Apologies for absence were received by Councillors Pilkington and Williamson.

There were no declarations of interest at this meeting. 

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2024 were confirmed.

The Committee received and considered the report from Mr R Tate (Planning Officer).

The Planning Officer reported that this was a retrospective application for temporary permission for the erection and operation of a 45m tall sling shot attraction for a period of 2.5 years from the 1^st March 2024 until 30^th November 2026. It was added that this application was brought to the Committee as it is a connected application due to the application site being owned by the Borough Council.

The Planning Officer reported that this site is located to the north of the existing Ferris Wheel on Marine Parade. It was noted that this is the same slingshot ride that has been used in previous years and that the ride is slightly shorter than the existing Ferris Wheel, though it is higher when fully extended. It was noted that this ride provides an additional pull to the seafront as it is a unique offering and is located in an area designed for tourism.

The Planning Officer reported that conservation officers have objected to the Heras site fencing around the base of the ride, however Condition 3 in Section 12 of the application seeks to rectify this issue by requiring the removal of the Heras site fencing to be replaced with a more aesthetically pleasing form of boundary. It was noted that the agent for this application has stated that they would accept such a condition. The Planning Officer explained that an amendment would be required to Condition 3 Part B of the application, to change ‘March 2024’ to ‘March 2025’ as the date of required removal for the Heras site fencing enclosing the slingshot ride.

The Planning Officer reported that there has been an objection regarding potential noise nuisance, however it is not possible to restrict patrons screaming whilst on the ride and conditions have been proposed to restrict the operation time and level of amplified music in order to mitigate potential noise nuisance.

The Planning Officer reported that the recommendation is that application 06/24/0232/F should be approved subject to the proposed conditions listed in the published Agenda Report, with the amendment to Condition 3 Part B to change ‘March 2024’ to ‘March 2025’.

Councillor Boyd asked with regard to the Heras site fencing, whether the Council had advised any specific type of fencing to be used as a replacement. The Planning Officer explained that officers have not been prescriptive with the type of replacement boundary to be used as what was proposed in the application was acceptable. The Planning Officer noted that planting would be included if possible, to make the site more aesthetically pleasing.

Councillor Martin asked why this application had come to the Committee as a retrospective application and not as an application before the ride was erected, as the land used is Council owned land therefore officers must have known that this would be going ahead. The Planning Officer explained that Property Services had advised the applicant that they would need to apply for planning permission after the ride was erected, which is why the application was submitted as retrospective. Councillor Martin commented that the application states that the ride would be erected before the summer season and asked if there was a set date as to when this season begins. The Planning Officer explained that the ride was erected around April, though the exact date is unclear and that the summer season typically runs from the beginning of April.

The Chair stated that the greenery behind the current fencing is untidy and asked whether it should be the responsibility of the application to keep this tidy. The Planning Officer stated that in previous years the green fencing that was installed prevented the untidy greenery from being visible to passers-by. The Chair asked whether it would be possible to add an enforceable condition stating that the applicant should maintain a clean and tidy site. The Development Manager reported that at the Committee’s request, the inclusion of an additional Condition no. 8, to require maintenance and upkeep of the application site’s grassed public parkland area could be added.

The Development Manager reiterated that the Committee was being asked to delegate authority to Officers to APPROVE the application and grant planning permission subject to:-

i. the proposed Conditions listed in the published agenda papers; 
ii. the change to the date of Recommended Condition 3 Part B; and,
iii. the inclusion of an additional planning Condition to secure appropriate maintenance and upkeep of the grassed public park area within the application site, in the interests of maintaining visual amenity of the tourism attraction and conservation areas.

Proposer: Councillor Annison

Seconder: Councillor Mogford

Following a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED:-

That the Committee Committee delegated authority to Officers to APPROVE application number 06/24/0232/F and grant planning permission subject to:-

(i) the proposed Conditions listed in the published agenda papers; 

(ii)    the change to the date of Recommended Condition 3 Part B; and,

(iii) the inclusion of an additional planning Condition to secure appropriate maintenance and upkeep of the grassed public park area within the application site, in the interests of maintaining visual amenity of the tourism attraction and conservation areas.

The Committee received and considered the report from Ms L Smith (Planning Officer).

The Planning Officer reported that this application was a householder application for the erection of a new gable-ended pitched roof over an existing flat roofed garage. It was noted that this application was brought to the Committee as a connected application due to the application being a relative of a Council employee.

The Planning Officer reported that the application site consists of a two-storey detached dwelling, with a large two bay garage within the rear garden. It was noted that the dwelling is set back from the main road with a private drive and parking area. The Planning Officer explained that there are a number of trees at a reasonable distance from the dwelling along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site which are protected by virtue of Tree Preservation Orders.

The Planning Officer reported that the existing double garage is slightly set back from the dwelling and is relatively tall though in proportion as a garage to the dwelling. It was noted that there are a mix of roof pitches within the site context and therefore the erection of a new gable-ended pitched roof would have a minimal effect on the street scene. The Planning Officer explained that the garage is an adequate distance from other properties to not cause an impact and that there is a condition stating that there should be no windows at first floor level in order to reduce any overlooking impact. It was noted that there is also a condition preventing the garage from being used as sleeping accommodation and that the intention is to create storage space.

The Planning Officer reported that the recommendation is that application 06/24/0308/HH should be APPROVED subject to the proposed conditions listed in the published agenda report.

The Chair asked Members if they had any questions for the Planning Officer – there were no questions at this time.

Proposer: Councillor Mogford

Seconder: Councillor Annison

Following a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/24/0308/HH  be approved as per the recommendation and conditions as set out in the Agenda Report.

The Chair congratulated Mr S Hubbard on his new role as Head of Planning.

The Chair informed the Committee that the Monitoring Officer had proposals for amendments to the Constitution in relation to the operation of the Development Management Committee.

The Monitoring Officer proposed an amendment to Article 15.3 Delegation to Officers (a) to allow a delegation to the Head of Planning to refuse applications of a residential development which involves either 26 or more dwellings; or has a site area of one hectare or more. It was noted that a refusal for an application of this kind would still have to be decided upon by the Development Management Committee should it fall under any of the other provisions listed in Article 15.3. The Chair added that Members would make decisions on any applications of this nature where the officer recommendation is to approve the application and that Members will have the power to call in an application refusal if needed. The Chair commented that this delegation allowing officers to refuse an application for 26 or more dwellings would streamline the application process.

The Monitoring Officer proposed an amendment to the wording of Article 15.3 Delegation to Officers (g) to read ‘where the application has been advertised as a departure from the Local Plan and the decision proposed is contrary to the Council’s planning policy framework’. It was explained that this amendment to the wording would provide greater clarity around policy departure.

The Monitoring Officer proposed an amendment to Article 15.4 Connected Applications (d) which would mean that for an application to be classed as connected with the connection being an Officer, the application must be made by an immediate family member of an Officer for their own purposes. It was noted that this was proposed by the previous Interim Head of Planning to address concerns that the previous wording was overly punitive to relatives of Officers who submit applications as either property owners or as agents, where there is no direct connection between the Officer and the Council’s planning function.

The Committee agreed to these proposed changes in the Constitution.

The Chair asked the Monitoring Officer what the protocol is surrounding the length of meetings as the next meeting may have a number of complex agenda items which may take longer than the allotted time. The Monitoring Officer explained that the only meeting in which Members can vote to extend the meeting indefinitely is a Full Council meeting where over half of the 39 elected Members must be present and in favour – therefore it was stated that the only option for extending a Development Management meeting would be a 30-minute extension that must be agreed by Members.

The Development Manager asked what would happen if Members were to enter into a debate and the session would run over the 30-minute extension period. The Monitoring Officer explained that the meeting would have to end and be brought to the next meeting, where only the Members present for the debate in the first meeting could be involved in the decision in the second meeting. It was noted that the Chair has the power to call an extraordinary meeting should issues such as this arise. The Monitoring Officer explained that if officers believe an item would not be finished before the end of the 30-minute extension, then it would be better to not start the item and defer it to an extraordinary meeting rather than splitting the item in two.

Councillor Annison asked what would happen if an item was split between two meetings but an election was to take place in between which could cause a change in the Members. The Monitoring Officer explained that the item could be started again from scratch to include the presentation and debate before decision.

The Chair stated that the Constitution should allow for the smooth running of meetings which would mean that a meeting should be able to run over until a natural closing point it reached. It was suggested that the rules surrounding the length of meetings be looked at in order to allow for the Chair to suspend the standing orders to ensure that the item in consideration at that particular time can be completed. The Chair also commented that Development Management is a unique Committee and therefore it would be suitable that there are extraordinary rules of this Committee. The Monitoring Officer stated that rather than suspending standing orders they would suggest bringing forward an amendment to the Constitution. It was added that it would be too late to add an amendment to this round, however there will be another round of amendments to the Constitution in October 2025. The Chair commented that this would not help in the short term and that any items that do not get covered at the upcoming meeting on 31^st July 2024 would need to be deferred until September, therefore something needs to be in place should the meeting need to be extended. The Monitoring Officer explained that the only powers to extend a meeting are the suspension of the standing orders, however this only applies to full Council. It was added that the only way of addressing this would be to call an extraordinary meeting in August in order to consider any items that may not be able to be considered on 31^st July 2024 due to time constraints.

Councillor Newcombe asked what would happen if the Committee were to continue past the 30-minute extension. The Chair explained that any decision made after this time would not be lawful and could be challenged as the meeting should not officially continue.

Councillor Murray-Smith suggested holding two meetings, one at 6:30pm and one at 8:30pm, as this would allow for the items to be split between the agendas and would give Members up to 4.5 hours to consider the items. Councillor Capewell agreed that two meetings could be the answer and noted that consideration would need to be given to which items are put in the second meeting to ensure that it does not run over. The Chair stated that the suggestion from Councillor Murray-Smith would be discussed with officers and a decision would be given by the end of the week.