Agenda and minutes

It was noted that an apology for absence had been received from Councillor D G Cronk.

It was noted that there were no substitute members.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members in respect of business to be transacted on the agenda.

Councillor P M Wallace made a Voluntary Announcement of Other Interests in Agenda Item 6 (Application No DOV/17/01098 – 50 and 51 Biggin Street, Dover) by reason that he was a Dover Town Councillor and knew the public speaker.

 

Councillor T A Bond made a Voluntary Announcement of Other Interests in Agenda Item 6 (Application No DOV/17/01098 – 50 and 51 Biggin Street, Dover) by reason that he was a member of the Dover Town Team. 

To confirm the Minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 26 October and 16 November 2017 (to follow).

The Minutes of the meetings held on 2 and 16 November 2017 were approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

The Chairman advised that two of the items listed (Application No DOV/14/00240 (Eastry Hospital, Mill Lane, Eastry) and Application No DOV/16/01356 (Land at Monkton Court Lane, Eythorne)) were dealt with elsewhere on the agenda.  The remaining item remained deferred.

The Chairman announced that Agenda Item 10 (Application No DOV/17/00967 – 5 Alexandra Road, Kingsdown) had been withdrawn and would not be considered at the meeting.

Part Change of Use and conversion of first, second and third floor to nine self-contained flats and installation of replacement shop front

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.

Members viewed plans and photographs of the application site which was within the urban confines of Dover. The Principal Planner advised that the application sought planning permission to convert the three upper floors of two retail units to provide three studio and six one-bedroom flats.   The ground floor retail units would be retained.  The retail unit at no. 51 would be reduced in width in order to accommodate a new entrance to the flats above.  The existing timber shopfront would be retained, and the Council’s Heritage Officer was content that the alterations would be acceptable in the Conservation Area.  The new shop frontage would incorporate a fake panel, behind which there would be an area to store rubbish bags on collection day.  This was considered to be a positive design feature.  The timber sash windows on both buildings would be repaired or retained, a significant enhancement to the appearance of the building.   There would also be a communal terraced area, as well as a separate amenity area for the first-floor studio flat. 

 

As an update to the report, Members were informed that the Dover Society had submitted comments.  In summary, the Society was satisfied in principle with the change of use to residential.  However, it did not approve of how the building had been divided because the flats were below the Guidelines standard.  The Society had expressed support for the amended shopfront design.  It was clarified that the Principal Planner had visited the site and reviewed the internal layout of the building.

 

The Committee was advised that the application had been assessed against the Council’s Flat Conversion Guidelines.  These recommended an overall floor area of 30 square metres for studio flats and 40 square metres for one-bedroom flats. Whilst it was acknowledged that six of the flats did not meet the overall standard set out in the Guidelines, individual room sizes in the majority of the flats met the recommended standards.   Moreover, all the flats were larger than 30 square metres.  It was also important to recognise that the development would provide a number of small residential units which were badly needed in the district.

 

In summary, the proposed development was thoughtfully designed in terms of layout, natural light, bin storage, etc, and would bring a long vacant building in a prominent  location back into use.  The development would also have a positive impact on the historic environment and economy of the town centre.  For these reasons, it was considered that any harm that might arise from the provision of small units would be outweighed by the benefits. 

 

Councillor B Gardner advised that he supported the conversion of the building to residential use.  However, he could not support the number of units proposed as they were far too small, with six of the nine flats being below the sizes set out in the Council’s Guidelines.  The building had been left to rot for a number of years and here was now pressure to grant permission.  However, granting permission would send the wrong message to owners of similar properties.

 

Councillor P M Beresford welcomed the proposal which would provide badly needed accommodation and assist in regenerating the High Street.  She sought clarification on whether the Guidelines were compulsory and had to be followed. 

 

The Chairman commented that the terminology was confusing, and asked for clarification on the difference between a studio and a one-bedroomed flat.  He reminded Members that they had to consider what was in front of them and could not defer the application to seek a reduced number of flats.

 

Councillor B W Butcher acknowledged the cramped design and emphasised the importance of Building Control’s involvement should planning permission be granted to ensure future occupants’ safety.  However, there was no doubt that there would be very high demand for the dwellings.  The Chairman reminded the Committee that fire regulations were a matter for Building Control and not within the remit of the Committee.  If permission were granted, such matters would be addressed during the construction phase.  Councillor T A Bond agreed that the proposed development would be cramped but, under Planning policies, could see no valid reason for refusal.

 

Councillor P M Wallace urged the Committee to consider the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which required it to look at the economic, social and environmental implications of a development.  The conversion of the building would not preserve or enhance the building’s architectural features and would lead to the loss of some notable internal features.   The proposed internal layout and design of the conversion was also of concern.  He advised that he had spoken to Porchlight which had indicated that it might look to move homeless people into the flats.  Such a proposition was not right for a town centre in need of regeneration and situated in the second most deprived ward in the District.  If similar properties were similarly converted, the character of the area would change and the risk of anti-social behaviour and crime would increase.  Finally, the occupants of the flats were likely to be single with limited disposable income and therefore unlikely to make a significant economic contribution to the area. 

 

It was moved by Councillor B Gardner and duly seconded that the application should be refused. 

 

The Chairman reminded Members that the application should be judged against current policies and not against those that might be introduced in the future.

 

The Principal Planner advised that the Council’s Guidelines provided a good benchmark against which to assess proposals but were not compulsory.  It would be a matter for Members to balance all the issues set out in them (e.g. bin storage, light, room sizes, etc).  Although the development fell foul on the size of some rooms, it met the Guidelines in all other respects.   Whilst there was no definition of a studio flat, it was generally considered to be one with an open-plan living, kitchen and sleeping area, and a separate bathroom, with privacy screens or a low wall around the sleeping area.  A one-bedroomed flat would generally have a solid wall between the living area and bedroom.  In response to the concerns raised about occupiers, it was clarified that the units would not be occupied by families but by single people or couples and privacy considerations were therefore irrelevant.  It was also clarified that refuse bags would not be stored behind the shop frontage outside collection days as each flat would have its own bin store at the back of the building. 

 

The Chairman pointed out that the building was not listed and the Local Planning Authority therefore had very little control over internal alterations.   Whilst there was agreement that something needed to be done with the building, there were concerns that the proposed layout and design were not appropriate.  He suggested that the application could be deferred to gain a better understanding of the layout and to enable discussions to be held regarding the Guidelines.  

 

Councillor Butcher indicated that, whilst the development had shortcomings, he was reluctant to refuse it as it would give youngsters the chance to own property and drastically improve the appearance of a derelict site.  In response to Councillor Bond who questioned whether over-intensification of the building was a valid reason for refusal, the Chairman advised that it would be more appropriate to refuse the application on the grounds that it did not meet the Guidelines.

 

Councillor Wallace pointed out that the proposal did not meet the requirements set out in the NPPF, particularly with reference to building strong, vibrant communities, the quality of design and amenities and ensuring the vitality of town centres.   The Chairman responded that strong evidence was needed to support these claims if they were to withstand scrutiny at appeal, and this was lacking.   Put simply, the strongest case for refusing the application was that it did not comply with the Guidelines.  The harm that would be caused to future occupants due to room size and the poor standard of amenity area could also be cited.  

 

The Planning Consultant advised that the application property was one of a number of similar buildings forming a row in the town centre.  If refused, the application was likely to succeed at appeal, giving the green light for other town centre buildings to be developed in a similar vein.  Members had given a clear indication that they could not accept the current proposals and this gave Officers a strong steer for further negotiations with the applicant.  If the application came back and was sub-standard, Members would be on more solid ground to refuse it.  He was of the view that it would be beneficial to defer the application in order to seek amendments to the scheme.   The Chairman added that, if refused that evening without further negotiations taking place, the Planning Inspector was likely to uphold an appeal and the LPA would then have no control over how the building was converted. 

 

Councillor B Gardner, with the agreement of his seconder, agreed to withdraw his motion to refuse the application.

 

It was moved by Councillor B Gardner and duly seconded and

 

RESOLVED   That, notwithstanding the Officer’s recommendation, Application No DOV/17/01098 be DEFERRED for negotiations with the applicant to review the level of accommodation to be provided so that it can be reconfigured to conform to the Council’s Conversion of Flats Guidelines.

 

Erection of a single storey link extension, garage and studio extension with storage and gym above; two-storey rear extension and extension to existing terrace (existing conservatory to be demolished)

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.

Members were shown drawings, plans and photographs of the application site.  The Senior Planner advised that the description of the application should be amended to include a side extension.  As an update to the report, Members were advised that an additional three letters of objection had been received which raised no new issues.  The proposed extensions would not be seen in down views, and there would be no overlooking due to the topography and terraced nature of the area.   The scale and form of development, and its impact on the street scene, were considered acceptable.  

 

Councillor M J Ovenden commented that the ground around the application site sloped downwards which meant that there were no issues of overlooking as views  from the proposed development would look beyond, rather than into, other dwellings below.   Councillors Butcher and Bond stated that they could see no grounds on which to refuse the application. 

 

Councillor Gardner stated that, whilst it was a very large plot and the proposed development would occupy less than 20% of the total site, the entire gap between the house and the garage would be filled in.  In his view, this would lead to a sense of enclosure and be detrimental to the street scene.  He recommended that the application should be refused on the grounds that it was out of character and scale with the area.   The Chairman reminded Members that the area did not have a defined character, and pointed out that the link between the house and garage would only be 2.2 metres high.      

 

RESOLVED:  (a) That Application No DOV/17/01078 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)            Standard time;

 

(ii)           Carried out in accordance with approved plans;

 

(iii)          Details of materials to be submitted and approved;

 

(iv)         Glazing within the rear elevations, link-way and garage shall be non-reflective glass and retained as such at all times;

 

(v)          Existing boundary treatment screening to the south-east boundary shall be retained at all times;

 

(vi)         Landscaping scheme to be submitted for the north-east, south-west boundary.

 

(b)  That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Erection of a two-storey front extension, extension to vehicular crossover and enlargement of driveway (existing garage to be demolished)

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.

The Committee viewed plans and photographs of the application site.  The Planning Officer advised that the application sought planning permission for the erection of a two-storey extension and extensions to a vehicular crossover and driveway to a dwelling which was situated within the settlement confines of Walmer.  The current application sought to address concerns raised about a previous scheme which had been withdrawn.  The proposed development was considered acceptable in terms of its impact on the street scene, and there would be no undue harm caused to adjoining properties.  

 

Councillor D P Murphy advised that he disliked the proposed development as it would block a gap between buildings which was a characteristic of the street.  In his view the development would have an overbearing effect on no. 27 and be out of character with the street scene.  The Chairman pointed out that the proposed extension would not fill the gap completely, being no closer than two metres to no. 27. 

 

Councillor Gardner agreed that the proposed development would be overbearing, out of character with the street scene and unsympathetic to the surrounding buildings.  It was confirmed that there would be a separation distance of just under three metres between the side wall of the proposed extension and no. 27.  Whilst there was a small, obscure-glazed window to the rear of the side elevation of no. 27, it was not known whether this served a habitable room.  

 

It was moved by Councillor D P Murphy and duly seconded that Application No DOV/17/01107 should be refused on the grounds that the proposed extension, by virtue of its scale, design, location and siting, substantially forward of the principal elevation of the dwelling, together with its relationship with adjoining properties, would result in an intrusive, poorly related, unsympathetic form of development, at odds with the open, spacious character of the street scene which would not reinforce or reflect local distinctiveness.  Consequently, the development would fail to integrate into, and cause harm to, the character and visual quality of the street scene, contrary to paragraphs 17, 56 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

On being put to the vote, the motion was LOST.

 

It was moved by Councillor B W Butcher and duly seconded and

 

RESOLVED:  (a) That Application No DOV/17/01107 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)            Timescale of commencement of development;

 

(ii)           A list of approved plans;

 

(iii)          Measures to prevent the discharge of surface water onto the highway;

 

(iv)         Use of a bound surface for the first five metres of the access from the edge of the highway;

 

(v)          Completion of access prior to first use.

 

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling (all matters reserved)

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.

The Committee was shown plans and photographs of the application site which was within the village confines of Kingsdown.  The Planning Officer advised that the application sought outline permission for the erection of a detached dwelling, indicating that a two-storey dwelling was proposed but giving no further details.   There had been no change in circumstances since planning permission was granted for a similar scheme in 2015.  

 

As a correction to the report, Members were advised that a Section 106 agreement would be needed to control the translocation of slow-worms, the negotiation of which  should be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development. 

 

Councillor Gardner stated that, whilst he had no objections to development on the site, a two-storey building would be out of character with the area, and he therefore proposed that a condition/informative should be added to the effect that only a one-storey dwelling would be acceptable.  

 

Councillor Bond commented that he disliked the application because it lacked detail.  The Chairman reminded Members that it was the applicant’s right to submit an outline application.  It was the principle that was being established by granting permission and, as a site within the confines, this was not at issue. 

 

RESOLVED:   (a) That, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement for the translocation of slow-worms, Application No DOV/17/01165 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

i)        Approval of Reserved Matters;

 

ii)       Time limit for submission of Reserved Matters;

 

iii)      Time limit for commencement of development following approval of Reserved Matters;

 

iv)     Approved plans;

 

v)      Highway conditions to include: provision and permanent retention of parking spaces prior to first occupation; provision and retention of cycle parking facilities prior to first occupation; provision and maintenance of visibility splays to be shown on submitted plans prior to first occupation; details for construction vehicle parking;

 

vi)     Sample of materials;

 

vii)    Soft and hard landscaping details;

 

viii)   Tree/shrub replacement;

 

ix)     Landscape management plan;

 

x)      Details of boundary treatments;

 

xi)     Details of disposal of foul and surface water;

 

xii)    Existing and proposed sections through the site, to include details of existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels and thresholds.

 

                    (b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to  settle any necessary Section 106 matters and planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

 

(c)  Informative: That the applicant be advised that the Committee is likely to find it difficult to approve a dwelling of more than one storey at full application stage.

 

 

 

Change of Use of land for the keeping of horses, the formation of a vehicle access and the erection of a gate (retrospective application)

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.

Members were shown photographs of the application site.   The Planning Consultant reminded Members that the application had been deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting held on 26 October 2017 to enable Officers to negotiate with the applicant regarding the removal of the access gate and reinstatement of the hedgerow.  Negotiations had been successful, and it was suggested that a condition should be attached to require the hedge to be replanted within three months of the planning decision notice.  Details of the proposed condition, including species and intervals, were set out at paragraph 10 of the report.  As a correction to the report, the Planning Consultant advised that the application sought a change of use of land for the keeping of horses only.

 

Councillor Ovenden advised that local residents had welcomed the decision made by the Planning Committee in October. She reported that the original field access was now being used, and looked forward to the hedgerow being reinstated. 

 

RESOLVED:  (a) That Application No DOV16/01356 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

(i)            Carried out in accordance with the approved plans (notwithstanding the removal of the gate);

 

(ii)           No temporary structures within the application site;

 

(iii)          Details of the storage of disposal of manure;

 

(iv)         To be used for private use only;

 

(v)          The number of horses to be limited;

 

(vi)         No events/livery/commercial use;

 

(vii)        Within 3 months of the date of the decision notice, the gate (shown on drawing no. 21530B/11) shall be removed and the access permanently sealed in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, and hedgerows shall be reinstated/replanted within the opening with a similar species and planting spacing to the existing hedgerow.  No further vehicular or pedestrian access shall be achieved through this sealed off and replanted opening at any time. 

 

(b) That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary planning conditions in line with the issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by the Planning Committee.

Redevelopment of site to provide a total of 100 residential units comprising: two-storey terrace, semi-detached and detached new-build dwellings; Change of use and conversion of Tewkesbury House and the Chapel to provide 568 square metres of community space (Use Class D1), employment space (Use Class B1) and two residential units; minor demolition, alteration and conversion of the ‘Old Workhouse’ to provide ten residential units; retention and reinstatement of the fire-damaged Range building and erection of a two-storey terrace of ten residential units; car parking, landscaping, public open space and alteration to existing access (Amended plans and documents)

 

To consider the attached report of the Head of Regeneration and Development.

The Committee was shown drawings, plans and photographs of the application site.   The Planning Consultant reported that an updated viability assessment had been received, pursuant to the Committee’s deferral of the application on 31 August 2017.  The Committee had voiced particular concerns about the under provision of affordable housing on site and the date of the original viability assessment which had been based on 2015 values.  Since August, additional information had also been received in relation to the increased flood risk, drainage infrastructure and the phasing of works to the listed buildings.  Members were updated that recent bad weather had caused significant further damage to the listed buildings. 

 

The updated viability figures now took account of inflation and house price increases.  These had had an impact on viability as house prices had increased above the rate of inflation.   It was for the Committee to decide whether the land acquisition cost (included in the viability calculations) should be based on what was paid when the site was originally purchased or the likely purchase price of the land in the current market.   Whilst there was no hard and fast rule, Members should be mindful that development of the site would deliver 100 dwellings within the next five years, and lead to the reinstatement/re-building of listed buildings.  The new viability assessment had been independently assessed, and Officers were of the view that the recent damage to the listed buildings would actually increase the developer’s costs.  Officers disagreed with the agent’s assertion that a 20% profit should be expected because of buoyant market conditions.   In any case, the assessment indicated that the developer was likely to achieve a profit of between 15% and 17% which was within the recognised level of profit that could be expected from a scheme of this nature.  Whilst it was regrettable that only 10% affordable housing would be achieved, this was deemed to be acceptable given the other benefits of the scheme. 

 

In terms of flood risk, the installation of a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) would mean lower water run-off rates than those expected of a greenfield site.   The Water Industry Act 1991 did not prohibit development taking place simply because of capacity issues, and gave developers the right to connect to a public sewer or drain.  Although the LPA was permitted to impose conditions to retain some control over drainage solutions, these were not permitted to replicate or override the legislation.  

 

The applicant had confirmed that the renovation/re-building of the listed buildings would take place in the second phase of development.  It was recognised that this phasing would allow the developer to finance the second phase of development through the sale of houses built in the first phase.   In terms of the layout of the dwellings situated close to the listed buildings, Members were advised that the proposed layout would limit the number of vehicles passing the listed buildings.  Moreover, repositioning some of the dwellings would affect the outlook of the other dwellings within the development.  The proposed design was considered to be of a high standard and one which would have the least impact upon the setting of the listed buildings.  For these reasons, amendments had not been sought.  

 

As an amendment to the report, it was recommended that a clause should be included in the Section 106 agreement so as to require that development should be commenced within two rather than three years.  Should this not happen, the applicant would be required to provide an updated viability assessment at their own expense.   It was proposed that minor changes should be made to conditions xxviii) and xxxvii).

 

Councillor Gardner voiced concerns expressed previously about the level of estate agent’s fees and solicitor’s costs used for the viability assessment.   He was not happy with the level of affordable housing being offered and reiterated his view that the developer had paid too much for the site.  The Chairman commented that developers were always likely to choose the maximum figures allowable under Government guidance.  The Planning Consultant (Viability) advised that the figures used in this viability assessment were typical of those used by developers when calculating viability but, in some instances, were actually quite low.  In response to Councillor Gardner, the Planning Consultant advised that if the site had not been allocated and the LPA was not concerned about bringing it forward or preserving what was left of the listed buildings, then Members could reject the viability assessment on the grounds that it was not based on the current land value (which would have enabled the applicant to make a larger affordable housing contribution).   However, it should be remembered that the application had been submitted in 2014 which suggested that the applicant had not ‘land-banked’ the site.  Furthermore, as well as the purchase cost, the applicant would have incurred interest charges on any loans taken out.      

 

Councillor Butcher argued that the application site was a large brownfield site which would generally offer lower profits than other sites.   The development would be good for Eastry and, in his view, 10% affordable housing was better than none at all.   Councillor Ovenden commented that the proposed development was somewhat constrained by the nature of the site.  She liked the design of the scheme and welcomed the fact that it would halt the destruction and degradation of what remained of the historical buildings.

 

In response to Councillor Beresford, the Planning Consultant advised Members that an average development would expect to be able to achieve a build of around 50 units a year.  Phase one of the development consisted of 20 to 25 units.  However, there were a significant number of conditions that would need to be discharged before construction could commence.   The granting of planning permission would enable the developer to raise the finance needed to secure the listed buildings in the short term.  

 

It was clarified that condition xxxv) would include off-site drainage.   In respect of this, the Chairman advised that the condition would leave the LPA in control until such time as it had approved a drainage scheme (before which there would be no occupation).   The Planning Consultant emphasised that the condition would be tightly worded to ensure that building work could not commence until a drainage scheme had been cleared with Southern Water and approved by the LPA.  As further reassurance, he added that this was a much smaller development than Whitfield and, unlike Whitfield, there would have been foul sewage arising from the previous uses of the site. 

 

RESOLVED: (a) That, subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure (i) the provision of 10% affordable housing; (ii) appropriate financial contributions to provide necessary ecological mitigation; (iii) appropriate phasing of the site, and the inclusion of a clause that would require the applicant to submit an updated viability assessment at their expense should the development not commence within 2 years, Application No DOV/14/00240 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

 

i)              Commencement within 2 years;

 

ii)             Carried out in accordance with the approved drawings;

 

iii)            Submission of Construction Management Plan;

 

iv)           Limits on temporary lighting/illumination;

 

v)            Development carried out in accordance with approved phasing sequence; 

 

vi)           Submission of development phasing;

 

vii)          Written confirmation of commencement of development and first occupation of each phase;

 

viii)         Submission of details relevant to sales/marketing accommodation, vehicle parking and servicing and associated development;

 

ix)           Limits to means of enclosure;

 

x)            Limits to the provision of hard surfacing;

 

xi)           Submission of material samples;

 

xii)          Informative on windows;

 

xiii)         Submission of details for listed buildings;

 

xiv)        Solar panel installation;

 

xv)         Retention of Public Right of Way;

 

xvi)        Submission of details of proposed on-site highway works;

 

xvii)       Finished surfacing to vehicle and pedestrian access routes;

 

xviii)      Submission of details of sight lines (roadway junctions);

 

xix)        Submission of details of sight lines (private driveways);

 

xx)         Limits on development overhang;

 

xxi)        Submission of details relating to vehicle parking;

 

xxii)       Submission of travel plan;

 

xxiii)      Submission of details of hard and soft landscaping;

 

xxiv)      Hard and soft landscaping carried out in accordance with approved details;

 

xxv)       Limits on excavation during construction;

 

xxvi)      Limits on storage of materials;

 

xxvii)     No damage to trees or hedgerows within phased development;

 

xxviii)    Erection of means of enclosure;

 

xxix)      Submission of external lighting scheme;

 

xxx)       Submission of details of refuse storage areas and recycling facilities;

 

xxxi)      Programme of archaeological works;

 

xxxii)     Contamination informative;

 

xxxiii)    Submission of sustainable water drainage scheme;

 

xxxiv)   Infiltration of surface water drainage only with approval of Local Planning Authority;

 

xxxv)    Submission of Foul Sewerage Disposal Strategy;

 

xxxvi)   Retention of open areas/spaces;

 

xxxvii)  No external meter units on any external elevation;

 

xxxviii)Secure and implement programme of archaeological works;

 

xxxix)   Ecological enhancements;

 

xxxx) Any other conditions as required by Kent County Council Highways;

 

xxxxi) Safeguarding employment use;

 

xxxxii) Any other conditions as required by DDC Conservation.

 

(b)        That powers be delegated to the Head of Regeneration and Development to settle any necessary Section 106 matters and planning conditions in line with issues set out in the recommendation and as resolved by Planning Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

The Committee noted that there was no information to receive regarding appeals and informal hearings.

The Committee noted that no action had been taken since the last meeting.