Agenda item

To consider report PES/320 (c)of the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE

The Committee considered report PES/320 (c) of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Removal of Condition 2 on CR/2018/0236/FUL requiring alterations to glazing bars and fenestration within 4 months of the date of the planning permission.

Councillors Belben, Guidera, Hart, Jaggard, P C Smith and Thomas declared they had visited the site.

The Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application, whilst also providing the Committee with the following update:

The Applicant had provided further background information by way of a briefing paper, which it was understood had been circulated the previous day to all Members of the Committee, and in respect of which Members had raised a lobbying declaration earlier at this meeting.  

Mr Calum Ewing then addressed the meeting in support of the application.

The Committee then considered the application. The Committee discussed the issues arising, including the comments raised by the speakers. In response to issues raised, the Group Manager (Development Management):

·         Confirmed that the application site was not within a conservation area.

·         Explained that should the Committee agree to refuse the application, the Applicant had the right to make an appeal against that decision.

·         Indicated that if there was an appeal and this was allowed, this did not imply that the Local Planning Authority would be subject to costs.  Costs were only awarded where a party had behaved unreasonably, and unnecessary costs were incurred in the appeal process.

·         Commented that there were design policies which had not been adhered to by the Applicant, which necessitated Condition 2 and which it was felt could be defended on appeal.

With the Committee having considered the application further, and whilst some Members indicated their support for the application, others referred to the fact that the changes required by Condition 2 were integral to the design of the building as a whole for which the Local Plan policies and the Urban Design SPD required a high quality design and for this to be in context and character with the surroundings.  These policies were therefore directly relevant to the design of the shopfront and the alterations required by the Condition and there had been no change in policy circumstances since the permission was issued.  Whilst the economic benefits that the Bank brought to the town were recognised, it was felt only right to enforce Condition 2 as the Applicants had proceeded with the works at risk and originally agreed to the design changes.  

Councillor Guidera moved that a recorded vote be taken on the recommendation in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 25.5, and in so doing the names of the Members voting for and against that motion (to refuse the application), along with any abstentions, were recorded as set out below:

For the Motion (to refuse):

Councillors Hart, Malik, McAleney, P C Smith and Thomas (5).

Against the Motion (to refuse):

Councillors A Belben, Guidera, Jaggard and Purdy (4).

Abstentions:

None.

The proposal (to refuse) was therefore CARRIED, and it was

RESOLVED

Refuse, for the reason set out in report PES/320 (c)