Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Urban Road, Kirkby-in-Ashfield
Contact: Martin Elliott Email: m.elliott@ashfield.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary or Personal Interests and Non Disclosable Pecuniary/Other Interests. Minutes: Councillor Zadrozny declared a non disclosable interest in agenda item 4, items 2 and 3, as a relative lived in the vicinity of the application site. |
|
Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
To receive and consider the attached planning applications. PDF 65 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 1. V/2018/0262 – Outline application for a maximum of 24 apartments and associated works – Land at junction of Outram Street and Park Street, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire.
In accordance with the Council’s Policy for dealing with late matters in relation to planning applications (Minute No. D4.17, 1993/94), the Development Team Manager gave a verbal report on additional comments received in relation to the application after the agenda had been finalised as follows:
Following the publication of the report a member had suggested introducing a residents parking scheme on Park Street to mitigate against ad-hoc parking. This issue had been investigated with the County Council. A scheme had been introduced on Park Street but following the introduction of charges in 2010 residents petitioned to have it removed. 62% were against the scheme and it was withdrawn by the County Council. The County Council have indicated that a scheme would only be supported if residents wanted it, but would also only support a scheme operating after 9am and ending before 3pm where it was close to a school. It is also indicated that such a scheme would only work where the issue was with parking from other sources and not residents.
On balance officers considered that a requirement for a residents parking scheme could not be supported, and that if one was to be conditioned the Council could only require the developer submit an application which then may not be accepted.
Members of the committee were concerned that the application did not include any Section 106 contributions to mitigate the impact of the development on local amenities. The Assistant Director for Planning and Regulatory Services advised that the District Valuer had expressed concern about the viability of the development even without a Section 106 contribution. The Assistant Director did advise that there could be very minor room for discussion on this matter. Members requested a contribution from the applicant towards public realm improvements in Sutton-in-Ashfield town centre.
It was moved by Councillor Baron and seconded by Councillor Butler that, subject to the conditions in the officer’s report and that the Assistant Director for Planning and Regulatory Services, in consultation with the Chairman of Planning Committee, be delegated authority to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 agreement providing a contribution towards public realm improvements in Sutton-in-Ashfield town centre.
For the motion: Councillors Baron, Butler, Griffiths, P Rostance and M Smith
Against the motion: Councillors T Hollis and K Morrison
Abstentions: Councillors Madden and Zadrozny
Accordingly, the motion was declared as CARRIED.
2. V/2018/0710 - Application for Removal of Condition 3 of Planning Permission V/1987/0739, Premises to be used for a residential home for the elderly only
and
V/2018/0709 – Application for removal of condition 2 of Planning Permission V/1986/0343, Premises to be used for a residential home for the elderly only
at Bank House, Church Street, Sutton in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire.
In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at Planning Committee Mr Mick Jones (objector), and Ms Aida McManus of AM Planning ... view the full minutes text for item P.30 |
|
Planning appeal decisions PDF 148 KB Summary of recent planning appeal
decisions Minutes: The Interim Director – Place and Communities submitted a report to advise the committee of the outcome of recent Planning Appeal decisions.
RESOLVED
that the report be noted. |