Agenda and minutes

(Forms will be available for completion at the meeting)

There were no Declarations of Interest made.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board held on 23^rd June, 2005, be approved as a correct record for signature by the Chairman.

Before the formal meeting of the Planning Board, Members of the Board made visits of inspection to four sites (Ward Councillors Hussain and Wootton, being in attendance), the subjects of applications for planning permission.  The decisions on these applications were recorded as follows:-

(a)  Erection of four and five storey building comprising 94 flats with ground floor retail (Use Class A1) and parking, at land at 128-130 Wellgate, Rotherham Town Centre (RB2005/0255)

In accordance with the right to speak procedures, the following people attended the meeting and spoke about the application:-

Mr. J. Toone (Applicant)

Mr. M. E. Healy (Objector)

Resolved:-  (1)  That the Head of Planning and Transportation be authorised to negotiate with the applicant for the increased provision of affordable housing.

(2) That subject to (1) above the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant and other parties, under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for the purposes of ensuring:-

1.      The provision of affordable housing on site in the terms agreed at (1) above.

2.      The provision of a management agreement to ensure that the communal areas and open space within the development are maintained.

(3)  That consequent upon the satisfactory signing of such an agreement, planning permission be granted for the purposes of the development, subject to the following conditions:-

1.   No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development, hereby permitted, have been submitted to, and approved, in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

2.   Concurrently with the carrying out of the development a crossing over the footpath/verge in Wellgate shall be constructed to the specification of the Local Planning Authority and shall be completed before the development is brought into use.

3.   Before the proposed access has been brought into use, the existing accesses marked “X” on the attached plan shall be permanently closed and the kerbline/footway reinstated in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority.

4.   Before the development is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be properly drained and constructed in concrete, tarmacadam, block paving or other such material as may be agreed by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be maintained in a sound condition.

5.   Before the development is brought into use the car parking area shown on the approved plan shall be provided, marked out and thereafter maintained for car parking.

6.   The development shall not be commenced until details of the proposed lay-by and replacement footway in Hollowgate, indicated on the submitted plan, have been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority in writing. The approved details shall thereafter be implemented before the development is brought into use.

7.   The development shall not be commenced until details of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Resolved:-  (1)  That, on the development proposals now considered, decisions be recorded as set out in the schedule now submitted and the requisite notices be issued (a copy of this schedule, together with the schedule of decisions made under delegated powers, will be made available when the printed minutes are produced).

(2)  That the time limits specified in Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 apply to the decisions referred to at (1) above.

(3)  That applications RB2004/2416, RB2005/0423 and RB2005/0734 be granted, subject to the relevant conditions listed in the report.

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Planning and Transportation providing details of a decision in respect of the appeal against the refusal of retrospective permission for the erection of a detached double garage with storage above.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the building was dominant and overbearing, having an unacceptable effect on the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers and that the first floor window resulted in overlooking adjacent  properties.

An enforcement notice had also been served on the applicant and an appeal had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate.

Resolved:-  That the decision be noted.

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Planning and Transportation providing details of a decision in respect of the appeal against the refusal of permission for a conservatory, where a previous permission had removed permitted development rights.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal and was concerned about the amount of glazing proposed, which would be completely out of character with the surrounding buildings, particularly in respect of the proposed roof glazing which would be domestic in appearance

The Inspector dealing with the appeal gave a lot of weight to the UDP Policy and related Environment Guidance 4 relating to conversions of farm buildings. 

Resolved:-  That the decision be noted.

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Planning and Transportation providing details of a decision in respect of the appeal against the refusal of permission for the conversion of a bungalow into a two storey dormer bungalow..

The Inspector dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the proposed dormer bungalow was not considered to be “so visually intrusive” save for its dormer bungalow format.  However, the Inspector concluded that the proposal would “have a significant impact on the bungalow to the east because the roof and ridge of that dwelling was set at a much lower level than the roof structure of the appeal property” and so it was already dominated to some extent by the appeal property.  He considered that the increase in height would also reduce direct light to the garden areas of the adjacent properties.

Resolved:-  That the decision be noted.

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Planning and Transportation providing details of a decision in respect of the appeal against the refusal of permission for the erection of a single storey building to provide a shop, diner, toilets and staff accommodation.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the proposal did not amount to a small building essential for the use of open recreation, that it would be inappropriate development in the green belt and that there were no very special circumstances to warrant the granting of permission.  He indicated a building comprising a small office for site management, toilets and probably a small dining area could qualify as essential facilities for an outdoor recreational use.

With regard to access, the Inspector was of the opinion that it was substandard and concurred with the Council’s view that if the development generated a significant amount of additional traffic, the access would be unacceptable on the grounds of safety.

Resolved:-  That the decision be noted.

Consideration was given to a report of the Head of Planning and Transportation providing details of a decision in respect of the appeal against the refusal of permission for the conversion of a garage block building to a dwelling.

The Inspector dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the proposal paid little regard to the existing pattern of development in the area and concluded that it would be an unacceptably cramped form of back land development, which would seriously detract from the character and appearance of the area.  He also concluded that the proposal would lead to a lack of amenity space for the future occupiers of the proposed apartment and reduce the amount of amenity space currently afforded to the occupiers of the existing flats.

Resolved:-  That the decision be noted.

Resolved:- That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 12, of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (Counsel’s advice regarding the determination of a matter affecting the Authority)

The Heads of Planning and Transportation and Legal and Democratic Services drew Members’ attention to a claim which the Authority had received for permission to apply for judicial review in respect of Application No. RB2005/0074 Rail fed Asphalt Plant on land off Sheffield Road, Templeborough and that Counsel’s advice had been sought.

The potential implications and options were outlined.

Resolved:- That the Head of Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, be authorised to settle this matter and report further to the next meeting of the Board.