Issue - meetings

Application for extensions / alterations to existing two retail units and one residential unit to form one retail units and five self-contained apartments.

Application for extensions / alterations to existing two retail units and one residential unit to form one retail unit and five self-contained apartments.

It was moved by Councillor Roberts that the application be refused on grounds of highway safety and overdevelopment. In the absence of a seconder, the motion was not put.

It was moved by Councillor Cartwright that officers be granted delegated authority to resolve the safety issues and determine the application. In the absence of a seconder, this motion was not put.

It was moved by Councillor Taylor and seconded by Councillor Hodgkins that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the officer’s report and the amendment of the condition contained in the late items to read “No development shall take place until a scheme for closing the redundant vehicular crossing and the reinstatement of the footway, including kerbstone and other appropriate details, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be completed prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved”.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried and it was

RESOLVED – permission be granted subject to the conditions contained in the officer’s report and late items as amended above.

Having declared a pecuniary interest in the following two applications, Councillor Ward left the meeting at 9.05pm. Councillor Sutton took the chair at this juncture.

Extensions / alterations to existing 2 retail units and 1 residential unit to form 1 retail unit and 5 self-contained apartments.

Application for extensions / alterations to existing 2 retail units and 1 residential unit to form 1 retail unit and 5 self-contained apartments.

Following concerns raised about highways, the reported wells on the site and the position of the proposed property, it was moved by Councillor Roberts and seconded by Councillor Wright that this application be deferred for further information on the wells and to discuss the possibility of setting back the building.

A motion was subsequently proposed by Councillor Taylor to refuse the application due to being dissatisfied with the positioning of the building. In the absence of a seconder, the motion was not put.

Councillor Cartwright moved that it be delegated to officers to discuss the siting with the applicant and approve if an agreement could be reached. In the absence of a seconder, the motion was not put.

It was moved by Councillor Roberts, seconded by Councillor Wright and

RESOLVED – the application be deferred for further discussion on setting back the property.