Agenda and minutes

Councillor Azad Choudhry  -  Personal

If you need any advice on declaring an interest on an item, please contact the Constitutional Services Officer above, if possible before the day of the meeting

(i)  Agenda item 4b: Old Peacock Public House, Ilkeston Road – Planning application

Councillor Liaqat Ali declared an interest as a relative of the applicant. He considered that he should not participate in discussion or voting and left the room prior to consideration of the item.

(ii)  Agenda item 6: Designation of a Neighbourhood Area and Neighbourhood Forum for Sneinton – Application for

Councillor Chris Gibson declared an interest as a Director of Nottingham City Transport (NCT) bus company and, as the existing depot site of NCT is included within the boundaries of the proposed Neighbourhood Area, he considered that he should not participate in discussion or voting and left the room prior to consideration of the item.

Councillor Gul Khan declared an interest as a member of the proposed Neighbourhood Forum. He considered that he should not participate in discussion or voting and left the room prior to consideration of the item.

Last meeting held on 20 August 2014 (for confirmation)

The Committee confirmed the minutes of the meeting held on 20 August 2014 as a correct record and they were signed by the Chair.

Planning permission for conversion of existing factory to 48 one-bed and two-bed apartments, including external alterations to create 48 car parking spaces

Councillor Chapman was not present in the room for the start of this item and took no part in consideration of or voting on it.

Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, introduced a report of the Head of Development Management and Regeneration on application 14/00712/PFUL3, submitted by Zenith Planning and Design on behalf of White House Limited, for the conversion of the existing factory to 48 one-bed and two-bed apartments, including external alterations to create 48 car-parking spaces.

Following comments from Councillors, officers confirmed they could secure by condition that the applicant:

(i)  submits a scheme of works for approval that deals with changes to the external fabric of the building, including cleaning if possible;

(ii)  ensures that any new windows are in keeping with the style of building;

(iii)  amends the design of the entrance lobby to ensure it is also in keeping with the style of the building.

RESOLVED

(1)  to grant planning permission, subject to:

(a)   prior completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation, including a financial contribution for the provision or improvement of open space or public realm, a contribution towards the provision of skills training and local employment and a financial contribution towards the provision of off-site affordable housing, to be made in the event of sales of the proposed flats exceeding an agreed amount;

(b)  the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice;

(2)  to delegate authority to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration to determine the final details of the terms of the Section 106 Planning Obligation and the conditions of the planning permission, to include, (i) to (iii) above;

(3)  that Councillors are satisfied that Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 is complied with in that the planning obligation sought is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Planning permission for conversion and extensions to create 56 bed-space student accommodation

Councillor Ali left the room prior to consideration of this item.

Rob Percival, Area Planning Manager, introduced a report Head of Development Management and Regeneration on application 14/01735/PFUL3, submitted by Zenith Planning and Design on behalf of Mr Habib Ali, for a revised scheme for conversion and extension, following part demolition, to the existing building to create a 56 bed-space student accommodation.

Councillors were supportive of the application but raised queries about the practicality of a small area of planting to the building frontage, the strength/prominence of the proposed entrance from Ilkeston Road, the need for the relevant external materials on the Ilkeston Road elevation to match those on the plinth of the existing building and that officers must ensure lighting on the 3^rd floor, provided by roof lighting, was adequate.

In response, officers suggested the following amendments to the recommendations:

(i)  an additional recommendation that ‘authority to approve any revisions to the 3^rd floor layout plan are delegated to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration’;

(ii)  an additional condition stating ‘Notwithstanding the approved drawings, details of the entrance from Ilkeston Road within the glazed link to be submitted for the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority (with authority to approve delegated to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration).’

RESOLVED

(1)  to grant planning permission, subject to:

(a)   prior completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation, including a financial contribution towards the provision or improvement of open space or public realm and a student management agreement, including a restriction on car ownership;

(b)  the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice;

(2)  to delegate authority to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration to determine the final details:

(a)  of the Section 106 Planning Obligation;

(b)  conditions of the planning permission, in particular concerning the details of the entrance from Ilkeston Road within the glazed link and any proposed revisions to, and final details of, the 3^rd floor layout;

(3)  that Councillors are satisfied that Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 is complied with in that the planning obligation sought is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Planning permission for 12 new one-bed and two-bed apartments following demolition of existing building

Martin Poole, Area Planning Manager, introduced a report of the Head of Development Management and Regeneration, on application 14/01190/PFUL3, submitted by GraceMachin Planning and Property on behalf of Mr Andrew Muldoon, for erection of 12 one and two-bed apartments following demolition of the existing building. (This was, in effect, a reconsideration of an application reported to Planning Committee on 20 August 2014 in relation to which an administrative error had meant certain consultation responses had not been reported and commented upon).

Councillors were mindful that the application proposed construction of a new building in the Sherwood Rise Conservation Area but, having considered the character and appearance of the proposed building and the additional consultation responses, in particular those of the Nottingham Civic Society, the Committee concluded the development would enhance the character and appearance of the Area. The Committee also considered the concerns raised around the impact on residential amenity in terms of light and privacy but considered there would be no significant adverse impact.

RESOLVED

(1)  that due to an administrative error in the report considered at the 20 August 2014 meeting, the resolution of the Committee to grant planning permission, minute 23, be rescinded;

(2)  to grant planning permission subject to the indicative conditions substantially in the form of those listed in the draft decision notice;

(3)  to delegate authority to the Head of Development Management and Regeneration to determine the final conditions of the planning permission.

Report of Director for Planning and Transport

Matt Gregory, Policy and Research Manager, introduced a report of the Director of Planning and Transport, detailing the work undertaken by the City Council, in partnership with Broxtowe and Gedling Borough Councils, to prepare Aligned Core Strategies for their combined area. It was stated that a Public Examination has been held and the Inspector’s report concluded that, subject to the modifications previously consulted upon (except one relating to Gedling Borough), the Aligned Core Strategy was sound and, as such, it was formally adopted at a City Council meeting on 8 September 2014. A period of 6 weeks from adoption was now running, expiring on 26 October, in which any challenge to adoption could be made.

RESOLVED to note the adoption of the Aligned Core Strategy by Nottingham City Council and to record the thanks of the Committee to the officers involved with its creation.

Joint report of Director for Planning and Transport and Corporate Director for Development and Growth

Councillors Gibson and Khan left the room prior to consideration of this item.

In the absence of Councillor Gibson, Councillor Arnold took the Chair.

Matt Gregory, Policy and Research Manager, introduced a joint report of the Corporate Director of Development and Growth and the Director of Planning and Transport informing the Committee that an application has been made for designation of a Neighbourhood Area and a Neighbourhood Forum in the Sneinton area.

It was stated that the Council must now publicise and seek views on the application in accordance with the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 and, as such, a consultation period is running during 1 September to 13 October 2014 and the Committee’s views on the applications are sought.

Following the consultation period, responses/comments will be compiled and a report submitted to Executive Board, which has discretion for determining the designation of both the Neighbourhood Forum and Area. If the Neighbourhood Forum and Area are designated, a Neighbourhood Plan would be prepared, which would be the subject of a further consultation.

During discussion, the following comments were made:

(i)  Councillors had concerns over the governance of the Forum and required clarification on its remit and constitution;

(ii)  the report stated that ‘2,000 flyers have been distributed’ and, as the proposed Neighbourhood Area contained many more properties than this (both residential and business), the Committee asked how wide consultation on the establishment of the Area and Forum has been;

(iii)  the Committee questioned how the boundary for the Neighbourhood Area had been decided. It appeared large, included land the Committee considered to be of strategic importance to the City, and appeared to concern land that the committee considered would not be of direct relevance to the Forums’ key concerns.

RESOLVED that

(1)  the application for a Neighbourhood Area and Neighbourhood Forum for Sneinton is noted;

(2)  Committees finalised comments on the proposals will be compiled at a Working Group meeting, to which all Committee members will be invited by the Vice-Chair, and submitted as the Committee consultation response no later than 1 October 2014.

NOTE:  Subsequent to minute (2) above, the Working Group agreed the following as its response to the consultation:

REPRESENTATION OF PLANNING COMMITTEE

(Excluding Councillors Gibson and Khan, who have relevant interests)

APPLICATION FOR SNEINTON NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM AND AREA

The Planning Committee wishes to make representations on the application for the designation of a Sneinton Neighbourhood Forum and Area.  These representations are grouped under four headings, as follows:

1  Status of the Forum

The status of the prospective Forum is unclear, in particular with regard to how far it is representative of the proposed area as a whole.

There is no clarity about the purpose of the proposed Neighbourhood Plan, or what issues it is seeking to address.

2  Governance of Group

Some individuals listed as members of the Forum have confirmed that they are not actually members.

Not clear that adequate safeguards exist to prevent conflict of interest between Forum members and the proposed Neighbourhood Plan.

3  Boundary of Area and Strategic Sites

The proposed area is very large to be considered a ‘neighbourhood’.

The boundary appears to be arbitrary and area includes some areas that are not well related to Sneinton, such as the inclusion of the whole of Colwick woods, much of which relates to other neighbourhoods, such as Bakersfield.

The proposed area includes a number of strategic sites pin the City Centre and elsewhere that are considered to be Strategic Sites (for instance the Bus Depot).  The future of these sites will have City-wide implications, and it is important that their development is not fettered by local issues.

Where the actual boundary sits will be important for matters such as highway/transport improvements, ie whether is it back of pavement, front of pavement or middle of the road.

The boundary includes areas which serve a City-wide function, such as Sneinton Market.  The whole City has an interest in the future of such areas.

4  Quality of Consultation Undertaken by Forum

Several key local residents groups were unaware of the proposals, and had no previous contact with the prospective Neighbourhood Forum.

Not clear that local businesses had been engaged in the process thus far.

There is the potential for conflict of interest between the Creative Quarter and the Neighbourhood Plan.

The prospective Forum claim to have circulated 2,000 leaflets within the area, however it is noted that the area contains considerably more addresses than this.