APPLICANT: Head of Property Services and the Governors of Cleeve School, Gloucestershire County Council, c/o Shire Hall, Gloucester, Glos., GL1 2TG
SITE: Cleeve School, Two Hedges Road, Bishops Cleeve, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 8AE
PROPOSAL: Proposed 6th Form building to include refurbishment of existing single storey block and new single storey and two storey extension (Revised Plans)
A summary of the application was presented by Amanda Baylis, Senior Planning Officer, aided by a power point presentation. (A copy of the presentation is attached to the signed Minute book).
The site comprised of the existing Academy school, located on Two Hedges Road, Bishops Cleeve. It catered for pupils aged 11 to 18 years of age. Members were informed that the site was located in a residential area with a mix of bungalows and two storey residential properties. There was a mix of designs within the school site itself.
The Committee viewed a slide which depicted the existing view of the site, looking south from Two Hedges Road. The existing single storey block to be refurbished could be seen as well as the existing sixth form building. It was noted that the proposed extensions would be located on the existing Sixth Form car park.
Mrs Baylis explained the dimensions of the extension, these being the
proposed single storey element, which would be 4.3m in height to the top of the roof and the proposed two storey element, was 7.8m in height to the top of the roof.
The proposal was considered to be an acceptable design for a school building, which was not at odds with the appearance of the existing school site and surrounding area.
It was noted that no windows were proposed at first floor level on the western elevation, apart from those that serve the atrium in the north-western corner. This would be a double height room, so people would be unable to stand and look out of these windows at first floor level. A condition had been recommended to prevent any additional openings/glazing on the western elevation. Glazed windows and doors were proposed on the western elevation at single storey level. These had been inserted for ventilation and design purposes.
The Committee was informed that at its closest point, at single storey level the distance between a neighbour’s property building (101 Two Hedges Road) and the proposed extension was 16m.
In addition, at its closest point, at first floor level the distance between a neighbour’s property and the proposed extension was 23m (to the red line boundary with 16 Moreton Close) or 24m to the neighbour’s property building (101 Two Hedges Road).
Mrs Baylis explained that due to the proposed car parking, landscaping and access road being located between the extension and bungalows and over 16m at single storey level, views out of the building into neighbouring properties would be obscured in any event.
It was considered that the proposals in terms of overlooking or overshadowing, would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residents. The proposed 15 car parking bays adjacent to the neighbours were no closer than existing.
The Committee were informed that a lighting plan accompanies the planning application and revisions had been made to the original scheme, following local concerns being raised. Bollard lighting was now proposed around the parking and landscaping areas on the western side of the site, which was considered to be an improvement for the bungalows in terms of their amenity. 3m high wall mounted lighting was proposed on the actual building. The application was accompanied by an ‘Environmental Noise Assessment’ and ‘Classroom Noise Break-Out Assessment’. The Environmental Health Officer had raised no objections to the scheme subject to conditions. It was considered that the proposals in terms of the impact of the building, car parking, lighting and noise levels would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residents.
Member’s attention was drawn to a slide showing the existing view of the site from 101 Two Hedges Road, which was the closest neighbour to the proposal. The edge of the bungalow could be seen on the left and the garden was in the rest of the photo. Existing buildings within the school site could already be seen from the garden. Mrs Baylis reminded members of the visit to this neighbour’s property on the Members Site Visit. It was noted that a letter of objection has been received from this neighbour, which was contained within the Committee Report.
Mrs Baylis explained that the Applicant stated that based on current surveys, 14.9% of sixth form students drive to school. Based on the proposed number of sixth form students (350), this would create a total parking demand of 53 on street car parking spaces. The application was accompanied by a Parking Technical Note that assesses on street parking in the vicinity. It illustrated that there were approximately 256 spaces available within 500m of the school from 8am - 5pm on the date of the survey. A County Highways Officer had looked at the proposals and had raised no objections, subject to conditions.
It was pointed out that the County Highways Officer had commented in the report, that the travel plan included targets and measures to reduce pupil drop-offs and pick-ups and 6th form drivers by 5%, reducing the estimated additional A.M peak movements to 65 and P.M. movements to 63. This combined with a 5% reduction in current levels of pupil drop-offs and 6th form drivers would result in there not being a significant increase on the network to warrant refusal.
In relation to staff parking, it was proposed that only staff would be permitted to park on site. There were 100 existing car parking spaces in the north east of the school site. It was explained that 40 additional car parking spaces were proposed within the site. These consisted of 25 new car parking spaces, which were proposed between the current drop off area and Two Hedges Road and the remaining 15 new car parking spaces were between the proposed extension and the neighbours of Moreton Close & 101 Two Hedges Rd.
It was noted that two public bus stops were located outside the school site on both sides of Two Hedges Road. There were dedicated school bus services that stopped within the school site at the beginning and end of the school day. The Committee were informed that further information on parking could be found in the Transport Assessment and Parking Technical Note. With these conditions, the proposal was acceptable in terms of highways safety.
There had been 5 neighbour letters of objection had been received from no’s 70, 72A, 91 and 101 Two Hedges Road and 15 Moreton Close. The Parish Council and County Council Local Member had also raised objections. It was explained that the concerns related mainly to on street parking, highways, but also referred to landscaping, noise and light pollution, height of the extension, overlooking and construction. (The full comments could be viewed in the planning committee report).
It was noted that at paragraph 6.2 of the Committee Report, it was the Borough Council Local Member who made comments to Tewkesbury Borough Council, not the County Council Local Member.
The Committee were informed with the appropriate planning conditions, the proposal was of an appropriate design, landscaping and would not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties, ecology, archaeology, flooding, nor on highway safety. Balanced with this was the identification in paragraph 72 of the NPPF that great weight should be given to the expansion or alteration of schools.
Mrs Baylis concluded that the Officer’s recommendation was that planning permission be GRANTED for the reasons set out in the report and summarised in paragraphs 7.49 – 7.50 subject to the conditions detailed in section 8 of the report and in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Regulations) 1992.
The Chairman invited the following to address the Committee:
Objecting: Sue Hillier-Richardson:
“Thank you chair for this opportunity of addressing the committee. I’m Sue Hillier-Richardson, a local councillor for the ward in which Cleeve School is situated. My concerns here are shared by our local County Councillor and by many residents and other local councillors.
I’ll get straight to the point and what is now the main issue of concern with this application - and this is a huge issue for local residents in Cleeve generally, and that is one of parking, increased parking often leads to traffic congestion causing a risk to road safety, particularly around schools and to increased dis-amenity to residents.
The application before you does not seem to have addressed this issue of the need for parking places associated with a larger Sixth Form Building - an estimated 53 extra spaces being needed. We all know that sixth formers will inevitably drive to school and these vehicles will be parked for the duration of the school day and even later at times. Many may be older and more heavily polluting contributing to a decrease in air quality around the school.
It is not acceptable in my opinion, to displace this parking onto surrounding residential streets as indicated by the statement in the Parking Technical note that "there is sufficient on-street parking provision to accommodate the potential demand for sixth form student car parking”.
I do wonder what sort of Planning Policy is this based on? Surely any proposed new building such as this must have an associated sustainable parking plan for the users of the building?
Many of these streets whilst being narrow are heavily used and already have many parked cars on them, as much of this area was built at a time before the current level of use of the private car was envisaged and this will simply increase congestion, clearly having an impact on the operation of the local highway network, contrary to the NPPF. I am surprised that Highways has not objected to this application.
I believe this issue of parking provision needs to be reconsidered and a redesigning of the site layout in this application, but I would make two points with regard to this:
Firstly, the school is on a very constrained site, as I’m sure you saw at the site visit and any effort to create car parking at the rear of the school buildings would cause considerable dis amenity to residents whose gardens back on to the recreational space of the school. I would not wish to see this as an alternative proposal this would also considerably reduce the recreational space for the pupils at the school - something already impacted upon as the school has increased in size hugely over the years.
I feel the need for this development is understood, but not at the expense of road safety, increased congestion and dis amenity to residents. A more sensitive design is needed and I therefore urge you to reject this current proposal”.
Objecting: Mr Bob Smith (Also speaking on behalf of Mr Richard Bond):
“I would like to thank those members of the committee who attended the site visit and viewed the scale of the proposed development from my property. From the expressions on some of your faces when the height pole was raised, I believe there was a strong appreciation of the overbearing nature of this building due to the close proximity to my property and that of Mr Bond's at the proposed heights of both the single and two storey extensions. lf this development was next door to your property how would you feel.
Noise is a major concern to us both because the foot traffic will be closer and with the school stating they have designed a flexible layout to cater for all future needs, if windows are opened the transmitted noise will become intolerable. We have already experienced many noise issue the most recent being an out of hour rock school between 6-8 one evening a week during last term where we experience incessant drum beat from an existing 6 Form room some distance away. This demonstrates that stated uses of classrooms may change on a need basis, hence levels of noise cannot be guaranteed.
We recognise that a noise study has been carried out but this was conducted between 9-10.30am which are quiet times and hence does not reflect everyday experience. It was also based on the current building which is an acceptable distance away from my boundary.
The Local Member in his comments dated 5 July emphasised the potential traffic issues which is of major concern to all local residents. This is made worse by the fact that the area for development currently provides parking for 50 vehicles which will have to move to the local streets if planning permission is granted. The alternate area defined in the planning notes as being available, is already allocated to contractor vehicles and material storage.
Again, as stated in the planning notes this is not solely 6 Form parking, in fact the vast majority are teacher vehicles. In the original consultation there was talk of parking in the local football club or in council fields opposite but these have come to nothing obviously because the walking distance of less about 0.5 miles is viewed to be excessive.
With the school transport policy not coming into effect until after the development is completed, for the whole of the development this means there will be teacher, pupil and visitor vehicles all using on street parking.
With no parking restrictions on either side of Two Hedges Road, should parking on both sides occur, which is likely, traffic congestion is inevitable this being the main route through the village. Morton Close which is a cul de sac is also heavily impacted because of the close pedestrian walkway to the school. As the Local Member suggests the plan should be revised to address the parking issues.
Vehicles also frequently block pavements causing pedestrians to walk in the road, which becomes very dangerous and is more acute when parent evenings occur on dark nights. The police totally ignore this illegal practice along with parking across drop down curbs.
You may have already noticed that I am having to modify my drive to allow for safe exit from my property because of the short 8m distance to the lay-by exit and Highways refusal to install a ramp to slow traffic down leaving this exit point even though I have experienced several near collisions.
By ignoring the issue now when further action is required, which it will, local residence will be further inconvenienced to their detriment with the introduction of yellow lines and / or zebra crossings.
Another concern is that of landscaping. Where planting exists at present litter which although not a planning issue is a consequence we have to live with and where it collects, it can smell when it rots. It also attracts vermin, but the school ignores this even though Mr Bond has raised this matter direct. The increased planting plan is only going to exacerbate this problem.
I also have an issue because I have requested a 1m gap along the western boundary in order to maintain my fence. The school providing no boundary facility in this area. I have been told that this is not a planning matter but I fail to understand how planting can be, but my request is not. I first approached the school on 9 June regarding this matter and despite several reminders I still have no response. Therefore, the school should provide its own additional boundary fencing.
Although I understand that the school as the client has a responsibility to liaise with neighbours as I have previously reported to the Case Officer, communication ceased when I sought planning policy information from GCC mid-January in order to submit constructive comments. Perhaps, this is why I can get no decision regarding the above.
I further notice in the planning notes that the planting is to be regularly trimmed so as not to impact neighbours amenities but current experience is that this will not be adequately maintained with weed penetration and maintenance issues which I am having to address, already presenting problems. Perhaps you can provide me with the name of the Enforcement Officer should I need to address future problems.
In summary, the sheer size of the building extension close to bungalows along the western boundary is oppressive, noise based on current experience will become an environmental issue, the likely traffic problems are an accident waiting to happen due to road safety issues and although the landscaping issues of litter and access are not defined as planning matters their material impact will still significantly affect adjacent properties.
For these reasons the application should be rejected and parking arrangements revised as deemed necessary by the local member. Thank you for listening to my comments and I await your deliberations with interest”.
Applicant: Gareth Vine (GCC: Commissioning Manager SEND):
“The need for this proposal has arisen out of the significant new housing developments which have been approved and developed in the Bishops Cleeve area.
From these local housing developments the council has secured sufficient S106 contributions from the developers to provide additional capacity to enable the GCC to meet its statutory obligation of providing sufficient high quality school places in the area of local need.
The cost of the proposed school expansion will be met by these developer contributions secured by the council.
The s106 contributions have been secured solely for use for improving capacity at Cleeve School to meet the local demand. They cannot be used at other secondary schools.
The additional capacity required to meet the demand for additional places at Cleeve will be delivered through the adaptation of existing school accommodation together with the provision of a dedicated new sixth form block.
Officers have worked closely with the planning and highways departments in light of representations received to the original proposal and have provided amendments together with supporting information to enable the proposal to be considered acceptable in planning terms so that a recommended for approval subject to conditions is proposed.
We are very excited about this proposal as it will provide additional improved accommodation to enable Cleeve School to meet the local needs of children and young people in the area of Bishops Cleeve”.
County Councillor Rob Bird, Member for Bishops Cleeve Division
(Cllr Bird was unable to attend the meeting but had submitted a written statement. With the Chairman’s permission this was presented by Simon Excell):
“I contend that the existing scheme proposed here will cause an unduly significant and detrimental impact on the local highway network, due to the sizeable displacement of sixth form cars (estimated at 53), from existing on-site parking onto surrounding residential streets, in particular: Dale Walk, Tobyfield Rd, Linworth Rd, Jesson Close, Pagets Rd and Moreton Close, the closest and most accessible options for sixth form car users.
The Parking Technical Note is wrong to conclude that simply because spaces are available in surrounding streets, it can be demonstrated that the scheme does not have a detrimental impact and the NPPF is thereby satisfied.
It is clear that there is space available on site for additional parking bays, in particular along the frontage adjoining Two Hedges Rd, if the scheme was re-designed with this in mind, but it appears that such parking space for sixth form usage is specifically not being provided in an attempt to prevent them driving to the school. The simple solution of re-designing the scheme to accommodate on-site sixth form parking would remove the potential highway safety impact, the inconvenience for residential neighbours, and enable the school to better fulfil its wider obligations to its surrounding community, and act as a more considerate neighbour.
Additional on-site parking, which the Site Visit and site plans clearly indicated are achievable, would make the scheme inherently more sustainable.
Thank you for considering this.”
The Chairman invited further questions from Members following the presentations.
Councillor Robinson wished to know if the lighting on the west side of the building was low level and what was the timing frequency? Mrs Baylis explained that the lighting on the building would be wall mounted and bollard lighting would be installed in the parking spaces. It was noted that the timing of the lighting was stipulated in condition 4 and would be turned off at 9pm on week days and 6pm on weekends.
Councillor Rippington raised concern over the provision of parking for sixth formers and questioned how time sensitive was the application? He added that everyone had a view on parking, however the nature of a 17 year-old that had passed their driving test is to drive to school. Councillor Rippington thought it would be advisable to see what the parking was like after the first term. The Chairman advised Councillor Rippington that his point was valid, yet probably more suited to the meeting debate. Mrs Baylis replied that the application was time sensitive and the applicant was keen to start work as soon as possible.
Councillor Hale questioned the lighting on the site and surrounding area in relation to the safeguarding of children travelling to and from school. Mrs Baylis clarified that element was outside of the Planning remit and could not be considered as part of the application. Councillor Hale felt that the response was unsatisfactory, as the surrounding area was tree lined and a potential for danger. Ms Denness, Principal Lawyer, noted the concerns raised, however she advised the Committee that this was outside of the planning remit.
Jamie Mattock, Team Leader, Highways Development Management explained that the lighting provision met with current legislative standards and was therefore deemed satisfactory. The trees could be treated as a maintenance issue if it became an issue.
Councillor Hirst stated that the main problem with the application was that sixth formers were not permitted to park on the school site and asked if the site could be re-arranged to accommodate on-site parking. Mrs Baylis reiterated that the Committee was being asked to consider the application as presented before them and that Highways were content with the application. Ms Denness advised the Committee that they were unable to debate the alternatives, Members were only able to either accept or refuse the application before them.
Councillor Cordwell reiterated that there was no requirement for the school to provide sixth form parking spaces. Mrs Baylis confirmed to Committee that there was no Council Sixth Form Parking Policy.
Councillor Robinson asked if the Committee could be minded in relation to open windows and noise pollution. Mrs Denness explained that a noise condition was attached as stated within the report, a condition in respect of keeping windows closed was within the remit of Committee however, would be concerned as to ventilation issues.
Councillor Preest wished to know if the Highways NPPF, section 32, could be met. In addition, he requested to know if any disabled sixth form parking spaces would be available on the site. Mr Simmons explained that there were no changes to the access points as such yes section 32 would be met. Mrs Baylis confirmed there would be seven disabled parking spaces available on site for general use.
The Committee entered into a lengthy and vigorous debate.
Councillor Wheeler understood the need for the building. He felt that the authority had a lot of responsibility due to its lack of oversight in relation to the increased demand for secondary school places. In addition, it was noted that by providing 40 extra spaces for staff and not for students was unfair. Councillor Wheeler added that sixth form students do drive and it was disappointing that Planning Officers did not work with the applicant to accommodate student parking on the site. However, in relation to the building he could not see any issues.
Councillor Vines felt that this was a poor application, which had not taken in to account the removal of student parking spaces. It was noted that parking at schools was chaotic during peak times. He suggested that the application should be deferred and officers should revisit the parking issue, as there was space to make adequate parking spaces available at the front or at the rear of the site. Councillor Vines stated that of course Highways would say no issue, however the reality was that this application would impact greatly on local residents.
Councillor Fisher reiterated that providing parking at the school was not part of the planning application or legislation and therefore shouldn’t be debated in the Committee meeting. He felt it was evident that every school had its parking problems, as new developments had created a demand for school places and consequently many pupils commuted to school. Councillor Fisher reminded Members that the school did not have to provide any parking spaces for staff or students. It was merely a question of accepting or rejecting the application and that parking was not a valid reason to reject the application.
Councillor Morgan agreed with Councillor Vines and Councillor Wheeler’s comments. He added that it was unfair to local residents to enforce parking issues on them.
Councillor Rippington referred to his earlier question, in relation to deferring the application for three months after which time the reality of the parking situation would be known. He suggested a temporary ban on sixth form parking to monitor its impact.
Councillor Cordwell explained that he had read the parking survey in detail, which clearly stated there were 280 parking spaces available in the local area. He did not see that parking would present a problem locally. In addition, Councillor Cordwell added if the application were to be deferred and the school became an academy any future applications would be referred to the Borough Council for determination. Ms Denness confirmed that any future planning application would be determined by the Borough Council and that any deferral of this application at this stage would come back to GCC, given that the application was linked to County Council Section 106 funding.
Councillor Hirst felt that the displacement of parking would undoubtedly cause harm to the nearby streets in close proximity to the school.
Councillor Hale agreed that it was important for the school to provide parking on the site and it was unfair to impact on local residents.
Councillor Robinson questioned the noise, windows and ventilation on the west side of the building and wished to know if it was possible to include conditions for noise after 6pm. The Chairman explained that the Committee could apply additional conditions if they saw fit. Ms Denness explained that it was not possible to pre-empt noise going forward, and any condition placed on the application must be retrospective to the application.
Councillor Preest suggested noise reducing fence panels could be installed. Ms Denness explained that this was not a consideration as the noise report had not raised any issues and Tewkesbury Borough Council Environmental Health Officer had not made any specific recommendations.
Councillor Fisher wished to know if the Committee were minded to defer the application, who would decide what to do next. Mr Phillips explained that if the Planning Committee resolved to defer the application then it would be up to the applicant to decide what to do next, as they were looking to have this built for September 2018. Ms Denness reiterated that Members needed to be clear as to what the application would need to do, to meet their concerns.
Councillor Cordwell added that the highest number of sixth formers would pass their driving tests during the Spring Term and the impact could be greater then.
Councillor Rippington felt that the majority of concerns related to the parking of sixth form students. He added that many students would want to park as close to the school as possible, as 17/18 year olds didn’t necessarily do what was expected of them!
Councillor Wheeler suggested that the developer should be taking care of the parking issue, as there was a sufficient amount of scrub land to the rear of the site that could be used.
Councillor Vines proposed that the application be deferred, so that the applicant could come back with a revised proposal to facilitate student parking on site.
Mr Simmons, Highways Development Management, reminded Members that the school was not required to provide student parking. He added that adequate measures had been considered, which clearly showed that no displacement would occur locally. There was provision to accommodate the additional 53 student parking spaces within on average a three minute walk of the school site. Therefore he advised that there were no reasonable reasons on technical parking grounds within which to defer to the planning application.
Ms Denness explained that the Committee needed to be mindful of their actions, as they may set a future precedent in respect of parking at other schools. In addition, the applicant in this case had no right of appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. Once again, she asked members to be clear in their request and clearly stated were Members seeking 53 parking spaces on site?
Councillor Vines stated that he took on board the points raised by officers’ but proposed to defer the number of 53 spaces or amend the number of parking spaces to 100. Once again, Ms Denness explained that the Committee could only consider the application on its merits and not what could happen in the future.
Councillor Cordwell proposed to accept the officer’s recommendation with an informative in respect of parking concerns.
Highways Development Management officers reiterated that even with the displacement of 53 vehicles, over several streets there were over 250 parking spaces available during school hours.
Councillor Hirst was willing to second Councillor Vines’ proposal to defer the application until further information was available for parking on site.
Councillor Wheeler added that members were clearly asking for 53 parking spaces on the site, and he would accept Councillor Cordwell’s proposal. He felt if the site were so constrained he would understand, however, he felt it was evident that there was space available on the site for parking provision. He suggested it would be advisable for the applicant to consider parking spaces on the site, as GCC was the applicant and Members should be listened too.
Councillor Hale concurred that all parking should be accommodated on the school site.
Councillor Fisher felt that it wasn’t acceptable to defer an application, when parking was not a planning consideration for this application.
Councillor Parsons felt there somewhat of dilemma as there was adequate parking available off site versus the parking provision available on site. He added that he was leaning towards a deferral at this stage.
Councillor Morgan referred to the site plan, he stated that there was clearly provision for additional parking on site. In particular, where the construction office would be, once this was removed, additional parking provision could be made available there.
Councillor Cordwell stated that an independent parking report had been conducted, it was a question of whether members believed it or not. If there were any parking issues locally, then double yellow lines could be installed to prevent such issues arising. Ms Denness highlighted that the technical advisors believed that there was sufficient parking available locally however, members wanted to defer the application, if they did prefer they would need specific reasons and a clear steer was required.
At this point, the Chairman reminded the Committee that it was only possible to deal with the application before them.
Councillor Wheeler raised the issue of human rights, as staff were permitted to park on site and not students. Mrs Denness informed the Committee that it was not pertinent to this application.
Councillor Vines referred to his previous proposal and requested that the application be deferred so the applicant could see if it was possible to facilitate additional parking on site for 53 or more vehicles. He also added that he thought the Legal Officer wasn’t assisting members with such reasoning.
Ms Denness took umbrage at that point, and explained that she was trying to assist members however, several members had asked for the deferral on slightly different grounds, therefore, members needed to be clear as to what they were deferring the item on to allow the applicant to address. If the applicant said that they could not accommodate parking on site, then where would that leave the Committee in its deliberations? She added that members needed to be clear on what they were expecting if no parking provision could be found on site. As parking would be the only issue for debate in respect of reconvening the matter. Councillor Vines apologised to Ms Denness for his statement.
At this juncture, the Committee took a short adjournment.
The Committee reconvened and Councillor Vines withdrew his proposal for deferral. He added he would be mindful to accept the Officer recommendation, if a further 15 parking spaces could be made available on the school site.
Councillor Hale added that some members had requested 53 spaces and 15 was an insult. He still felt that it would be detrimental to local residents and could impact on the emergency services if access was blocked by parked vehicles and he felt this was not acceptable.
The Chairman advised that through the advice provided by officers from Gloucestershire Highways, on street parking was available therefore the Committee needed to be reasonable in respect of any request.
Councillor Wheeler added that he was happier with the more pragmatic approach and that he had viewed the site via google and could identify areas to be used for parking. He felt that everything should be done as much as possible to find spaces on site.
Councillor Rippington explained that those students, who currently parked on site, would have to also park off site and this would impact local residents further.
Mr Phillips confirmed to the Planning Committee that the planning application proposals included no overall reduction of parking spaces. Therefore car parking was effectively a management issue for the school and what level of sixth form car parking provision they wished to allow on site.
Councillor Fisher added that congested streets meant that the vehicle speeds were lower, which resulted in less accidents.
Having considered the application Councillor Vines proposed to accept the Officers Recommendation, subject to the additional condition, that a scheme should be submitted to provide an additional 15 parking spaces within the site. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Cordwell and on being put to the vote the motion was passed (9 in favour, 3 against and 1 abstention).
The Planning Committee therefore:
That planning permission be granted for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report and summarised in paragraphs 7.49 – 7.50 subject to the conditions detailed in section 8 of the report and in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Regulations) 1992, subject to the following condition be applied:
- That a scheme be submitted to provide an additional 15 parking spaces within the site