Agenda item

The Committee will be requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee considered application 15/0583 for the retention of a temporary amenity building for a period of two years.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management, presented the Committee with a brief overview of the application and the site layout and elevational plans.  Members were reminded that at its meeting in March the Committee had approved plans for an amenity building on the site.  Mr Johnston advised Members that the application before the Committee was for a temporary amenity building on the site until the approved amenity building could be erected.  The temporary building would be located partially on the footprint of the approved amenity building. Whilst the application requested the temporary amenity building be in place for a period of two years, Mr Johnston considered an 18 month period would be more appropriate to enable construction of the approved amenity building to take place in Spring 2017.   He referred Members to the Update Note and the associated photograph.  Mr Johnston reported on the main differences between the temporary amenity building and the approved permanent amenity building.  Members were advised of the layout of the temporary amenity building which comprised of a shower, toilet facilities, kitchen area and day room.  Mr Johnston reported that the temporary amenity building had previously been located at another site on School Road, for which it had previously received planning permission.

Mr Lancaster, public objector, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Jenkins, applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Stansfield, Ward Councillor, spoke on behalf of Mr Lancaster and his family in objection to the application.

On invitation from the Chairman, Mr Johnston responded to the representations.  He confirmed that prior permission for the amenity building at a different site in the nearby area was a material consideration and cited other similar buildings within the area that had been used as a short term solution. He confirmed that some of the work that would be carried out for the temporary building would also serve the permanent building.  He confirmed that, in his view, there would be no material impact on any alleged flooding and no impediment to visibility for pedestrians as a result of the siting of the temporary amenity building. 

In response to claims that no progress had been made to meet the requirements of the conditions associated with the previous planning permission for the site, Mr Johnston reported on some of the work that had been undertaken, although accepted that it might not have been carried out as quickly as hoped.  He confirmed that the building had appeared on site in July 2015 without the appropriate planning permission. 

During its deliberations, the Committee raised concerns regarding the installation of the temporary amenity building without the appropriate planning permission and the potential for the building, if permission was granted, to remain on site following the approved period, particularly if funds had already been spent on its installation. Further concerns included the arrangements that would be put in place during the time that the temporary building was removed and the erection of the permanent building as they were mainly sited in the same location.  In response to some of the concerns, Mr Johnston confirmed that, should the application be granted and the temporary building not be removed at the appropriate time, the applicant could submit a further application for the Committee’s consideration.  Mr Johnston also explained generally regarding planning enforcement provisions. He confirmed that the plan for the permanent structure had been approved, and details of the proposed materials to be used had been received. 

Responding to further concerns regarding the use of the temporary building for accommodation purposes rather than as an amenity building, Mr Johnston confirmed that he had made several visits to the site, some of which had been unannounced and had found no evidence of this.

The Committee carefully considered the application and all the representations made at the meeting.

The Committee noted the Head of Development Management’s rationale for recommending an 18 month period for the temporary building as opposed to two years.

Taking all the above into consideration, and notwithstanding the concerns raised, the Committee generally agreed that permission for the temporary amenity building should be granted although requested that it be made clear to the applicant that it would need to be removed at the end of the 18 month period.

Resolved: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions, and for the reasons set out in the appendix to the minutes.

Background papers: Applications, plans and replies to consultations upon the applications.