View the agenda and reports for Planning Control Committee on the Democracy Portal: https://democracy.derby.gov.uk/Meetingscalendar/tabid/73/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/410/Meeting/10069/Committee/1900/Default.aspx
Could be good evening everybody uh welcome to the planning control committee thday Thursday the 15th of February 2024 uh just gone 6: p.m. Welcome to our viewers on YouTube uh any apologies please I’ve got councelor hassle John John Evans just councelor Morgan me wasn’t turned up so yeah uh any late
Items you want to do that one Paul thank you um thank you chair um i’ become aware that some if not all members have received uh an email inviting you to a site visit not from us but from from a an applicant um um what I would do is
Encourage members one perhaps not to attend a site visit particularly on your own because uh and if if a site visit is needed we know the protocol site visit we will go as a committee with officers um and it will have you know strict rules strict guidelines um where it is
This format led by officer and chair and there’s no opportunity then for you to be I guess to be seen to be making other judgments because I would want you all to come into this chamber with an open and clear mind to be able to make a clear decision now obviously some sites
We’re going to look at site visits later on in the agenda some sites you can see from the public domain so on the back of that email you could go and visit this the public area walk along the street but I would encourage you not to go on
Site with the applicant um I kind of read it as um a form of lobbying which again I don’t really like but and so my message to members would be to be seen to be open and transparent don’t do a site visit with an applicant um if there
Is one needed we’ll go as a committee thank you chair thank you Paul item three Declarations of Interest that’s none item four minutes the meeting held on 14th of December 2023 someone like to thank you I was looking at you Council Bolton because you normally do it so that’s it Council
Bolton any second is f for the minutes thank you councelor Noah thank you item five minutes of the meeting of the conservation Heritage advisory committee held on 30th of November 2023 thank you councelor care uh item six appeal decisions that’s you again Paul thank you thank you chair
I believe I’ve got five appeals for you um the first one on ABY Street um this this was allowed it’s uh planning permission was granted for the change of use of Office Buildings to form Two Flats in multiple occupation flat one had a maximum of seven occupants and flat two a maximum
Of eight occupants the main issue in this appeal was noise noise nuisance or the effect of the development on the living conditions of residents given the proximity of his existing commercial property um it’s an interesting appeal which I’d encourage you to read um air quality noise
And no noise surveys were done and the consules um our consules generally accepted the findings subject to imposition of conditions and the inspector felt well there’s there’s residents close by on Abby Street um it can be considered that on the very edge of an employment area this
Isn’t a bad residential uh location and accordingly granted planning permission so you there’s a a building in multiple occupation there you’ve got um seven occupants in one flat and eight in the other and a series of conditions the second appeal is on Marley Bone cresant and it was The
Proposal was to erect just two-story dwelling can we go back to the prev slide the in the inspector had um several issues um that he looked through um the principal one being the relationship of The Proposal the building in the red edge with the properties at the back 39a and 39b are um
Bungalows with um rooms in the roof space and the inspector felt that the differing Heights of the properties and the separation distance between the proposed dwelling and those at the rear was in inadequate to allow an acceptable degree of privacy from the first floor rear windows of the proposed dwelling so
There was an overlooking loss of privacy aspect and he concluded that the proposed development would not provide adequate living conditions for the occupiers of those properties regarding privacy and Outlook he accepted living conditions of the future occupies of the house was acceptable in terms of the the
Driveway at the side and he felt the character appearance of the street scene was not um unduly affected however he did dismiss the appeal because of the impact on the Neighbors at the rear quite rightly so um this proposal uh at field R little over is also for a new dwelling it’s in
The rear Garden of 56 and the inspector concluded that the location of that dwelling would have impact on the occupiers of 56 with regard to their Outlook oh sorry with regard to their privacy and the occupi of 58 with regard to their privacy and Outlook it just looks like a too tight
Sight um and the inspector said it would appear cramped within the plot would not relate to the well well to the scale and character of the surrounding properties and accordingly um dismissed the appeal the next one on Merchant Avenue you can show the elevations James that’s what you’ve got
Existing and that was what they proposed there’s Mr de would say no nothing further to add it’s awful and the inspector said yeah it’s awful um he was concerned about the character and appearance of the area this was a a double story rear extension looks like a new house um
And the inspector dismissed the appeal and finally um Great Northern Court this is a change of use from a commercial property to B uh to six dwelling houses um now those six dwelling houses are permitted development subject to Prior approval where we consider amongst other things
Noise uh and we felt the noise impacts from the um neighboring uses was unacceptable um the inspector noted the Appel noise assessment and said which concluded that they could condition improvements to the occupants in terms of um the noise assessment on the building envelope and the inspector concl concluded that the impacts from
Noise from commercial properties on the intended occupi of development could be made acceptable subject to suitable mitigation measures um being Incorporated in the fabric of the building and granted it with condition I’ve dwelt on two peels both on noise um you might conclude that and I have that
Um it appears that our tolerance to noise and noise impacts are more stringent than the two inspector decisions so inspectors are viewing these decisions and giving them a benefit of the doubt in terms of noise impact um other than that CH I didn’t encourage reviewing if you haven’t
Already done so the um reading those those appeal statements thank you chair thank you Paul uh item seven development control performance is that you oh sorry Le see I do apologize got my head down and there so no problem I was just wondering um whether you felt that those two
Applications which were allowed which are both the bulk of the housing applications do you think that our tilted balance situation played an effect in that or do you think it would have been that decision regardless it’s a good question um I think in both cases the inspector addressed the Tilted
Balance and while not whil it’s not overtly saying it had an impact I think it weighed heavily in their mind when making the decision but they focused on these are the the concerns and it is noise nuisance that I’m focusing on on so they recognized and reported on the
Tilted balance but it wasn’t a decisive Factor I’m going to move on quickly thanks Lucy you pondering them you pondering I got in there quick item item seven development control performance Paul is that you again it is thank you um all I’ll say is the DC performance quarter uh three there’s
Stats from October to December last year I would commend the report to you we try to run a tight ship focusing on delivery and negotiating improvements to to the to the mundane um which is where a lot of the time delay takes place applications will
Be in for quite a while while we try to improve them through negotiation um conversely if an applic ation is so poor we would refuse it because you don’t want to try and tinker and improve something which is really really bad come back to us with something that’s
Much better with the expectation of using our pre-application advice we’re here we’ll help we’ll we’ll help you through the process but there’s an awful lot of work as you can see from the supporting information which doesn’t go into the stats as well as preapp as well as negotiating improvements to schemes
Um and as you’ve seen from the appeals some are just downright awful but we we we get them all thank you chair thanks Paul you can’t get much better than 100% Can you say Lucy yeah sorry another question on this one as well the I I’ve had a couple
Of bits of casework recently where both objectors and applicants have talked to me about the time it’s taken for an application to be decided now the the overall stats here are excellent and that just shows the amount of work that’s going through but because the government has set a target of this
Percentage by this time it’s a bit like the NHS that they’ve got to deal with this but the NHS you know if if you’ve got cancer you’ve got to be seen in this time uh which is a bit like this one the NHS also has the Target that says you
Shouldn’t be having to wait for more than a certain period of time and we’re not seeing a Target like that um and sometimes you know as as Paul’s explained there is a reason for the delay and there’s negotiations going on and we end up with something that is is
Worthwhile but I had somebody recently who had had five or was it six extensions of time and they didn’t know why so I’m just wondering whether that might be a statistic that if you’re not keeping an eye on it we should be keeping an eye on um because there may
Be very good reasons but might be something that we need to be thinking about in a different way and whether that is something that might be included in this report at least on one occasion thank you chair um the government whilst they set the the performance stats allow us to agree in a
Bespoke time scale which is the extension of time you’re talking about um what I would say is when I dealt with planning applications way back when we had and the government suggested our case load at any one time should be about 40 applications each you could manage 40 you know you’re juggling with
40 application what I would say is the team now are turning out the performance that you’ve got in the report and handling around 70 applications each which is why it takes so much longer so if you’re negotiating with somebody application is still on your books she’s still one of that 70 going
On and I currently have two members of Staff of out of the team of eight nine off six so it just adds to the we are lean in terms of resources um and what I people do complain to me i’ like complain to counselors I do try and say to them look
Bear with us I if it’s urgent if you got build lined up we will work with you to get a time scale that we can work with but by doing that takes the pressure off somebody else’s application of those 70 that we’re dealing with thank you chair thank
Po you may yeah thank you chair yes and I I completely agree with you and if if we were to be more proactive about some of the ones that are trailing and it might be a matter of chasing the applicant or the applicant’s agent because they’re not responding to us all
That takes time and it would mean that that the statistics that you just the excellent statistics you just presented to us will dip a little bit but it might reduce the number of people getting in touch and emailing yourselves at another level saying why isn’t this happening so it might improve
That quality but at the moment we don’t see those stats so if we’ve got those stats available I just think it’d be nice to see them thanks Lucy we shall move on item eight applic ations to be considered uh item 8.1 uh workshop two North Street Derby Sarah John
Than thank you chair this application seeks planning permission for the demolition of an existing Workshop building and its replacement with a two-story house in multiple occupation with provision for four bedrooms and four occupiers the building is proposed to have a pitched roof and Architectural features designed to reflect the V
Traditional Victorian character and appearance of other properties in North Street members of the committee will be aware that a revised plan has been circulated as a late item as further Amendments have been made and the window and doors are now proposed to be Timber painted in an off-white
Color this change in material Accords with recommendations made by our conservation officer and addresses the reason the less than substantial degree of harm for the character of the surrounding strutz Park Conservation Area was identified as resulting from the scheme this is therefore a positive amendment that is being made and we
Welcome the change as Timber painted windows and doors are considered to better reflect the historic character of the building’s surroundings you will note that the application has generated a total of 16 objections including objections from councelor Swan councelor Repton and councelor Martin and the issues raised in objection are summarized in section
Four of your report in respect of the objections raised and concerns Express with regards to increased traffic congestion and parking highways colleagues conclude that this car-free development would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety the site is within a sustainable location that has good access to public
Transport and includes for us a suitable level of cycle parking provision North Street is already subject to parking controls and as the development is proposed as carfree parking permits would not be AA ailable for future occupiers a note to applicant is recommended as being included in the decision
Notice to advise of this in accordance with the recommendations of our highways colleagues it would therefore be hard to sustain a refusal of planning permission on the grounds of the development being Carree given its sustainable location and given it it could not be argued the resulting impacts on the highway would
Be severe The Proposal is considered to be broadly compliant with policy cp23 and the mppf your report advises that no harm to residential amuni is deemed to be arising with no adverse impacts on flood risk Heritage consules have not raised objections to the demolition of the existing workshop and conditions of
Planning permission are recommended to deliver some biodiversity benefit in the form of bat and bird boxes and a sustainable archaeological scheme of Investigation comments provided by hous in standards colleagues have been circulated as a late item and while they confirm that a HMO license will not be required given that the property is
Proposed to be occupied by only four people they have advised that the floor plans meet the room size standards in the city council space and iMed immunity guidelines for houses in multiple occupation and the layout is permissible they have commented on the ground floor bathroom and I can advise
That the agent has confirmed that this will be addressed by the applicant this will involve only minor internal alterations and if members are minded to support the recommendation a revised plan can be secured which addresses this prior to planning permission being issued weigh in the plan in Balance are
The benefits of re removing an existing building that is unattractive and fails to add to the character and quality of this part of the strutz park Conservation Area the development would repair the built form in this part of North Street and the revised proposal offers a building that is considered to
Be of an acceptable standard of design the development would increase the variety and amount of Housing and offer a small contribution to the city’s housing Supply we also have to be mindful of the activity noise and parking requirements that could be associated with the existing use of this
Site in this case we are satisfied that the Heritage tests in the mppf are met by the revised proposal and the benefits of it do outweigh any harm that is deemed to be arising on this basis a recommendation is made for planning permission to be granted thank you
Chair thanks Sarah um we’ve got on The uh notes that Mr imber Mr IM is not availabil as no so we’ll move to the committee any questions please Council Mar scrubed their name off the list for speaking counc B yeah from reading the report and listening to the officer’s explanation um its existing state is
Really really very ugly on the street scene and not something that we’d want to see in a Conservation Area um so I think I would support this application um my thoughts are that it will improve the street scene for the residents and obviously with it being um
A carfree I don’t know how that will be monitored but okay if if that’s going to be uh part of the scheme then I think I would welcome this application because it will improve the street scene in North Street and obviously give housing to people who perhaps are inadequately housed at the present
Time councilor K uh I I also feel that this is it is it is a tight site um I think they’ve done um some some some interesting designs and I gather there’s been quite a lot of history of the application as well I think the angle of the roof is
Interesting with its lopsided aspect um and I’m pleased that we’re going to get a new plan about the layout of the ground floor and I I would welcome making sure that we see that before we give approval because I think I I think the there there are reasons for making those changes which
Which the um housing colleagues highlighted on that the um I also welcome the change in the the use of of wood windows and appreciate that um the rear the long rear roof has the potential it’s looking broadly South and it has the potential for putting PVS on it it’s not facing
The street it is a conservation area would that be acceptable to have PVS on it to improve the sustainability of the building um in policy terms because if so I think we this is the time when we could flag that up you can now get uh PV
Tiles which are actually um look very close to two tiles and there are examples for example um the grade one listed church at Melbourne has PVS on its it south facing Transit um what do you call it the south facing long roof although you can see that from a
Distance Sarah you I’m happy to for that as well so yeah I think we could just add a note to applicant making a recommendation whether they want to consider them or not on the on the single story rear I I was thinking of the Upper Floor because the the level the ground floor
Has already got the window in it um and was going to be overshadowed from other buildings but the main roof at the top um is is south facing a we can add a note to applicant to see if I don’t think it would be an issue on the on the
Rear roof slope we’d obviously have to look at the design if they it’s something they wanted to do but I think we can only put a note on to make a recommendation not not a requirement thank you public any more questions councelor Pro then councel Ron thank yeah car free
That’s a new one on me how are the I mean we saying that the council won’t Grant a permit for cars for that house is that how it’s going to work and do we do that anywhere else in the city is that we do it’s just me I me just
Okay where where the where there’s an existing um permit scheme it is exceeding difficult to get a permit if it’s a new dwelling because you’re coming into a scheme that’s already established so I guess this one is by a beware hence the not to applicant on the planning
Decision we’re not going to get a permit for cars if you’ve got a car you really shouldn’t be occupying this property and that’s the control the controlling mechanism to and the applicant has said it’s car free yeah but we we are actually going to police that or not police that is you
Know will it be on a database that it is Carree through you chair um it will police itself because you need a resident parking permit to park there and applicants from this property will not be granted a parking permit I think that’s right Chris y thank you councel
Aon yes thank you chair um yes I agree with uh Council Bolton comments on this on this application um was previously a workshop so um I think it’s appropriate to bring it back to residential use which is more in keeping with um with its surroundings um so the I think the
Proposals will as Council Bolton said bring a an improvement to the street scene if uh if anything um it is only a a four bedroomed um property so I don’t have any concerns about over intensification or um some of the other issues that we sometimes get with larger hmos uh houses in multipal
Occupation um and I think the parking issue has been covered so um I’m quite happy from a parking point of view as well chair right thank you like to move to the vote Council B shall we move to the vote everybody all those in favor of the application seven in favor in favor
Y any against and one abstention thank you thanks sir uh move on to item 8.2 67 Church Lane Rory thank you chair um two housekeeping items five additional objections have been received since the publication of the committee report and these focus on noise and disturbance parking and highways issues and the
Commercialization of the area a supporting statement from the applicants also been received which highlights the family run nature of the business the precedent set by two local pubs The Abbey and the paper mill and the potential for the premises to implement comparable uses via permitted development rights which would not be
Subject to planning controls on opening outs the implications of the suggested temporary permission for the ability of the business are also raised and it’s requested by the applicant that this aspect is considered particularly carefully by the committee turning to the main report the application relates to 67 Church Lane a commercial Corner
Plot on the north side of the street that has been in use as a framing shop for many years site is surrounded by residential plots and is within the do and Valley Mills world heritage site buffer zone opposite the world heritage site itself Dal ABI Conservation Area
And and a grade two star listed Terrace the mission was granted last November for changes to the building and a change of use of the site from a framery to a cafe Deli and bar with conditions attached restricting among other things opening hours the approved opening hours are specified by condition
Four of the previous decision notice as follows no customers shall remain on the premises outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday and on Sundays 88 a.m. to 6 p.m. the mission is sought to vary that condition with the effect of varying the opening hours in
Response to comments received during the application process the proposed hours have been revised to 9:00 a.m. to 10:20 p.m. Monday to Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 9:20 p.m. on Sundays uh two supporting comments have been received and 39 comments in objection including one each from councilors Martin and Swan these are
Summarized in your report and Center on the potential for noise and disturbance odor PR privacy issues parking and highways issues and harm to the character of the area and Heritage assets no objection is raised by the highway Authority or the council’s environmental health Team um conditions are recommended on buildering fabric
Measures to minimize sound transmission and promote privacy the principle of the use of the building as a cafe Delian bar has been established by the previous permission on the site and constitutes a reasonable fullback position it is also true that the a cafe or other use in class E could
Occupy the site with no planning control on opening hours the imunity impacts of the later opening hours would likely relate to noise and activity from customers within the building and arriving and departing vehicle amusements associated with the business from customers and deliveries an increase in street parking around the
Site noise and smells from the kitchen and a potential increase of people on the street and around the building in general given the proximity of neighboring dwellings any increase in activity is likely to have significant impacts the acceptability or otherwise of The Proposal is likely to be dependent on management decisions made
By the business and possibly the licensing system outside the control of the planning system to control aspects of The Proposal that have the potential to create harm in particular mitigation meas measures to the building to minimize noise transfer the extraction system and Odor Control conditions on these topics are
Recommended the effect of increased activity on the street scene the setting of the surrounding her assets and the privacy of neighboring residential prods is material but is considered acceptable given the spatial limitations of the site and the absence of physical changes to the building proposed in this application overall it’s considered that
The change in opening hours would have implications of residential immunity especially for residents immediately surrounding the site whether the threshold of unacceptable harm would be reached is unclear and there are a broad range of impacts that could be more or less harmful depending on how the business is managed
Given this potential variation in outcome and to allow for further assessment a temporary permission of 12 months is recommended standard conditions are included as per the report along with bespoke conditions relating to the suggested temporary permission the extraction system odor dispersal signage illumination sound minimization measures Refuge storage and the opening hours as
Proposed the recommendation is to approve this application for a temporary period of 12 months and you have three speakers thank you chair thanks Rory uh first Miss Watson you have three minutes thank you very much thank you Joe Watson on behalf of the doly Abby Society we didn’t object
To the original application because it broadly reflects the current Shop’s daytime hours and that of the nearby Village Store and respects the nighttime amenity of local residents the environment team’s response to the variation predicts a probable cause of noise nuisance but strangely raises no formal objection on this ground we
Consider this a weakened response that is both illogical and inadequate clearly officers thought it reasonable and prudent to impose condition four on the Approval Pro proposal and no good reason has been given to move away from that sensible position the reduction in the uh in the proposed nighttime opening
Hours to 10 p.m. would make no fundamental difference to the likely effects of a nighttime venue with regard to imunity the proposed temporary one-year condition merely clouds the principal issues and is unhelpful it’s highly unlikely the applicant could risk considerable capital investment converting the premises for late night
Use without assurance that the business could run on a permanent basis this condition is both unreasonable and unrealistic parking and sustainable travel the proliferation of bars and Hospitality venues in dal Abbey already attracts more carborn visitors than can be AC accommodated by the historic infrastructure another day and nighttime
Venue in the center of the village will exacerbate this issue and increase nighttime activity residential darly Abbey has a chronic lack of parking places for the number of cars visiting already the pedestrian bridge has created a day and nighttime parking habit on Old Lane where people Park up
And walk across to the various Mill venues traffic jams on Alon Road and a61 also make old Lane attractive for parking the pro the protected Vista of the Mills world heritage site is via old Lane sadly this approach is now spoiled by Vehicles crammed into gaps and onto Pavements pedestrians wheelchair and PRM
Users struggle to negotiate the mess we have no bus service no safe bicycle parking shelters there’s nothing to encou encourage a modal shift away from Cars climate implications had no planning response built in the 1930s as a village shop with uh solid walls and an air leaky structure conversion into a
Nighttime venue requires deep retrofit to avoid unsustainable Heating and energy losses especially in Winter all developments require a carbon reduction energy statement according to the council’s climate action change plan a fabric first airtight retrofit strategy with heat cover recovery and cooling ventilation is a relevant recommendation in this instance not having to open
Windows in summer would also prevent noise leakage repurposing a hard to heat building requires planning guidance to ensure it has a sustainable future based on all of these comments councelors should overturn the recommendation and refuse the application on amenity parking and sustain sustainability grounds thank you thank you M Watson um
Mr Smith you have three minutes sir hello uh I’m a resident of old Lane and I’m speaking on behalf of myself and other local residents in the vicinity of 67 Church Lane we vly oppose the extension to the opening hours of the new Cafe Bar till 10:20 which we feel
Will be a detriment to local residents and their well-being our main objection is the inevitable noise that this will create in the evenings as visitors to The Establishment come and go as well as any noise created inside the property heard from the outside and even with proposed South soundproofing we expect
Noise from open doors and windows during summer months the problem would be exacerbated by a smoking area inevitably at the front of the property it would most definitely create noise and disturbance to local residents as smokers gather outside no doubt continuing to talk and drink it also creat significant invasive
Smells by cigarette smoke wafting into nearby Gardens particularly again an issue in summer months and there’s also a serious concern about the noise and potential for Rowdy behavior of guests as they leave The Establishment after an evening of socializing again this would cause disturbance and distress to local residents
Uh it’s worth noting that the people inside the property and of course those smoking outside would a visual access into some several properties again felt a complete invasion of privacy many of the households nearby are either elderly residents or families with young and school aged children the
Latter of which would be need to go into sleep at the time when the cafe bar would be operating this is a residential area and the establishment is not in keep with that many of the nearby residents have lived in the village for 30 plus years and are extremely disappointed that this
Potential change to opening hours is being considered any catering establishment will need to provide extra refu and recycling bins to store and sort their commercial waste and the only site that these could be placed feels on the front of the property which again would be unsightly with potentially unpleasant
Aromas litter and most definitely again a always concern particularly emptying uh bottles into recycling bins potentially at night uh as said parking during the day on Old Lane is a well-known issue but this issue would then continue into the evening it’s worth noting there’s no parking for the property itself and many
Local houses don’t have drives or dedicated parking spaces so if extended the opening hours then these residents uh would potentially um return home to find cars uh in their uh spaces outside their homes considering all these points together the impact of noise unpleasant Aromas car parking issues smoking all
Detrimental to the well-being of local residents then as a community we would ask the committee to refuse the extension of the opening hours thank you Mr Smith uh Council Martin your three minutes thank you chair um this application is a step too far for this site for local residents
And IND indeed Derby’s nighttime economy many res residents have welcomed the idea of a cafe in the village and have been th far very open-minded about seeing how it develops now however we have a second application before the cafe bar has even opened asking for extended hours the extended hours will
Undoubtedly produce noise har for residents living nearby I mean maybe a planner cannot say that before the fact of evidence but counselors know that opening a bar on a residential street will cause noise harm with customers leaving as late as 10:20 every night bar Sunday when it’s 9:20 p.m. there are
Already noise complaints from residents living in the nearby weirfield annal and Avenue about noise from the licensed venues in the Mills if this application is granted it will be the seventh venue with extended Licensing hours In Dary Abbey that is one step too far for a village like
Darly Abby we should not be trying to create a destination Village there many of the residents are families has been said with young children or they are elderly people we have a designated destination area for a thriving nighttime economy already and that is the city center it’s only a short
Distance from Dar Abbey and this City Center is where we all want to see more vibrancy and visits as people um living near to number 67 try to get their children to sleep outside there will be more cars and taxes coming and going late into the evening and people congregating outside
To chat and smoke now we all want people to enjoy themselves but let’s leave darly Abby as a village and stop this over expansion of later night socializing in its very Center thank you thank you Council Martin uh Rory do you want to come back
On any of those points before I go to the committee I also sorry I’ve also noticed got environmental guys if you want to come in on any of those as well if feel free to do so it’s up to you Carl Rory thank you um yeah just to say
That um these are all relevant issues and we think our position is that depending on how the business is managed they may be acceptable but we would need to see how it plays out which is why we recommending temporary commission thank you committee any questions councelor
No well um thank you chair not so much uh a question um as it is a comment um whil understandable some of the objections to this um I just see that they play uh into the realm of possibilities which frankly uh Falls outside the remit of this committee and
Um the uh there has been a conditional um or temporary approval for a 12 month period during which uh I am hoping that uh the colleagues in in in planning will be able to monitor how this is going again I stress that um possibilities fall outside the realm of our
Responsibilities and uh I don’t think we should say that President thank you any other questions comments councelor care I find this very difficult because I’m not just looking at what is there at the moment but at the longterm what is going to happen and what the potential
Is for that site in the future the the original application came in and it’s it’s interesting that the the applicant the application form for the approval that was given last year had no had a comment that there wasn’t any waste needed to be dealt with basically
So it’s really good that there is a um a condition here to talk about waste now that is an issue for me because we know at the moment we should be recycling as well as having black bin waste and we should we should be dealing with food
Waste separately as well so there are potentially a minimum of three strands of waste coming from that building as a cafe which is a lot more than we’ve had as a framing store and we can see from the framing store there is one commercial um bin placed on the
Highway I don’t like the principle of bins sitting on the highway it’s probably been there for such a long time there’s not much we can do about it but to have potentially two or three bins there I don’t think will be acceptable and they would therefore have to clearly be on the
Frontage um and I’m pleased that that’s being addressed in the proposals here but the issue of noise is absolutely valid the I personally feel so evening noise is is valid I personally feel that a venue like this ought to be able to function successfully as a Daytime Cafe I think
There are enough people there who would welcome being able to have um a lunchtime meal an an early evening meal and then to be going home I may be wrong um and there may be some really good research done to say otherwise but when you are competing with a good number of
Other venues in the area to have something that’s a bit different and not the same restaurant bar to me makes sense um the the other point and I I would also make and I it it’s it’s on the other side of the coin if this I I think that it’s useful
To have small commercial sites within a residential area people need to have shops it is a service you need to have a range of things so that you can have the facilities to support community in that immediate locality the fact that we have too many um or a surplus or a
Sufficiency of of bars and restaurants in the area doesn’t mean that this would have to continue in that role forever but if it isn’t allowed then there’ll be an exploration as to what else that site might be used for and Demolition and some fairly dense housing could be the
Alternative and I think that that also Al is something that we should be considering um I don’t think we can do much about the sustainability of the building I don’t think that is something that we can environmental sustainability buing don’t think that is something that we can
Condition um but I I don’t think this is a simple decision um I hope that we can it it can be shown to be viable as um a Daytime Cafe which is also more civilized for working hours as well well you come Paul I actually think councilor car’s nailed it on the
Head I I’m I’m going back to First appeal decision and I haven’t made these up but I’ve not stored them up for this particular the first appeal decision where the inspector said effectively he said what do the consules say what do the Specialists say say and on that case he said the
Consulties have generally accepted the noise and air quality in that case findings subject to the imposition of conditions which leads me to say sorry Carl what do our consules say on this application and what are the noise impacts because I think it’s all down to the noise evening disturbance so what do
Our consules advise and members can take that on board or not but we need bear that in mind if there’s an appeal the inspector is going to say well what did your consult te say thank you chair thank you Paul and I do notice on
Page 24 and the top of page 25 there are the conditions that our chaps over there have set and would you like to come in on that one call thank you thank you chair um like you say you’ve got the the report in front of you with the recommended conditions I
Guess couple of things to say about this particular application um obviously we’re governed by the national planning policy framework um and the the way that that is governs noise nuance and impacts on immunity is it refers to significant impacts and in particular whether significant impacts might remain following
Mitigation um and so what we’ve done with this particular application is recommended some mitigation um in terms of um reducing the potential harm that could be caused whilst we accept that they we’re not going to be talking about a situation with zero noise from a development such as this um but um we’ve
Requested improved insulation on the building one of the big advantages here is that there isn’t a sort of dedicated outdoor drinking area such as there would be for other sort of similar establishments and pubs and that does make most of the noise quite manageable in in so in many respects because we can
Insulate the building we’ve requested for double doors um so that issue of the doors constantly opening and closing with customers and the noise being let out um is is largely mitigated because when one door’s open the other one’s still closed um we’ve um recommended screening around the the smoking area
Which we also presumed would be to the front of the building um that’s both for visual immunity purposes but obviously also prot helps protect in terms of noise um the applicants also accepted um background music only now that’s probably of a planning matter more of a licensing matter um and I’d note that
This particular um applicant hasn’t put in a license application yet so it’s probably worth highlighting that that is effectively another bite at the Cherry with this particular premises another opportunity to to put in place management and mitigation to try and minimize noise um going back to the National planning policy framework I
Suppose the other key factor here in determination is the fact that this already has planning permission for a cafe um and so it’s really just the extension of ours is what we’re looking at in terms of the impact and and that does lessen the impact in the perceived
Sort of planning policy context um as compared to a completely new development um requesting for a new sort of Cafe Bar so that they’re the sort of matters that have been drawn to our mind as we’ve been if we issued our our comments for this application and I hope that’s helpful thanks
Carl councel ruson then councel B yes thank you chair um yes um it’s um I think it’s worth noting that um a licensing application hasn’t been put in yet so um if it is purely the sale of non-alcoholic drinks um then that will potentially have a a much less
Significant impact in terms of noise and uh the number of people people that are potentially using the establishment um so um personally i’ agree with uh what Carl said it’s probably licensing committee where it’s for more appropriate place to look at what um mitigation and controls can be
Put in place to make sure that it’s managed um in a way that’s uh sensitive to its location in the village um and in a way that’s um uh going to allow it to function in harmony with the surrounding residential areas um so that would sort of take some
Of my concerns Away really um if um knowing that um if alcohol um if they do go for an alcohol license then licensing committee will look to put conditions on that I’m sure um so um can I just ask in terms of how we sort of duve tail into the licensing
Committee um what are relevant factors for us to consider and what would potentially be relevant factors for licensing to take on board do you want that one Paul no that’s a really good question I would say we’re looking at land use we’re looking at the impacts of this proposal
It’s land use it’s is it appropriate for the opening hours of the premis whether they sell alcohol or not is not a planning matter is it appropriate in this location yes or no and the licensing I believe would come in if they need a liquor license licensing would
Consider is that appropriate to have those hours in this location irrespective of what planning is granted but mindful of what planning is granted because as you say as was Carl said they could sell without to license um non-alcoholic Beverages and if it’s granted to the hours that they want now however a
License could restrict because they have particular concerns over the concerns that were raised by the objectiv and Mr teale I I believe you might want to come back I mean there’s not I mean there’s a bit of a crossover in in both I mean you can’t actually avoid that
Although I think Carl probably put put his finger on it quite quite succinctly when he sort of said that in terms of the uh the licensing side of things it’s they’ve got greater control over the management of the premises I mean that’s really I mean as Paul says you’re
Looking at the from a planning perspective you’re looking at the at the land use but immunity is a clear issue and effectively the impact on immunity is the key issue in this in terms of the extension um so there is definitely a crossover but I I think I think as
You’ve said uh counc I think I think because uh they haven’t actually submitted sort of uh they haven’t actually got an alcohol license and it’s obviously uh they are they dealing with nonalcoholic beverages I mean the the immunity issues are slightly different to to what they would be
B the licensing regime where man where the management of that would be crucial Council B do still want to come in y thank you yes thank you um Council rosson has covered some of my comments because I was concerned are we treading on the toes of the licensing committee
And clearly they haven’t got a license application yet and having served on the licensing committee previously they’re not clearly the management of noise Etc will be under their jurisdiction not the planning committees um but I’ve read the report and clearly I was pleased that of the permission last November because I
Think that in the heart of doly Abbey where I used to live that utility there could be well served as a as a cafe in a Delhi and I think that’s a wonderful idea um but if you think of darly Abby further down you used to have the Abby
Pub next to that you had the legion which is only just down the road from there the other um eateries and alcoholic uh establishments are over the river in the mill complex they’re not actually in the heart of the village like this uh property we’re talking
About this evening um so I do know a little bit about the the logistics of the area um my my concern was I think more pertinent to the licensing committee which has been mentioned already um because Dar Abby in itself s wherever you put an establishment that will there
Will be clear repercussions because of the proximity of the houses in a village situation um I think on on the whole I would go along with a recommendation for the temporary period of 12 months and see how things develop but of course that’s pending if at all they will go for the
Alcohol license and that obviously isn’t before us or will be before us as a planning committee as I said in my opening remarks that’s for another committee but I think in Balance um I’d go along with the temporary um recommendation that’s before us and clearly the committee can review the matter in 12
Months can I thank you Sarah for that can I just ask I don’t know whether I’m asking you Paul or Steven or Rory um the temporary 12 months is that from opening or when they get planning permission if granted tonight chair through you it’s it depends on the wording of the condition
We could it could be from the date of the decision we we know they’re not open yet yeah um we we could with agreement with the applicant get them to tell us when they open and then your permission then your 12 month starts which would give them a a better bite of the
Cherry so we understand exactly yes i’ I’d be mindful of adding that condition in that from if if it is if we do decide that we go with this that it’s the 12 months from opening date so we’ve got a 12- month period to look at the
Situation rather than let them do the building works for 9 months and open up for three three months then you don’t get yep is that okay any more questions on this one or shall we go to the vote move to the vote thank you Council Bolton all those in
Favor with the conditions that we’ve put in for tonight please eight eight in fav for any against none against one abstention thank you so application is carried with the conditions that we’ put in tonight thank you very much everybody thank you for the speakers thank you for turning
Up and thank you for the people in the gallery as well thank you very much uh go to item 8.3 87 Moy Road in Oakwood now uh Sarah H please thank you chair uh this application relates to 87 moley Road in Oakwood or was Chon uh it’s a full application for redevelopment of
Residential property um to erect four detached dwellings each with five bedrooms the site sits within a residential area comprised of detached and semidetached houses and Bungalows it’s in a corner plot at the junction with Brookfield Avenue opposite leebrook school entrance the houses are of a contemporary design using brick and
Render Timber cladding and seam metal Manson roof lines as you can see on your screen each plot would have off street parking spaces private rear Garden uh with level access solar panels air source heat pumps and electric charging points would also be stalled for each plot each plot would have a driveway
Parking and tree planting within the curtilage the plot fronts mly Road um which fronts Wy Road would retain some of the existing trees uh on the site which are covered by a tree preservation order there are three Street trees lime trees on Brookfield Avenue uh which also
Front the site and would also be retained the design and layout of the development was amended during the life of the application hence the fact that it’s been in since 2021 when a new architect was engaged and submitted a revised scheme in March 2023 this was in response to officers
Concerns to the originally submitted proposal proposals relating to the design and layout the impact on trees and the proposed access Arrangement third party objections were received to the initial proposals and and have also been submitted to this proposal with concerns relating to the number of dwellings Highway impacts loss
Of trees and the impacts on residential immunity the current dwelling house sits within a large Corner plot and there is considered to be scope to comfortably form four houses within the site with private Gardens off street parking for each plot as you can see on the screen residential immunities of both the
Adjacent houses on Brookfield Avenue to the north and on moley road to the east would not in our opinion be significantly harmed by this layout and a high quality living environment would be provided for the future occupants po housing is considered to be of a good quality design and form which
Would provide distinctiveness and sit well within the varied street scene in this part of teston scheme allows for the retention of some of the trees at the front of the site onto more fronting moley road which includes tpos um and Street trees the council’s tree officer is in agreement
With the proposed level of tree removal and retention subject to tree protection plan and aricultural Method statements the Landscaping scheme is also recommended all to be agreed by condition the highways officer has no objections to the revised scheme terms of access parking provision subject to the recommended conditions land drainage
Colleagues have no objections to their proposals subject to a s drainage scheme being secured by condition darish Wildlife trust responded to the protected species survey which was submitted and have noted that a bat Roost in the building has been identified so in this case a natural England license would be required to be
Secured before any commencement of Works took place on the site this is covered by recommended condition along with details of external lighting which may impact on nocturnal Wildlife the the agent has incorporated back bricks into each um of the the dwellings into the side elevation in response to the wildlife trust
Comments overall there are substantial benefits to the proposed development through delivery of new highquality housing in a sustainable location within the Cheston area given the city is unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing Supply proposed delivery of three addition additional houses therefore carries significant weight in the Tilted
Balance having regard for the impacts on residential amenity trees the highway Network and protected species we feel the proposal is meets the overall intentions of the local plan policies and overwat in guidance in the mppf and we recommend it for approval subject to the recommended conditions thank you chair thanks Sarah committee Council
Bolton yes chair thank you um I think this is a most suitable site to put more um domestic properties um my first reaction having leafleted along there numerous times in my present role uh and my sorry my P past role the street trees cuz Brookfield Avenue is a lovely lovely
Street and those trees there on the front so I was pleased to hear that the officer said they are being retained um my concern was the access and I read from the report that there’s going to be vehicle access off Brookfield Avenue and then also one off Morley road now there
Is a bend on moley Road there and visibility is not that good but clearly if the highways officer is happy for one access onto moley Road um to be developed then clearly I’ll I’ll go along with that but I know it is the visibility as you come out of Brookfield
To the left is not good and particularly at school times it is R around there just to be as as are most of our schools in any case um but it is choca block but the site is a really really big site for one dwelling and I think it would be far
More beneficial to have the four uh because as you can see from the site plan it is huge it is underutilized and clearly as we’ve said before we do need more housing uh in the City so I would uh be supportive of this application thanks Council B I’ll just
Add in in my present role or my past role when I when it was chadis and now it is now Oakwood I’ve delivered along there a long time A lot of times and I love doing that route because the trees and everything are fantastic that was
One of my objections when it was in chadon uh when it was originally uh came through to committee uh a few years ago and also the access I agree totally with we both know Chad is done the back of RS now to be quite honest
Um that was my one of my concerns when this came through again um but it looks like everything’s every box has been ticked on the transport um and the traffic side uh which I’m glad to see and the trees whereas I think there’s a there’s a couple coming down series is that
Right but I think the majority had staying as they are there is yes if um yeah if you look at the the site plan on the Frontage from fronting moley Road there are three of the TPO trees are being removed but the tree officer has acknowledged that
They are three of them are in poor condition and they’re retaining other trees as well within the site anybody else Council there’s a it’s the next one down yeah it’s next one down yeah yeah you you you should know chis them better than Castor cast carees thank
You I I I I agree with um some of the obor’s comments that these do look very different properties um but I think we don’t we’re allowed to change our styles of housing we don’t have to be building things you know if we never change we still be building houses looks as
They’re building the built in the 1800s out of arous stone would we um but you we’re allowed to move on and I’m particularly welcome the the PVS that have been put on the top of these buildings uh which we can see on The View not this view because it’s got the
Windows on the sides um and I just wondered if we think that there is a very high standard of environmental design for these whether we could put in a note to the architect as to whether there’ be an opportunity for them to hold an a sort of open day for people to
Be able to go and look before they become um before they’re sold just let’s let’s use good design as a way of promot promotion in Derby if we can uh yes Martin could I just ask about the trees and um we sort of touched on it that
Um there’s some of them have got tree preservation orders is that right um do we know exactly how many will be uh protected as part of the development and how many potentially would will be lost and if those that are lost can be replaced either on the site or somewhere else nearby
S uh yeah there are five trees which are covered by the TPO and they’re all towards the front of the site facing moley Road um so two of them would be retained um and three of them are coming out because they are in a poor condition
Um and they say the tree officer has has confirmed that but he does welcome U the replacement tree planting which has been Incorporated in the site and there are a couple of other trees which aren’t protected which are also being retained within the site any further
Questions move to the vote all those in favor of the application unanimously thank you very much everybody thank you Sarah as well uh we’ll now move to 8.4 31 Mount carel Street To You Paul thank you chair um this application is for change of use from a six bedroomed six occupant house
In multiple occupation to a seven bomed eight occupant housing multiple occupation so the focus therefore is on the impacts arising from two extra people in the building now can I pause there and take you to 7.3 of the report so I’m not misleading you um at 7.3 on page
58 um where it’s the paragraph that starts overall it is considered the proposed intensification res idential use would not have any overriding adverse impacts it goes on to talk about it is considered that one additional person would not have any overriding additional impact on neighbors immunities can I change that to two
Because it’s clearly from the uh description it does say two it’s two additional people but the um the thrust of that paragraph will still apply it’s it is the as I’ve said before the harm where is the harm from the addition in this case two people living in that semi- detached property
Um in your report you’ll note at 5.2 our housing our HMO colleagues have assessed The Proposal they have no objections um uh for this house in multiple occupation uh they do note for me hopefully that it will require a himo license from them so our license ing regime will kick
In um and you will note that there are no Highway objections to the proposal and on page 59 7.5 the conclusion the proposed residential use would increase the variety and amount of housing delivery hence the proposed is considered to be acceptable in principle and the proposal meets the all the
Council’s housing standards I know we’ve had issues and discussions about room sizes in the past and we’ve had pieces of string around this chamber um the room sizes remain satisfactory um and there’s a a satisfactory quality of living environment would be provided uh I I I did a bit of research because
As you know some of you may know I’ve been doing their houses multiple occupation article four study and um James helpfully has put up on the plan in this street there are three other houses in multiple occupation in this street are 41 properties that’s total of four himos which is only
9% those are the ones we know about those those are the licensed ones three or four official High mod CH yeah through you chair those are the ones those are the rec I’ve got those are the ones we know about um at cabinet for those of you who are
Watching who were there I did go a bit further and say that we would be looking at policies to um control these types of applications my bearing in mind this is for two extra people not a new one those policies could be three or more next to each
Other this doesn’t do that um can we go back to the I mentioned a sandwiching policy it’s easy to call that now if you look at um there the two dots I south of this either side of a house there’s a sandwiching policy there because those
Two are either side of an existing house one of those would fail if we had that policy in place um and no more than 20% in a 100 meter radius we haven’t got that so this would this one would probably be granted planning permission for himo in any case even if the article
Four was in um and I cannot find the harm for two extra people at this property um it meets the space standards what they what they’ve done is actually converted the ground floor Studio which is a large it’s 18 square meters into dual occupancy and upstairs um
There’s currently a bedroom which is um it’s currently a study and they want to put a bed in there to get an extra person in um with its on Suite Etc um and we find it’s going to be very difficult to resist this proposal you’ve got as you
Can see on the slide Studio One the front studio two at the rear that’s the one that would have two people in studio three above and studio four and five on the second on the on the first floor all single occupancy um and bedroom seven in the LOF space as the
Extra bedroom um the extra so you get extra person in bedroom seven and one in studio two Shar I I’ve got no reasons to refuse planning permission thank you thank you Paul any any questions from anybody oh counselor homes for councelor homes counselor care councelor I know
Just got in there um just a quick uh question to the officers really it mentions um in the objection bullet points that the changes or the increasing use has already been um sort been carried out is is so is this is this not a ret I mean what’s the
Valid validity of that is it is this a r respective application or you if I can help chair th this this application on site at the moment is a six bed Sixers himo which is permitted they’ve done the permitted development permitted change and what they show me is bedroom 7 is
The study area no bed in there and I guess that’s the only physical change because downstairs Studio 2 is is laid out as a studio it would have one person in at the moment um and this proposal seeks to put another person had another person’s out so it’s a dual person
Occupancy it’s not retro but it yes they have done the work because it’s they’ve done the permit development change okay that explains it thank you chair thanks M yeah I was just looking as well on the existing plans that the both both of those two rooms have got
Bathrooms in already so it is just just putting a bed into the top floor flat and then uh top floor apartment and then making the studio downstairs into a into a double bed so yeah yeah uh where did it get to Council of care that was it
Sorry thank you uh my take on this is that we already have an HMO and it’s been an HMO that we’ve had no say over as a planning committee what we have in front of us is the opportunity to actually say what we think is good and is bad about this and potentially
Influence it though some of the objections talked about litter and waste and about travel so I’d immediately say that if we can put in a a condition or recommendation that we we want a waste management plan um are the bins expected to be pulled to the street by the residents is somebody
Going to come and check that that’s happening uh are they recycling correctly is there information in the general areas to how to recycle those sorts of questions in terms of the cycle store it’s stuck there a little room at the very back if you look at the um
Satellite view of this property at the moment you would find it really difficult to get to that little shed at the back um I’m not quite sure what it is in it might be the from when the building work was being done but it isn’t terribly easy to get there we want to
Make sure that it’s going to be there for perpetuity and that it is um accessible and that the the it is secure and I think the current wording for that condition isn’t strong enough because I don’t know if that the doors and the angles to get into that building we
Actually going to make it possible to get a bicycle into that corner so can we make sure that we’re not approving that shed for cycle parking but we’re approving cycle parking that is accessible and convenient and we need to check it U the other thing that strikes
Me is that for the people who are already in that building and I guess they’re there they have l lost part of their their shared space and to have shared space as that work you know work room um office room for those who are working from home it gave them an
Opportunity to be somewhere which was not the bedroom to be to be working from for their meetings and we’ve lost that and I don’t think we can condition it but there is a there is a seller if that Cellar is dry it could be a space that could be
Replacing what has been lost for the improved quality of life of people in that building and we could also put a landscaping condition on the outside space so that is actually could be used space in the summer um or even in the winter if you’re feeling Hardy so there
Are a number of things there that I think we could do to improve the quality of this for people who are living there um potential use of the Sellar if appropriate the um make sure that the cycle parking Really Works Landscaping of the garden uh so that is a valuable
Outdoor space which we learned about in covid and um finally the advice on on travel and waste management thank you chair if if others are happy to condition any or all of those I’d be pleased thanks Lucy real quick yeah thank you chair um so this is more of a general um comment
Not just to this but for um other applications as well because there are times we see some applications here we know the areas we know um what the areas look like but what you know versus what officially they in terms of number of you know High mod and all that and also
Some of the issues that arise with uh a lot of these in uh our different uh communities uh may I ask that we also look at the possibility of getting presentations from uh most some of the neighborhood teams or the pcsos with regards to just how um residents or how
Some of these areas have been affected because really there have been a lot of um issues of just disturbances but you know when you look at at uh what we have officially and and we see uh three or four hmos whereas the case uh might be
10 or more it it then we we do need to have other informations with which we can make uh decisions if not uh we we’re not really uh kidding anyone or fooling anyone and we we do look like we’re AB betting um just uh some sort of gaming
Of the system thank you chair thank you you can I’m With You Yes um as part of the evidence gathering for the article four direction that is exact what I did reached out to our community and neighborhood teams and when I found out I was presenting this I’ve reached
Out to our community neighborhood team say look can we consult you because we’re going to on everyo that comes in as a planning application because you need the full picture of the antisocial Behavior the car parking problems the litter rather than just relying on a bullet point list from Neighbors we need
The complete pitch of the end SP I suspect they will have in Ward area and won’t be able to drill down to particular streets but I’ve asked the question and they’ll know where their hot areas are so that we can inform you as part of the planning
Process if I might CH you can yeah three um just to go back on that I’ll give an example um yesterday you know we we we had uh some deeping uh activity on pill Street in the W and because they were already uh um some sort of restrictions
On you know aour streets and all that we then saw that residents of some of the streets parked their car on that street so again it goes back to some of these issues of um restricted parking that we see yes they look good on paper but we
Do know that they spill into other streets you know so we do need that local intelligence uh to be carried into our our briefings thank you chair thank you Council Pro yeah just a quick one I was quite interesed with luc’s comment about a reduction of immunity to the
Residents which is quite an interesting way of looking at it because the the space in this one is quite limited for the residents um and that’s not you know not really desirable um the other point being obviously the lack of data is really hurting us here again because for
Licensed hos in that street um there could easily be 16 plus hos in that street we don’t know um or I don’t know I mean I’m not that familiar with that street or the residents in that street and um I don’t know how we solve that problem uh of lack of information
Because if there are 16 in that street we might have a different opinion on this application um at the moment obviously we know of four um it’s not that helpful but okay thank you any further Council hours yeah uh I know the street very well parking is the
Biggest issue there you know you can’t move your car once you mve it you can’t park there and I I would like you to put a condition about uh the bins if you go up and down that street you know when we’d walk about there’s bins all over
The place especially where these flats are and hmos are we need to do something about the bins if you can pour condition in or anything like that and one of the thing I don’t know Paul Paul probably can help us in this each time they’re adding a flat you know
On originally there were five and sixth then there could be seven or eight where do we stop I don’t want to be appear appear flippant I guess they stop when they when they’ve used up the space in the property now I take on board councelor Care’s comment about o to applicant
Review the basement for a replacement study what I don’t want to do there is alarm bells and you can start putting a person downstairs as well I think we we’re saying no because if you look at it they’ve got no daylight it’s a dark so you’ve got your light on you tank the
The basement to make it suitable for storage or working space but it’s not it so if if they’d have had a grate there you know the old coal grates with a the sort of light well in there you could see them trying to squeeze another one
We’re not there um I think where we stop with this one is he’s he’s got studio apartments and he has conveniently taken his study that was upstairs and found he’d like to he could meet the space standards and have it as a bedroom upstairs thank you Paul um do you want
To St yeah I just wanted to clarify with Paul actually obviously um it’s I don’t think you’d have a problem with putting a waste management uh condition on and the cycle one you you can take on board Lucy scin in the man that one there there was only the Landscaping point
Question I wasn’t sure whether you want to comment or Not Sorry chair through you I think the landscaping and the applicant review of the basement should be as note to applicants um because this is this is already there um I need to relate it back to the
Extra two people and be reasonable about the condition but if you’re if you’re a responsible landlord you’d be doing the Landscaping anyway you’d be making it look nice you’d have a waste management plan and recycling plan in place for people to take the bins in and out wouldn’t
You yeah so I could do those two as landscaping and um review of the basement as a notre applicant but Waste Management plan I think yes recommendation recommendation as an extra condition that’s great thank you I think if you think chair what we did at Linton Street and we had the waste
Management plan there and there were several conditions because that was uh when we had the site visit that’s when you really see what the situation is so I think we can learn from that but I think a waste management plan should be standed thank you very much would
Anybody like to move to the vote we’ll move to the vote so all those in favor of the application with the with the extras yes Lucy yes yes seven chair in favor seven in favor any against that’s one and one abstention thank you very much thanks
Everybody sorry me again uh go to item nine potential future site visits Sarah H again please thank you thank you chair uh we just have four potential site visits um this evening uh this first one is probably familiar to all of us it’s smart Parks it’s just another Reserve matters for
Manufacturing facility on small part of the site so next one d uh this one is a variation um of approved plans it’s for the development of the Stevenson building which has been extended so again it’s improved uh this one is more interesting it’s the former police station at Cotton
Lane it’s quite it’s a conversion of the police station and new build for 101 Apartments Landscaping quite a green scheme car parking and cycle provision so we um and last but not least another variation of condition for the St Benedict school extension so it’s a landscaping of biodiversity so it’s nothing concrete that’s
It thank you Sarah uh thank you committee thank you officers for up and uh thank Nel at the back say some good things thanks everybody and see you next month thank you thank you thank you