Issue - meetings

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