Agenda item - To Consider and Determine Planning Applications on the Plans List

(copy  attached)

150.      PLANS LIST APPLICATIONS:  3 DECEMBER 2008

 

             (i)TREES

 

150.1    There were none.

 

             (ii) SUBSTANTIAL OR CONTROVERSIAL APPLICATIONS OR APPLICATIONS DEPARTING FROM COUNCIL POLICY

 

150.2    Application BH2008/02095, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Dyke Road, Brighton – Demolition of all existing buildings. Erection of 149 residential; units comprising 40% affordable units and 807.20 square metres of commercial floor space for a GP surgery (Use Class D1) (including 102squaremetresforapharmacyuse class(A1) together with associated access, parking amenity space (including a public  garden) and landscaping)

 

150.3    It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

 

150.4    The Area Planning Manager (West) gave a detailed presentation setting out the constituent elements of the scheme including the mix of market and affordable housing.

 

150.5    Dr Towers spoke on behalf of local objectors to the scheme stating that in their view it would be possible to provide a financially viable scheme which retained a converted main building The applicant had chosen not to investigate that option fully. The development as presented was considered to be of a scale, mass detailing and appearance which was at variance with the existing street scene and would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring conservation areas .Dr Marshall-Andrews spoke on behalf of  the  applicant  referring to the need to relocate their existing surgery within the locality and to the difficulties they had encountered in finding suitable purpose built premises which would enable them to provide modern facilities for patients/ future patients Mr Brown spoke on behalf of the applicants in support of  their application reiterating that in the applicants view the existing buildings on site were not viable and that the opportunity would exist to maximise the sites potential in terms of providing much needed housing and modern medical facilities which were needed in the area. Councillor Kitcat spoke in  his  capacity  as  a  Local  Ward  Councillor setting  out his objections to the scheme stating that in his view and that of local residents the existing main hospital building was a local landmark, was of a pleasing deign and should be retained.

 

150.6    Councillors Cobb and Mrs Theobald sought information regarding the dimensions of the proposed living areas within the flats and location of kitchen bathroom facilities., location of refuse storage and recycling arrangements and relative to on site parking.

150.7    Councillor Wells stated that he was very concerned in respect of the purported viability of the site and as to whether the price paid by the applicant for the land had been taken into consideration. The legal adviser to the Committee explained that whilst “viability” was capable to being a planning consideration that was dependant on the particular circumstances of any given application. All relevant information had been placed before Members relative to the application before them 

 

150.8    Councillor Steedman enquired as to whether the revised plans had been fully consulted upon and was advised that they had .Mr Small (CAG) referred to the alterations made stating that he was perplexed and puzzled by them as there appeared to be a large number of matters remaining to be determined which could significantly impact on the appearance of any development ultimately built on site. He considered overall that the scheme as presented represented an overdevelopment of the site and that its bulk and massing was too great

 

150.9    Councillor Kennedy stated that she had grave concerns regarding the scheme considering that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that loss of the main building was necessary. She was of the view that it should be preserved and could form an integral part of any scheme. She was also very concerned that notwithstanding measures purportedly put in place to prevent deterioration of the building and to protect it from vandalism, that on the site visit windows of the building were observed wide open which could give rise to damage as a result of water penetration the building had clearly deteriorated since the last occasion on which Members had carried out a site visit.

 

150.10  Councillor Barnett stated that she considered the design and appearance of a number of the blocks to be inappropriate as did Councillor Mrs Theobald She was concerned that the location and size of the communal areas was inappropriate and additionally that the would be  too little on  site parking. Councillor Smart also concurred in that view.

 

150.11  Councillor Steedman stated that in his view the scheme had major deficiencies and would be totally overbearing and inappropriate in its proposed location. He considered that it was ill conceived and that the existing frontage should be maintained Whilst provision of an additional doctor’s surgery would be welcomed he considered he considered that some of the treatment rooms would be poorly located and that the case had not been compellingly made that it would not be possible to find other suitable accommodation available for conversion.

 

150.12  A vote was taken and on a vote of 9 with 3 abstentions planning permission was refused on the grounds set out below.

 

150.13 RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report but resolves to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

 

             1. It is not considered that the development by virtue of its siting, height, scale, mass, detailing and appearance does not contribute positively to its immediate surroundings and would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of both the street scene and the Montpelier and Clifton Hill  Conservation Area and the setting of the West Hill Conservation Area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD4 and HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

             2. The proposed development would provide an inappropriate        amount of private amenity space and a lack of children’s outdoor recreation space on the site for the occupiers of the residential          properties, contrary to policies HO5 and H06 of the Brighton & Hove          Local Plan.

 

             Note1: A vote was taken and on a vote of 9 with 3 abstentions planning permission was refused in the terms set out above.

 

             Note 2: Councillor Kennedy proposed that planning permission       be refused this was seconded by Councillor Steedman. A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors Barnett, Cobb, Davey Kennedy, McCaffery, Smart, Steedman. Mrs Theobald and Wells voted that planning permission be refused. Councillors Hyde (The Chairman), Allen and Carden abstained. Therefore on a vote of 9 with 3 abstentions planning permission was refused.

 

150.14  Application BH2008/ 02808, Royal Alexandra Hospital, 57 Dyke Road, Brighton –Conservation Area Consent for demolition of all existing hospital buildings.

 

150.15  It was noted that if members were minded to refuse planning permission that their resolution should state that they were “minded” to refuse the application as it subject to a reconsultation period expiring on 21/12/08.

 

150.16  A vote was taken and on a vote of 10 with 2 abstentions the Committee         resolved that it was minded to refuse planning permission on the grounds set out below.

 

150.17  RESOLVED -That the Committee has taken into consideration the reasons for the recommendation contained in the report it is minded to refuse (subject to the reconsultation period expiring on 21/12/08) conservation area consent for the following reason:

 

             1. Policy HE6 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan states that demolition      in conservation areas will not be considered without acceptable         detailed plans for the site’s development .in the absence of an approved planning application for the redevelopment of the site, the       demolition of the existing buildings would be premature and result in the creation of a gap site which would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Montpelier & Clifton Hill Conservation Area, and adjoining West Hill Conservation Area.

 

             Note 1: A vote was taken and on a vote of 10 with 2 abstentions minded to refuse planning permission was agreed in the terms set out above.

 

             Note 2: Councillor Kennedy proposed that minded to refuse conservation area consent was agreed. This was seconded by Councillor Steedman. A recorded vote was then taken. Councillors Hyde (Chairman), Barnett, Cobb, Davey, Kennedy, McCaffery, Smart, Steedman, Mrs Theobald and Wells voted that minded to refuse conservation area consent be approved. Councillors Allen and Carden abstained .Therefore on a vote of 10 with 2 abstentions minded to      refuse consent was agreed as set out above.

 

150.18  Application BH2008/03220, Sussex Education Centre, Nevill Avenue, Hove – Proposed three- storey extension to existing education centre to create a 1688m2 office building for NHS Trust.

 

150.19  It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

 

150.20 The Area Planning Manager (West) gave a presentation explaining the proposals in detail.

 

150.21  Mrs Bowman spoke on behalf of the applicant explaining the proposal would enable the Sussex Partnership Trust to move its existing Head Quarters building from Swandean in Worthing and to locate centrally within its area and to a site where a number of its services were provided .It would also create additional job opportunities in Brighton & Hove Councillor Janio spoke in his capacity as a local Ward Councillor setting out his objections to the proposal. He was of the view that the proposed office block was completely inappropriate on a site which      should be used solely for the provision of health services The proposed use would create additional traffic movements and congestion within      the locality. He did not concur that additional jobs would be created considering that in the current economic climate the majority of staff would relocate from Worthing and would drive there daily travelling from the current site8miles to the west and increased current levels of congestion in the area.

 

150.22  Councillors Barnett and Smart concurred with the views expressed by Councillor Janio considering that the site should be used solely for health care services and no ancillary services, and were of the view that the increased traffic movements created by the scheme would be detrimental to local residents and would create very few local jobs.

 

150.23 Councillor Allen stated that on balance he considered it would be advantageous to have these centrally located services within the City not least because they were likely to improve care provision available to residents. Councillors Davey and Steedman concurred in that view. Councillor Steedman referred to proposed Condition 6 which related to action to be taken should any agreed permission cease. He considered         that this provided adequate re-assurance for Members. He also referred to the fact that only 4 local letters of objection appeared to have been received relative to the scheme.

 

150.24  Councillor McCaffery stated that on balance she also supported the scheme, although she considered its design to be somewhat disappointing. Councillor Mrs Theobald expressed concern that the level of parking would be inadequate.

 

150.25  A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 5 planning permission was granted in the terms set out below.

 

150.26  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves it is minded to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation the terms of which are set out in the report and to the conditions and informatives set out in the report

 

150.27 Northfield, University of Sussex, Brighton - Construction of halls of residence comprising 798 student bedrooms arranged in 14 blocks, reception building, bicycle storage, visitor and disabled car parking.

 

150.28 It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

 

150.29 The Area Planning Manager (East) gave a presentation detailing the constituent elements of the scheme which was an outline application for  the erection of 14 blocks of student residential accommodation set over three and four storeys .Photomontages were shown for illustrative purposes.

 

150.30  Councillor Steedman enquired whether it would be possible to add an informative in order to seek to avoid the use of metal roof coverings and to ensure that suitable materials were used for the external finishes to the buildings and it was confirmed that this could be done. In his view sedum roofs of downland grass would be appropriate to the           buildings surroundings. Councillor McCaffery was also of the view that         infomatives should be added relative to material and finishes to be used.

 

150.31 The Chairman sought clarification regarding the number of parking spaces to be provided stating that some students needed cars in order to enable them to drive off site to evening/weekend employment in order to support themselves through college. Councillors Barnett and Mrs Theobald concurred in that view and sought information regarding location of the nearest bus stops, considering the number of parking spaces would be inadequate. The Area Planning Manager (East)         explained that the number of parking spaces provided accorded with     that required by the University itself. The University had its own systems in place whereby in addition to pay and display arrangements parking permits were made available at a reduced rate in approved cases. Councillor Davey considered that the University was leading the way in seeking to uphold a sustainable transport strategy and that it should be supported in that.

 

150.32  Councillor Wells stated that he was in agreement with those who considered that the level of parking to be provided would be inadequate

 

150.33  Councillor Kennedy expressed her support for the proposals provided that measures were put into place to ensure that the materials to be used were sensitive to the site’s surroundings. It was explained in answer to questions that the information provided was indicative and that details of the scheme would form the subject of a further reserved matters” application.

 

150.34  A vote was taken and on a vote of 7 to 5 minded to grant planning permission was granted in the terms set out in the report.

 

150.35 RESOLVED- That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 10 of the report and resolves it is be minded to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 Obligation to include a Habitat Creation and Management Plan and a contribution towards public art, provided that there are no further objections received that raise further material planning considerations which have not already been considered within the report or by the Committee and to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and to the amendments and additions set out below :

 

             Amend Condition 3 to read: “No less than 20 bat hibernation boxes.”

 

             Add new informative: The applicant is advised that the use of metal roof coverings should be avoided, the external materials should use local distinctive materials where possible and the colours of the external materials should be of muted, earthy tones.

 

             Add new informative: The written scheme of investigation should accord with the relevant portions of East Sussex County Council’s “Recommended Standard Conditions for Archaeological Fieldwork, Recording and Post- Excavation in East Sussex (Development Control)(2008)”including Annex B. The Programme of works should include:

 

             - field walking (surface artefact collection) and/or test pitting;

             - geophysical survey (magnetometry);

             - geo-archaeological and palaeo-environmental evaluation; and

             - evaluation trial trenching

 

             (iii) DECISIONS ON MINOR APPLICATIONS WHICH VARY FROM THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AS SET OUT IN THE PLANS LIST (MINOR APPLICATIONS) DATED 3 DECEMBER 2008

 

150.36  There were none.

 

             (iv) OTHER APPLICATIONS

 

150.37  Application BH2008/02452, Garages at the Rear of 90    Cromwell Road -demolition of existing single storey garages    and construction of one two- bedroom mews house.

 

150.38 The Planning Manager (East) gave a presentation detailing the constituent elements of the scheme and setting out the rationale for the Officers’ recommendation that it be refused.

 

150.39  Mr Bareham spoke on behalf of the Sussex County Cricket Club, a neighbouring objector stating that the proposed dwelling would conflict with existing activities carried out by the cricket club due to its close proximity to the application site; the existing distance between the cricket ground and neighbouring residential properties in this location acted as a “buffer” .Its         design, location and size were inappropriate in relation to the         surrounding area. Ms Cattell spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of their application explaining that the development had been well designed in order to slot in behind the          neighbouring developments and that the application had been submitted following extensive pre application discussions. The proposed amenity space was considered to be adequate and had been located so that it faced away from the cricket ground.

 

150.40  Councillor Cobb sought confirmation regarding the current    garage use and it was confirmed that one of the garages was in the ownership of the applicant and had been used for storage         which had been displaced off site.  The garages had not been in general use.

 

150.41  A vote was taken and on a vote of 10 with 2 abstentions planning permission was refused on the grounds set out below.

 

150.42  RESOLVED-That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the   recommendation and resolves to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

 

             1.Policies QD1 and QD2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan  state all new development should be designed to emphasise and enhance the positive qualities of the local neighbourhood,     by taking into account local characteristics.

 

             The proposed dwelling and associated garden would appear incongruous in relation to surrounding development, with the restricted size of the plot also significantly smaller than the surrounding development. The proposed dwelling by reason of its siting abutting the      site boundaries to three sides, was unsuitable and insufficient spacing around the structure and would be reliant (at first floor level) on light and outlook over neighbouring sites to ensure an acceptable standard of accommodation. The  proposal fails to respect the local context or to enhance the positive qualities of the local neighbourhood, and is considered to be an inappropriate form of development contrary to the above policies to the detriment of the visual  amenities and character of  the area.

 

             2. The scale of the proposed structure is considered to be excessive and would form an unduly prominent feature detrimental to the setting of the neighbouring properties and the visual amenities of the surrounding area. The outlook from neighbouring windows and garden areas would be harmed. Furthermore, details of the design are considered to be unsympathetic, and out of keeping with the appearance of neighbouring dwellings.  The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2, QD27 and HE6 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan.

 

             Informatiives:

             This decision is based on drawings and details submitted on 22July and 3 September 2008.

 

             Note: Councillors Allen and McCaffery abstained from voting in respect of the above application.

 

150.43Application BH2008/03629, 321 Mile Oak Road, Portslade – First floor extension to convert bungalow into house, including front porch extension.

 

150.44 It was noted that in his absence the applicant had submitted a letter in support of his application which had been circulated to Members

 

150.45  A vote was taken and the 10 Members of the Committee who were present when the vote was taken voted unanimously that planning  permission be refused on the grounds set out below.

 

150.46RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation and resolves to refuse planning permission for the following reasons

 

             1. Policies QD1 and QD2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan state that new development should be designed to emphasise the positive qualities of the surrounding area.QD14 states that planning permission       for extensions or alterations to an existing building will only be granted           if the proposed development is well designed, sited and detailed in relation to the property to be extended, adjoining properties and to the surrounding area. The existing bungalow is located on a small plot with an unusual relationship with neighbouring properties. The proposal to extend the bungalow to two storeys is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site which fails to respect the constraints of the plot and its relationship with neighbouring residential dwellings. The extension would result in a cramped form of development, and is considered to be inappropriate.

 

             2. Policies QD24 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan state that planning permission for development will not be granted where it would cause material nuisance and loss of amenity to neighbouring residents, and that residents and occupiers can be      seriously affected by changes in overlooking, privacy, daylight, sunlight, disturbance  and outlook.  The         bulk of the proposed extensions would have an enclosing and overbearing effect on the outlook from the rear windows and rear gardens of neighbouring         properties located to the west of the site; particularly no.4 Oakdene Close which adjoins the rear of the site.

 

             3. There is an existing retail unit with residential accommodation above located to the east of the application site at no. 323- 325Mile Oak Road. The proposed first floor windows facing onto this site would be located approximately 12 metres away from the first floor rear        windows no.323- 325 Mile Oak Road. This would create an unwelcome relationship of overlooking between these properties, harming the privacy of residents. The outlook from the rear windows of no. 323- 325 Mile Oak Road would also be harmed. Furthermore, the development conflicts with the recently approved scheme for the construction of a block of nine flats at nos. 323 -325 Mile Oak Road. An unwelcome relationship of overlooking between habitable rooms of no.321 as proposed, and the new block of flats would be created, harming the privacy of residents.  The proposed extension would also harm the outlook from the rear windows of the proposed flats. The scheme is contrary to policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local  Plan which seek to protect residential amenity.

 

             Informatives:

 

             This decision is based on drawings and details submitted on 4 August, 8 September and 29 October 2008.

 

             Note: Councillors Allen and Barnett were not present at the meeting when the vote in respect of the above application was taken.

 

150.48  Application BH2008/02662, 35 - 38 Lewes Road, Brighton –Variation to Condition 2 of application 95/1064/FP for an extension of the existing hours of use.

 

150.49  A vote was taken at which time 10 Members of the Committee were present.  On a vote of 9 to 1 planning permission was granted.

 

150.50RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

 

             Note 1: Councillor Davey wished his name to be recorded as having voted that planning permission be refused.

 

             Note 2: Councillors Allen and Barnett were not present at the meeting when the vote relative to the above application was taken.

 

150.51  ApplicationBH2008/01541, 39 Mafeking Road, Brighton - Erection of first floor extension to provide office space and erection of ground floor porch.

 

150.52 A vote was taken and the 10 Members present at the meeting voted unanimously that planning permission be granted.

 

150.53RESOLVED–That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

 

             Note: Councillors Allen and Barnett were not present at the meeting when the vote in respect of the above application was taken.

 

150.54  Application BH2008/00405, 189 Carden Avenue ,Brighton Demolition of existing vacant public house and construction of17 flats, basement and ground floor A1 retail ,with associated car parking, cycle storage and amenity space(Resubmission  of  BH2007/02045).

 

150.55  The Area Planning Manager (West) gave a presentation setting details of the scheme and the rationale for the Officers’ recommendation.

 

150.56  Councillor Kennedy commended officers for their work with the applicants to enable a much improved scheme to be bought forward following the previously refused scheme. Councillors Cobb and Mrs Theobald considered that it was regrettable that the existing buildings would not be replaced by a row of town houses. Whilst not objecting to the loss of the public house in this instance, Councillor Steedman considered that the cumulative effect of public houses being lost did need to be taken account of as they did represent a community facility.  Councillor Wells concurred in that view.

 

150.57 A vote was taken and the 10 Members present at the meeting voted on a vote of 8 to 1 with 1 abstention that planning permission be granted.

 

150.58  RESOLVED - That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the       conditions and informatives set out in the report and to the amendments and additions set out below:

 

             Condition 7 to be amended to read:  “A scheme for rain water harvesting shall be submitted to.”

 

             Add further condition: the solar panels shown on the drawings hereby approved shall be installed and made available for use prior to the first         occupation of the flats.

 

             Reason: in the interests of sustainability, to ensure that the development incorporates the solar panels as proposed and to comply with Policy SU2 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

             Add further condition Prior to the commencement of development, detailed drawings, including levels, sections and constructional details of the proposed road works, surface water drainage, outfall disposal and street lighting, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by,    the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved.

 

             Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with policy TR7 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

             Note: Councillors Allen and Barnett were not present at the meeting when the vote in respect of the above application was taken. Councillor Cobb voted that planning permission be refused.

 

150.59Application BH2007/03493, Garages 53 and 54, 14 Church Place, Brighton - Demolition of end of terrace, double garage and erection of 1 two bedroom house.

 

150.60 The Area Planning Manager (West) gave a detailed presentation in respect of the proposed scheme.

 

159.61  Mr Baggs spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors who had grave concerns regarding the loss of amenity, level of overlooking overshadowing and loss of privacy which would result from the proposed development. The close juxtaposition of a modern building to grade I listed buildings was considered inappropriate.

 

159.62  Mr Ridout, the applicant spoke in support of his application stating that     he had taken account of the objections received and in consequence had pulled the frontage of the building back. The proposed development represented an improvement to the existing structure on site.

 

150.63  Councillor Wells referred to the car free status of the development considering the development to be acceptable if residents would be able to apply for parking permits. Councillor Steedman stated that he was broadly in agreement with the concerns expressed by CAG that the units would be of poor quality and size and could represent an overdevelopment of the site Councillor Davey echoed those concerns.       Councillor McCaffery expressed concerns about access arrangements for emergency service vehicles in the event of a fire .It was explained that issues relating to the internal lay out of the units and fire safety were a matter which would need to be  addressed in meeting building control regulations.

 

150.64  Councillor Mrs Theobald enquired regarding the distances between the         proposed development and the flank walls of the neighbouring properties and expressed concerns regarding the quality of the dwellings and their potential negative impact on neighbouring properties as did Councillors Cobb.

 

150.65  A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 to 2 with 4 abstentions planning permission was granted in the terms set out below 

 

150.66  RESOLVED –That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

 

150.67  Application BH2007/03951, Garages 53 and 54, 14 Church Place, Brighton – Conservation Area Consent for demolition of end of terrace double garage.

 

150.68  A vote was taken and on a vote of 6 to 2 with 4 abstentions conservation area consent was granted in the terms set out below.

 

150.69  RESOLVED -That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in paragraph 8 of the report and resolves to grant conservation area consent subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

 

150.70  Application BH2007/03943, 30 - 33 Bath Street ,Brighton- Demolition of existing buildings to be replaced with a proposed development of 2 storey buildings, to be replaced with proposed development of 2 storey buildings to the rear with B1 office space on the ground floor and 2 x 1 bedroom apartments above and 3 storey building to the front with B1 office space on the ground floor and 5 x 2 bedroom apartments above, with refuse, cycle storage and amenity spaces (Amended).

 

150.71 Members considered that it would be appropriate to carry out a site visit prior to determining the application.

 

150.72RESOLVED - That consideration of the above application be deferred pending a site visit.

 

150.73  Application BH2007/03942, 30-33 Bath Street, Brighton – Demolition of existing buildings.

 

150.74 Members considered that it would be appropriate to carry out a site visit prior to determining the application.

 

150.75RESOLVED - That consideration of the above application be deferred ending a site visit.

 

             (v) DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS DELEGATED TO THE  DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT

 

150.76 RESOLVED – That details of applications determined by the Director of Environment under delegated powers be noted.

 

             Note 1: All decisions recorded in this minute are subject to certain conditions and reasons recorded in the Planning Register maintained by the Director of Environment. The register complies with legislative requirements. 

 

             Note  2 : A list of representations, received by the Council after the Plans List reports have been submitted for printing, was circulated to Members on the Friday preceding the meeting (for copy see Minute Book). Where representations were received after that time they would be reported to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman and it would be at their discretion whether these should (in exceptional cases), be           reported to the Committee. This is in accordance with Resolution    147.2 of the then Sub Committee held on 23 February 2005.