the Area Planning Committees).
iv.
Mr J Rigby objected to the application on behalf of Mrs L Hall, who
was the adjoining neighbour to the property. He asked members to
reject the application and his main points were as follows:
 The first issue was overlooking and the proposed fence of 1.5m
(he thought this equated to 4½ ft or 5½ ft) but it was significantly
less than the existing 6ft 6inch fence. With 4 young children Mrs
Hall valued their privacy and it was of particular concern to her that
anyone standing on the patio next door would be able to see into
their garden and also into their dining room.
 The officer did not mention that the fence was 6 inches away from
the patio and it was clearly evident that the impact of water
accumulating beside the patio at the base of the fence was also
causing the fence and posts to deteriorate.
 Although he did not consider that a 1.5m high fence would be
sufficient privacy wise, they were also concerned that as the
garden faced north it was already quite dark and the fence would
Page 5
Agenda Item 5
6
cause an increased loss of light and overshadowing.
Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions
to Officers:
vii.
Councillor Webb asked how long the existing 6ft 6in fence had been in
place. He also queried the issue over shading when the existing 6ft
6in fence would cause more shade than the proposed new fence. Mr
Hockney thought from its appearance that the existing fence seemed
to be over 4 years old and would have been immune from action even
if had been over the height allowed by permitted development rights.
At 6ft 6inches, however, it equated to 2m and might have been
considered permitted development. He also clarified that the 1.5m
fence would run along the patio and would be higher by about 40cm or
1ft 4inches at the far end compared with the existing fence which
dropped down as it followed the ground level. He referred to the cross
section diagram which illustrated the proposal.
viii.
Councillors Webb, Dr Hall and Elliott were all concerned over the
waterlogging issues and questioned the possibility of a condition to
mitigate the accumulation of water. Councillor Elliott asked about the
direction of sloping, run off and suggested a gutter to deal with surface
water drainage. Mr Hockney indicated there might be some run off
but there already appeared to be a gutter. He further explained that
except for the issue over the height of the patio, the application did not
require planning permission and a condition in respect of drainage
was not really relevant. He suggested, however, that an informative
might be applied for the neighbours to liaise and investigate and seek
a solution. But this would not be compulsory and the planning system
could not address all concerns.
ix.
Councillor Elliott also raised concerns over shading of the neighbour’s
garden by the fence and Mr Hockney repeated and expanded on his
previous explanations with reference to the slides from the
presentation.
x.
Mr Hockney also confirmed to Councillor Ward that the ownership of
the fence was not a planning consideration but a civil matter and to
Councillor Mrs Thomas that some of the bricks in the picture were just
darker in colour and not mossy due to damp.
xi.
Councillor Sloan also asked about the fence, sloping to the west and
how the patio and fence totalling 2.5m would appear from the
neighbour at no. 30. Mr Hockney displayed the slide showing the view
from the patio and indicated that there was no real change in levels
but Councillor Sloan suggested that the neighbour would therefore be
considerably overlooked. Mr Hockney explained that was why the
1.5m fence had been added as a condition to mitigate against the
overlooking whilst not significantly affecting the shading.
Committee Member Discussion:
x.
Councillor Webb agreed with the officer assessment and
recommendation and proposed approval. Councillor Scholes
seconded the proposal subject to inclusion of the informative
proposed and this was also accepted by Councillor Webb.
xi.
Councillor Elliott, however, was not happy with the situation of the
patio, which he thought was intrusive. He proposed refusal and this
was seconded by Councillor Dr Hall.
Decision/voting – The first motion considered was that proposed by
Page 6
Agenda Item 5
7
Councillor Webb, seconded by Councillor Scholes and the vote taken
confirmed approval of the application, in line with the officer recommendation
and with the addition of the informative as discussed. The second motion
that had been proposed was therefore redundant.
RESOLVED - That application 14/505961 be approved subject to the
conditions as set out in the agenda report and an additional informative as set
out below:
Additional Informative
The applicant should investigate the issue of water collecting between the
patio and the neighbouring property and find a solution.
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 14/506757 - 2 BAKERS CORNER, LADHAM
ROAD, GOUDHURST
PLA153/14
Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services
submitted a report in respect of application 14/506757 and this was
summarised at the meeting by Peter Hockney, Team Leader and illustrated
by means of a visual presentation.
Updates and additional representation – None.
Registered Speakers – Councillor Harris, Chairman of Goudhurst Parish
Council had registered to speak in accordance with the Constitution rules
(Procedure at Meetings of the Area Planning Committees). He reiterated the
Parish Council’s support of the application and confirmed that the new
building was a positive improvement.
Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions
to Officers: None.
Committee Member Discussion: No further issues were raised.
Decision/voting - A motion was proposed by Councillor Dr Hall, seconded by
Councillor Elliott and a vote was taken to approve the application in line with
the officer recommendation.
RESOLVED - That application 14/506757 be approved subject to the plans,
conditions and informatives as set out in the agenda report.
REPORT FOR INFORMATION - BUILDING PRESERVATION NOTICE - CRANBROOK
ENGINEERING WORKS/HOSPICE IN THE WEALD, STONE STREET, CRANBROOK
PLA154/14
Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services
submitted a report in respect of a Building Preservation Notice (BPN) and
Miss Smith confirmed that this was before members for information only: the
Page 7
Agenda Item 5
8
decision having already been made. Consequently there would be no debate
or voting on this item. The report was introduced and summarised by Mr
Stephenson, the Principal Conservation Officer.
Updates and additional representation – Since publication of the agenda
report, the presenting officer advised that English Heritage had visited the site
the day before the Committee meeting and would be compiling a report ready
for consultation with the owner and the Local Planning Authority.
Registered Speakers – Councillor Rook, the Chairman of Cranbrook and
Sissinghurst Parish Council had registered to speak on this agenda item, in
accordance with the Constitution rules (Procedure at Meetings of the Area
Planning Committees). Councillor Rook advised that the Parish Council were
dismayed by the BPN as it put the whole town regeneration project into
disarray. He hoped matters would be resolved quickly so that proposed
development in Cranbrook could move forward and not leave a deteriorating
situation akin to that of the ‘Providence Chapel’. He indicated that the Parish
Council, the Cranbrook Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CCAAC) and
local residents saw no merit in preserving the building. He quoted from the
comments of a former TWBC Conservation Officer that, in summary, the
buildings and spaces concerned had very little historic or architectural merit,
such that they did not make a positive contribution to the Cranbrook
Conservation Area, nor to the setting of neighbouring Listed Buildings.
Additionally, the former Conservation Officer had been more concerned about
damage to adjacent buildings during the period of demolition. Councillor
Rook also quoted from a recent email from a local trader who was
disappointed that development of the new Cranbrook Community Centre
might be affected.
Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions
to Officers:
Councillor Scholes asked what the next steps were as a consequence of the
BPN. Mr Stephenson explained that the building would be protected for a
period of 6 months as if it were a Listed structure. TWBC had asked English
Heritage to provide their report as soon as possible following their site
inspection. This report would be subject to a 21 day consultation period,
following which it would be updated with the consultation responses and sent
by English Heritage together with their recommendations to the Department
of Culture, Media and Sport for decision. Definite timescales could not be
predicted but in spite of a request to expedite matters, it was unlikely that the
outcome would be known for at least 4 to 5 weeks. Councillor Dr Hall asked
who would be consulted and Mr Stephenson confirmed it would be the owner
and the Local Planning Authority.
RESOLVED - That the report be noted.
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 14/506525 - 52 OATFIELD DRIVE,
CRANBROOK
PLA155/14
Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services
submitted a report in respect of application 14/506525 and this was
Page 8
Agenda Item 5
9
summarised at the meeting by Mr Hockney, Team Leader and illustrated by
means of a visual presentation.
Updates and additional representation – None.
Registered Speakers – None.
Matters of Clarification by Officers, Committee Members’ Questions to
Officers and Committee Member Discussion:
xii.
Councillor Patterson wondered whether there was any alternative
means of accessing the house if this retrospective application for the
steps was refused. Mr Hockney mentioned that objectors had
suggested that the steps could have been better built at a right angle
to the door but he did not consider this would make much difference.
xiii.
Councillor Backhouse proposed approval and this was seconded by
Councillor Patterson.
xiv.
Councillor Mrs Thomas asked whether the steps and rail had been
built specifically to cater for a disabled occupant. Mr Hockney was not
aware that this was the case but advised that Building Regulations
required any access to be able to accommodate the needs of any
future occupier.
xv.
Councillor Dr Hall considered the steps were ugly and pointed out that
the Parish Council had recommended refusal. She referred to their
reasons, which were set out in paragraph 7.01 of the agenda report.
She would not support the application.
xvi.
Councillor Webb referred to paragraph 10.09 of the agenda report, he
also did not consider that the steps encroached on the public footpath
and Mr Hockney confirmed that was correct. Mr Hockney added that
the bottom 4 steps were part of the permission granted by the
previous application and it was only the upper steps that had not been
approved. There were therefore few alternatives.
xvii.
Councillor Elliott advised that he would rather have seen parallel
steps. Having ascertained that the boundary treatment as shown in
the illustrative picture was a fence, he suggested that the visual
impact of the wooden handrail on the steps would be less pronounced
if it was stained the same colour as the fence. Mr Hockney advised
that an informative could be added and this would be more
appropriate than a condition. He also advised in relation to the
orientation of the steps, that rather than considering alternatives, the
application should be assessed as proposed.
xviii. Councillor Sloan asked how the situation relating to the steps had
arisen and Mr Hockney explained that previous applications had been
refused by the Committee. The property had only recently been
constructed, however, following permission granted at appeal but
there had been no indications of ground level outside the entrance
door available to the inspector as part of that process.
xix.
In view of the officer’s comment that the application should be
assessed as it stood, Councillor Elliott proposed refusal of the
application for the applicant to resubmit an application with steps
parallel to the building. This was seconded by Councillor Dr Hall as
she considered that abutting the pavement they caused a potential
obstruction to the disabled and were not in keeping with the street
scene.
xx.
Councillor Mrs Thomas referred to the agenda report which confirmed
there was no adverse impact or harm from the steps and she would
Page 9
Agenda Item 5
10
xxi.
therefore support the application.
Councillor Patterson pointed out there would be difficulties in refusing
the application when the bottom steps already had planning
permission.
Decision/voting – The initial motion had been proposed by Councillor
Backhouse and seconded by Councillor Patterson and the vote taken was to
approve the application in line with the officer recommendation but with the
additional informative as suggested by Councillor Elliott. The second motion
that had been proposed was therefore redundant.
RESOLVED - That application 14/506525 be approved subject to the plans
and conditions as set out in the agenda report and the additional informative
as set out below:
Additional informative
The applicant should stain the handrail a dark colour to match the boundary
fence.
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 15/501007 - 7 VALLEY ROAD, RUSTHALL
PLA155/14
A
Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services
submitted a report in respect of application 15/501007 and this was
summarised at the meeting by Miss Oben, Planning Officer and illustrated by
means of a visual presentation.
Updates and additional representation - Since publication of the agenda
report, the presenting officer advised that a further representation had been
received from Rusthall Parish Council and their comments were as follows:
i. The extension to the original house did not seem sufficient in size to
become a separate dwelling.
ii. It was over intensive land use.
iii. No additional parking for had been allocated for the development.
iv. The garden area could have been more equally divided.
Registered Speakers – None.
Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions
to Officers: None.
Committee Member Discussion: No additional matters were raised.
Decision/voting – Councillor Webb agreed with the officer report. He
proposed a motion, seconded by Councillor Scholes and a vote was taken to
approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.
RESOLVED - That application 15/501007 be approved subject to the plans
and conditions as set out in the agenda report.
Page 10
Agenda Item 5
11
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION - 14/506664 - 2 STONE CROSS COTTAGE,
ASHURST ROAD, ASHURST
PLA156/14
Planning Report and Presentation - The Head of Planning Services
submitted a report in respect of application 14/506664 and this was
summarised at the meeting by Miss Oben, Planning Officer and illustrated by
means of a visual presentation.
Updates and additional representation – None.
Registered Speakers – None.
Matters of Clarification by Officers and Committee Members’ Questions
to Officers: Councillor Dr Hall asked whether the house was a period
property but Miss Oben confirmed it was not.
Committee Member Discussion: Councillor Webb referred to paragraph
10.02 of the agenda report and agreed that the proposal was both modest in
size and in proportion and consequently he supported the proposal.
Decision/voting - A motion was proposed by Councillor Backhouse,
seconded by Councillor Elliott and a vote was taken to approve the
application in line with the officer recommendation.
RESOLVED - That application 14/50664 be approved subject to the plans
and conditions as set out in the agenda report.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
PLA157/14
RESOLVED – That the next Planning Committee meeting take place on
Wednesday 8 April 2015, at 5pm.
NOTES:
1. Councillor Mrs Soyke left the meeting during consideration of application
14/506664.
2. The meeting was adjourned at 6.30pm for 10 minutes after consideration
of the Building Preservation Notice.
3. The meeting concluded at 7pm.
Page 11
This page is intentionally left blank