Issue - meetings

The Committee received an application for full planning permission.

 

The application sought approval for retrospective planning permission for an outdoor bar and servery, and an additional toilet block; and to add Use Classes A3 and D2 to existing D1 Use.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a resident of Riverside Place:

      i.          Supported the Museum in principle. Facilities were generally made available on the Museum site and there was a buffer between residents and the Museum.

     ii.          The Engineer House had a negative impact on residents:

a.    More traffic on Riverside, particularly in the evening and at closing time.

b.    Impact on private driveways.

c.    Anti-social behaviour (e.g. littering).

   iii.          Queried how to manage visitors who had left the Museum site but negatively impacted on residents.

 

Mr Little (Applicant) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Bennett (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                The overall use of the Riverside Area was set out in the Riverside Vision.

a.    Residential area.

b.    Active travel route.

c.    Museum.

ii.               Riverside had a long history of suffering from anti-social behaviour and criminal activity particularly drug dealing.

iii.             Residents saw the (legitimate) use of Engineer’s House as protection against anti-social behaviour.

iv.             There was a long record of outdoor drinking on Logan’s Meadow.

v.              There was a lot of noise and anti-social behaviour issues in the Riverside Area generally unconnected to the Museum.

vi.             A long-standing lack of toilets led to regular anti-social behaviour such as urinating in public (as mentioned by the Objector).

vii.           Any noise management plan would fail without support from the community.

viii.         Queried if the 2 years given to Museum to satisfy financial conditions was fit for purpose in case the Museum could not satisfy these. Planning conditions suited conditions pre-Covid but may not reflect conditions now. Queried impact on Museum’s ability to seek grant funding in the future.

ix.             Residents had not objected to Museum’s proposals in general, had made some requests for minor amendments such as green instead of blue tarpaulins in green spaces.

x.              The Museum may wish to put funding into toilet facilities and leave temporary structures in place at present?

 

Councillor Porrer proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation to include an informative requesting parking space for cargo bikes.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that a management plan should cover traffic and anti-social behaviour issues. The plan would replace Condition 3.

 

This amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee:

 

Unanimously resolved to grant the application for retrospective planning permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:

      i.          the planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report;

     ii.          delegated authority to officers, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes to draft and include an additional condition requiring a management plan to cover traffic and anti-social behaviour issues. The plan would replace Condition 3 included in the Officer report; and

   iii.          informatives included on the planning permission in respect of  parking space for cargo bikes.