Agenda item

Report of the Strategic Manager for Planning and Infrastructure

Planning applications and related matters.

Minutes:

Consideration was given to item 1 of the report of the Strategic Manager for Planning and Infrastructure Delivery.

 

A schedule of additional representations received after the printing of the report were submitted at the beginning of the meeting and were drawn to the attention of the Committee members when considering the application.

 

Prior to the commencement of the application a point of order was raised regarding the planning Committee’s site visit the previous week and the advice provided to members of the Committee regarding their attendance. It was believed that the advice provided by the Monitoring Officer that as a Planning Committee member had already attended a site visit for this application as he had already attended a site visit for this site, it was believed to be contrary to the Council’s Constitution. The Chairman was asked to explain why he had allowed this to happen, potentially putting the decision the Committee made at risk.

 

The Chairman explained that there was a tradition of the Committee undertaking site visits together, however in this particular instance the Councillor concerned had sought advice from the Monitoring Officer explaining that they had attended a previous visit to the site with the Committee in June 2021, the advice provided was that the Councillor concerned did not need to attend the site visit but could still take part in the meeting, following the site visit a briefing took place where the matter was discussed and agreed that the Strategic Manager for Planning and Infrastructure, given he had been present at the visit with the Committee the previous week would attend a separate site visit for the Councillor. The Chairman went on to advise that the Constitution would be reviewed around this and would be put forward to Full Council for consideration. The advice provided to the Chairman regarding this had been that as the Councillor concerned had been misinformed about attendance at the site visit, it would be unfair to exclude them from taking part in the meeting.

 

Concern was expressed by some members of the Committee that the decision had left the Planning Committee vulnerable to the process and dissatisfaction was expressed with the decision that had been made.

 

Application:

21/01450/RVC

Details:

Variation of condition 4 and removal of condition 6 on 21/00076/FUL to allow permanent change of use to HMO and to agree the submitted management plan for that use of the property (revised description) (readvertised application).

 

Castle Lodge, 54 Castle Road, Newport

Site Visit:

The site visit was carried out on Friday, 17 September 2021 and Tuesday, 21 September 2021.

Public Participants:

Matthew White – Objector

Richard Thorne – Objector

James McDermott – Applicant

Comment:

A statement was read out on behalf of Councillor Joe Lever as Local Councillor on this item.

The Committee asked for more information regarding the applicants history and how facilities they manage run, they were advised that the applicants may not be the providers of the proposed HMO use. An agreement between the Isle of Wight Council and the provider would be separate to the planning process.

 

Planning Officers advised that planning permission had already been granted on the site, if the Committee decided to approve the application before them a new planning permission would be issued, this would not override the previous permission. It would be the decision of the applicant which planning permission they chose to commence. Therefore the conditions set out in the first planning permission were required on the proposed new permission.

 

Questions were raised regarding the contract process undertaken by the Isle of Wight Council and the Committee was advised that contracts followed a separate process and it was not a material consideration, the management plan condition incorporated some elements of the contract, it was the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the management plan was not contrary to the contract that was in place.

 

The legal advisor advised the Committee that the contract process was separate from the Planning process, the Committee were purely asked to look at the planning merits.

 

Concern was raised following the recent opening of a similar establishment in the Newport area, local residents had made numerous complaints to both the local member and police. The Committee understood the need for this type of housing however they did not feel convinced that removing the temporary consent was right for the local residents.

 

A proposal to refuse the application was made and seconded and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution a named vote was taken the result was as follows:

 

For (11)

Cllrs David Adams, Paul Brading, Geoff Brodie, Vanessa Churchman, Claire Critchison, Rodney Downer, Warren Drew, Chris Jarman, Michael Lilley, Martin Oliver, Matthew Price.

 

Against (0)

 

Abstain (1)

Cllr Michael Beston

 

Decision:

RESOLVED:

 

THAT the application be refused

Reason:

The council is not satisfied from the information submitted that the permanent consent of this use would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the area and the amenities of neighbouring residents, and are therefore not satisfied that there would not be a longer-term harmful effect on the surrounding area and local community contrary to policy DM2 (Design Quality for New Development) of the Island Plan Core Strategy.

 

 

Supporting documents: