Agenda and minutes

(A form is attached and spares will be available at the meeting)

There were no Declarations of Interest to report.

Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Regulatory Board held on 9^th June, 2011, be approved as a correct record for signature by the Chairman.

There were no site visits or deferments recommended.

Resolved:- (1) That, on the development proposals now considered the requisite notices be issued and be made available on the Council’s website and that the time limits specified in Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 apply.

(2)  That applications RB2011/0289, RB2011/0310, RB2011/0508, RB2011/0555, RB2011/0556, RB2011/0595, RB2011/0630 and RB2011/0668 be granted for the reasons adopted by Members at the meeting and subject to the relevant conditions listed in the report. 

(3)  That application RB2011/0617 for Listed Building Consent be granted for the reasons adopted by Members at the meeting and subject to the relevant conditions listed in the report and subject to an additional condition relating to CCTV and lighting.

(4)  That application RB2011/0651 be refused for the reasons listed in the report.  An additional letter of representation received after the agenda papers had been printed from the applicant was referred to at the meeting.

Consideration was given to a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration Services which detailed two appeals, one against the refusal of planning permission, the second against the service of the Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of the building on the site on land at Honeysuckle Cottage, Morthen Road, Wickersley.

In terms of the appeal against the refusal of planning permission the Inspector concluded that the harm caused by the inappropriateness of the development and its effect on the openness and the visual amenity of the Green Belt was not clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Consequently the proposed development failed to accord with national policy relating to Green Belts in PPG2 and to Policy ENV1 of the UDP which generally reflected national Green Belt policy. It was also contrary to UDP Policy CR2.5 relating to proposals for new outdoor sport and recreation in the countryside in respect of the effect on the open character of the Green Belt.

In terms of the appeal against the Enforcement Notice the Inspector concluded that the building represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt, had a detrimental impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and that there were no very special circumstances to justify the development.

The Inspector, therefore, dismissed the appeals against the refusal of planning permission and against the serving of the Enforcement Notice, though extended the compliance period for demolishing the building from three to six months. This period expired on 2nd December, 2011 and the site would be inspected after that date to ensure that the Enforcement Notice had been complied with.

Resolved:-  That the decision to dismiss the appeals be noted.

Consideration was given to a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration Services which detailed two appeals, one against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of four two storey dwellings and the second about the erection of three two storey dwellings at 7 Manor Road, Wales.

The Inspector considered that the main issue in both appeals was whether the proposals would be a cramped and over dominant form of development which would fail to make a positive contribution to the street scene.

The Inspector was of the opinion that the existing dwelling was unsympathetic to the area, on a site which was unkempt and uncared for. The development offered an opportunity to enhance the quality of the residential environment, an outcome encouraged by Unitary Development Plan Policy HG 4 the Residential Environment, and reinforced by Policy ENV 3.1 Development and the Environment and advice in PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development.

Regarding Appeal A (for four houses) the Inspector held that the scheme was deficient in a number of respects “That the layout would be sterile and unimaginative, having four similar houses, with a significant proportion of the frontage taken up by hard surfacing or garages. The houses close together at a higher level than the highway would give the impression of a solid wall of development, would appear cramped and have an overbearing appearance on the street scene.”  Consequently, the Inspector concluded that the scheme failed to capitalise on the opportunity to enhance the quality of the environment.

Regarding Appeal B (for three houses) the Inspector concluded that the houses have a little more variety than those in Appeal A and pointed out that the garages at the front of the site have been omitted. Notwithstanding this, he was of the opinion that there would be no reduction on the proportion of the site’s width taken up by buildings and any improvements resulting from the varied elevations would be offset by having wider projecting gables and by positioning the houses closer to Manor Road. The Inspector once again was of the opinion that the scheme would have an overbearing impact on the street scene and failed to capitalise on the opportunity to enhance the quality of the environment.

The Inspector concluded that the attempt to fit four large or three very large houses into such a small site would result in a development that would unacceptably dominate its surroundings.

Resolved:-  That the decision to dismiss the appeals be noted.

Further to Minute No. 18 of the meeting of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Environment held on 22^nd June, 2011, consideration was given to a report regarding the consultation on the Government’s proposals to relax planning rules particularly in relation to the amendment of planning rules to allow changes of use from commercial (B use classes) to residential use (C3 use classes) and from shops (A1) and financial and professional services (A2) to mixed use of A1 or A2 plus more than one flat without the need for planning applications.

Deadline for the submission of responses was 30^th June, 2011.

The report set out:-

-        The background to the consultation.

-                Details of the proposed changes.

-                Aims of the changes – noting primarily to bring redundant commercial premises back into use.

-                Potential benefits.

-                Building Regulations and Development Control.

-                Environmental health and safety considerations.

-                Potential impacts and risks.

-                Options on which the Government was consulting.

-                The Council’s proposed response.

-                Possible financial implications.

-                The suggested response.

Resolved:-  That the contents of the submitted report and Rotherham’s response to the consultation be noted.

There were no updates to report.