Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
21 19/1167/FUL - Public Toilet, Silver Street PDF 198 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Councillor Thornburrow withdrew from the
Committee for items 19/1167/FUL and 19/1350/LBC and did not take part in the
discussion or decision making.
The Consultant Planner gave an officer
presentation covering both 19/1167/FUL and 19/1350/LBC
planning applications. Members were advised that the two applications would be
debated at the same time but separate votes would need to be taken on each
application.
The application 19/1167/FUL sought approval for refurbishment of
existing basement toilets and associated works to include the provision of a
new guard rail to the basement stairs, and the erection of a replacement
wheelchair accessible WC and kiosk (following demolition of the existing
wheelchair accessible WC structure).
The application 19/1350/LBC
sought approval for the refurbishment of existing
basement toilets and associated works to include the provision of a new guard
rail to the basement stairs, and the erection of a replacement wheelchair
accessible WC and kiosk (following demolition of the existing wheelchair
accessible WC structure).
The Consultant Planner referred members to the amendments contained in
the Amendment Sheet which included details for both the full planning
application and the listed building consent application.
The Committee received two representations in objection to the
applications:
The first representations covered the following issues:
i.
Silver Street had always been a
place for tourists to congregate, this had become hazardous because of stalls, bicycle
racks and benches. Suggested that obstructions should be removed and that this
was an accident waiting to happen.
ii.
Suggested the kiosk element of the
proposal should be reconsidered and that movement on the street would be
hampered.
iii.
There was a high risk of accidents
in this area.
The second representations covered the following issues:
i.
He was pleased to have contributed
to the Development Control Forum but had expected to see revised plans to
address safety concerns, access and trees.
ii.
Was disappointed that the
re-submitted plans had no significant amendments.
iii.
Requested that the application was
deferred because this was an important application
iv.
Expressed concerns about safety,
although there was a solid build line this was much closer to the street.
v.
A University representative no
longer suggested that disabled students used this street.
vi.
The pedestrian crossing had been
installed following a fatality in the area.
vii.
The Disability Panel and the City
Council’s Access Officer objected to the application.
viii.
Suggested that the kiosk was
removed and replaced with an accessible toilet.
ix.
Said the design of the development
was reverse engineered.
x.
Commented that the trees would
need to be constantly pollarded and that there should be a tree replacement
strategy.
Mr Mac Mahon (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of
the application.
The Committee voted on the Planning Officer’s
recommendation to approve the application and this was lost by 4 votes to 2
with 1 abstention.
Meeting paused for 10 minutes for officer's to consider
reasons for refusal. These were read out to Members and then the Planning
Delivery Manager suggested that rather than refuse the application, that
Members may want to consider whether the application could be deferred for the
Council (as applicant) to consider the areas of concern raised.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 2 to nullify the
above decision.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 7 votes to 0) to defer the application for the following reasons:
i.
Siting of building
and height
ii.
Appearance of
electronic turnstile to basement
iii.
Location of
entrance to accessible toilet.
iv.
Further
information on the Water Management Strategy