There were no apologies for absence given at the meeting.

Councillor Murray-Smith declared a personal interest in item number 4 as he was a Ward Councillor for Lothingland.

However, in accordance with the Council's Constitution, was allowed to both speak and vote on the matter.

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2024 were confirmed.

The Committee received and considered the agenda and addendum report.

The Planning Officer reported that the site forms a two-storey terraced residential property, which fronts a footway to the north east and which has rear vehicle access from Laburnum Close. The application relates to an existing single storey flat roof garage at the rear of the dwelling, immediately adjacent to Laburnum Close to the southwest.

The Planning Officer reported that this application is seeking planning permission for a change of use from domestic garage for use as a barber’s shop, with external alterations and creation of a new parking space. The proposed barber use is intended to be operated by the applicant, who has confirmed that they only intend to accommodate a single chair with no additional employees. The appointments will run with 10-minute gaps between each client to ensure that there is no overlap with customers visiting the site.

The Planning Officer reported that proposed external works include replacing the garage’s existing roller door with a single- width uPVC door, with new cladding proposed over the infilled material, and replacement of the existing window and door at the rear elevation of the garage.  The proposal would also involve removing the existing fencing and gate at the rear access of the property, to provide a single car parking space in the existing rear garden and a relocated fence and gate, to allow customers to park on the land in front of the garage.

The Planning Officer reported that Environmental Health raises concern that the proposal will impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding properties. Informal discussions to clarify these comments confirmed that concern was more in relation to the coming and going of people than the operations of the business.

Councillor Plant had written on behalf of himself and the two other Ward Members to register their opposition to the application. Concerns were raised in respect of:-
• parking,
• the siting of the proposal in a wholly residential area, and
• in view that there are plenty of empty shops in the Borough for this type of activity.

The Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council supports the objections of the Borough Councillors and other neighbour's objections. This is a residential area and not appropriate for running a business. Parking will be an issue especially at the weekends when football matches were played in the local vicinity.

The Planning Officer reported that neighbours’ concerns cited that the deeds of the properties confirm that no business should operate from the dwelling. This is a legal matter that cannot prevent a planning permission from being granted based on planning merits.

The Planning Officer reported that the application site is situated within the developments limits of Bradwell as defined by Policy GSP1, where the principle of development is generally considered acceptable subject to compliance with the other policies of the plan.

The Planning Officer proposal is to establish a new “main town centre use” as defined by the NPPF. Policy CS7 and the NPPF set out a sequential approach to the location of new town centre uses. This process stresses that priority should be given to locating town centre uses in defined town centres first, then to ‘edge of centre’ sites which are well connected, and then, only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period), should ‘out of centre sites’ be considered.

The Planning Officer reported that Policy CS7 requires applications to demonstrate that there are no sequentially-preferable sites available and that the proposal can be accessed by sustainable forms of travel. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate considerations of other sites, and the applicant does in fact confirm that they will be relocating their existing operations from an existing shop on a high street. However, although the application site is not within a defined retail centre or edge of centre, it is considered to be within a sustainable location able to serve the residential area which surrounds it, and it would be anticipated that a proportion of the customers would be local residents of the area who would visit the site by foot.

The Planning Officer reported that the application proposes a barber’s shop (Use Class E(a)) to be operated by the applicant and occupier of 40 Laburnum Close, and would operate at a small scale, serving only one customer at a time, with 10-minute breaks between appointments. Core Strategy Policy CS06(L) encourages schemes which enable flexible working patterns including by allowing home- working where there is no adverse impact on residential amenities. This is consistent with Paragraph 86(e) of the NPPF which encourages flexible working arrangements.

The Planning Officer reported that it is recommended that any permission to be granted should be restricted so that the barber’s shop cannot be split into a separate entity from the main dwelling, which will also help to restrict the intensity of the use and ensure that parking for staff etc does not increase the numbers of vehicles attending the site. It is also necessary to restrict use of the shop to solely the occupier of the dwelling, which will promote the use of ‘home working’ as anticipated by policy CS06. Such restrictions will also ensure the main town centre use does not become established as a separate entity and an unrelated business outside of defined town centres contrary to the expectation to be directed towards more sequentially appropriate locations in accordance with policy UCS7.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposal only consists of 11.57sqm of floorspace, and is likely to generate a maximum of 10 customers per day. Given the scale of development, it is not considered that the proposal would draw away a significant number of customers from the town centre or local centres or have a “significant impact” on existing designated centres. As such, whilst there is some conflict with the requirements of CS07, given the level of operation, it is considered that the proposal is more akin to the home-working model encouraged by policy CS06, and it is not considered that the proposal would result in a significant impact on the viability or vitality of the town centre.

Councillor Pilkington asked for clarification as to how the suggested conditions could be policed. The Planning Officer reported that the Council would rely on self-policing by neighbours and if the conditions were breached this would be referred to the Planning Enforcement Officer.

Councillor Murray-Smith reported that he was concerned in regard to the storage of waste as he did not agree that a domestic bin should be used for commercial use. He asked that if the application was approved, a condition should be added that a dedicated commercial bin to be required on site. The Development Manager agreed that this was a fair request even though Environmental health had raised no concerns in this area. He agreed that a refuse strategy could be conditioned on the application. 

The Development Manager reported that although the application had proposed specific opening hours Monday to Friday, the applicant could open on a Saturday morning for 28 days a year as per permitted development rights. If this number was exceeded, a Breach of Conduct notice would be made effective immediately.

Councillor Galer asked for clarification as to the new Local Plan as one of the over-arching goals of the former Local Plan was to reduce travel to work distances and he wondered if this had been carried over to the new Local Plan to reduce travel and carbon footprint across the Borough. The Planning Officer reported that Policy PCS6 encouraged sustainable benefits.

Mr Hubbard, objector, addressed the Committee and reported that the application was an outrageous proposal which would change the look and feel of the close and he was concerned that it would reduce the value of his property as his garage was attached to the application site. Mr Hubbard did not see why this application was necessary as there was a glut of barbers/hairdressers in Great Yarmouth & Gorleston. Mr Hubbard reiterated that Environmental Health, Paris Council and Ward Councillors objected to the application and urged the committee to respect the views of local residents and refuse the application. Mr Hubbard reported that the stress of this application had affected his mental health and he was receiving treatment from his Doctor. 

Councillor Plant, Ward Councillor, reported that he echoed Mr Hubbard's sentiments and that the Close was a quiet place to live and not an area suitable for business use. He highlighted paragraphs 5.1.3, 9.2 & 10.2 and the relevant policies they referred to and cited these as suitable policies to use to refuse the application. Councillor Plant questioned whether the Planning Officers were ignoring their own Design Codes whilst considering the merits of this application. 

Councillor Boyd asked for clarification in regard to the covenant in the deeds preventing the property being used for business uses. The Planning Officer reported that the covenant was a legal issue and was not a planning consideration. The Development Manager reported that the covenant was a Civil Matter between both parties.

The Chair reported that an appeal in regard to a similar application had been upheld and the Planning Inspector had made their views very plain in regard to this matter.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked how many letters of objection and support had been received in response to the application. The Development Manager reported that the numbers were not the issue, it was the weight of the objections received which was the main consideration in the officers determination of the application.

Councillor Murray-Smith reported that this was a difficult application to determine, however, on balance, he would vote in favour of the application as he could find no material planning reasons for refusal. The Covenant was not a matter for the Committee, however, he requested that an additional condition for the requirement of a commercial bin, if the application was approved.

Councillor Galer reported that he supported home working but not home retail trading which he felt applied in this application and therefore, he had concerns.

Proposer: Councillor Murray-Smith:-

That application 06/24/0710/CU be approved and planning permission should be granted subject to the proposed conditions listed in the agenda report (to be added to, modified and amended as necessary) and a refuse strategy to be submitted.

Seconder: Councillor Martin.

Following a vote, this motion was lost.

The Development Manager asked the Committee for the reasons they had refused the application.

Councillor Boyd reported that he felt the application was counter-productive as the Local Plan supported bringing more businesses into the Town Centre and this application moved a business from a town centre into a private dwelling. The Development Manager reported that their was a fine balance between putting the town centre business argument first ahead of serving the local community.

The Monitoring Officer reminded the Committee that the Planning Officers would need robust policy and material planning reasons to defend the Committee's refusal of the application.

Councillor Galer reported that he felt that the application did not accord with Policy CS2.

The Head of Planning referred to a relevant appeal decision, which related to an application for change of use of an existing garden room into a beauty salon at Hall Road, Hopton. 

The proposal was of a similar nature and intensity as this application, however is located
outside of the development limits. Whilst that application was refused under delegated authority for reasons which included the principle of development - on the basis that the proposal would represent a ‘main town centre use’ in an ‘out of centre’ and unsustainable location - the Inspector overturned the LPA’s decision and concluded that the site was actually a suitable location for the proposed scale of development, would be an appropriate use despite being outside the development limits, would be able to support the rural economy, and in doing so gave weight to the encouragement of home and flexible working as encouraged by the NPPF.

In light of the recent appeal decision, it has been noted that the Inspector did not impose any conditions to limit the number of customers able to use the facility at any one time because this would be self-limiting as the ‘garden room’ is restricted in size. However, given the limitation in parking spaces at the current application site, it is considered that the conditions as recommended are still suitable to meet the tests of including conditions on any permission granted to this proposal.

The Chair reminded the Committee that every application must be considered on its own merits.

The Monitoring Officer suggested that the Committee might find it useful to revisit the planning policies outlined by Ward Councillor Plant when he addressed the Committee.

Councillor Annison proposed that the application be refused as it was contrary to Policies CS6, CS9 & A1.

The Head of Planning suggested that compliance to Policy CS6 was weak and Officers would need further clarification in regard to Polices CS9 & A1.

Councillor Annison was concerned in regard to the size of the garden and its proximity to the neighbours property. The Head of Planning suggested that Members might give a greater weight to the issue that the size of the applicants garden space did not accord with the standards set out in our Design Code. The Head of Planning reminded Members that the Council had an adopted policy to support home working.

Councillor Williamson reported that he agreed with Councillor Murray-Smith and he could not find any material planning reasons to refuse the application.

Councillor Boyd proposed that the application be refused as it was contrary to Policies CS6, CS7, and CS9. The Monitoring Officer asked the Head of Planning to preface Policies CS6, CS7 & CS9 for the benefit of the Committee. The Head of Planning complied with the Monitoring Officer's request and reported that officers would take on board the reasons offered for refusal by the Committee and the mood of the Committee and propose a response on its behalf.

The Development Manager assisted the Committee and summarised as follows:-

(i) Notwithstanding the limited scale of floorspace comprising the proposed barber’s shop, the nature of the proposed operation is considered inappropriate within the application site’s close-knit residential setting.  The proposed development is considered likely to include frequent visits from customers and servicing which would create disruption and unneighbourly impacts to the residents of the surrounding dwellings.  This would be exacerbated by the very limited availability of car parking at the application site.   As such, it is not considered that the use proposed would be compatible with the site’s location amongst neighbouring dwellings in a predominantly residential area, and would be incompatible with the requirements to protect the amenity of existing residents contrary to policies CS9(f) of the adopted Core Strategy (2015) and A1 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021); and



(ii) The application represents a ‘main town centre use’ and is proposed to be sited outside of a defined town centre or local centre, and is not in an ‘edge-of-centre’ location as defined by adopted policy R1. The application has not presented a sequential test assessment to demonstrate that there are no alternative available and suitable sites in sequentially preferable locations, and so it has not been proven that the development would avoid weakening the vitality or viability of the defined town centres or local centres, contrary to policies CS7(e) and CS7(f) of the adopted Core Strategy (2015).

The motion for refusal of the application was proposed by Councillor Boyd and seconded by Councillor Annison.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application number 06/24/0710/CU be refused as the Committee had considered the Officers’ recommendation to approve the application, including a Member’s motion to add a planning condition (requiring refuse storage and management to be agreed) to any approval, but had determined to refuse the application for the following reasons:-

(i) The local development plan for the borough of Great Yarmouth comprises the adopted Core Strategy (2015) and the adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021), with additional guidance set out in the adopted Borough-wide Design Code (2024).  Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.  The application for planning permission has been assessed on the basis of the submitted drawing titled: Combined plans ref. 1931/1, received by the Local Planning Authority on the 4th October 2024.  The application has been considered by the Development Management Committee of the Local Planning Authority on 08 January 2025 and the Committee has determined that the application should be refused planning permission for the following reasons:-

(ii) Notwithstanding the limited scale of floorspace comprising the proposed barber's shop, the nature of the proposed operation is considered inappropriate within the application site's close-knit residential setting.  The proposed development is considered likely to include frequent visits from customers and servicing which would create disruption and unneighbourly impacts to the residents of the surrounding dwellings.  This would be exacerbated by the very limited availability of car parking at the application site.  As such, it is not considered that the use proposed would be compatible with the site's location amongst neighbouring dwellings in a predominantly residential area, and would be incompatible with the requirements to protect the amenity of existing residents, contrary to policies CS9(f) of the adopted Core Strategy (2015) and A1 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021); and

(iii) The application represents a 'main town centre use' and is proposed to be sited outside of a defined town centre or local centre, and is not in an 'edge-of-centre' location as defined by adopted policy R1. The application has not presented a sequential test assessment to demonstrate that there are no alternative available and suitable sites in sequentially preferable locations, and so it has not been proven that the development would avoid weakening the vitality or viability of the defined town centres or local centres, contrary to policies CS7(e) and CS7(f) of the adopted Core Strategy (2015).

The Committee received and considered the report and addendum report.

The Planning Officer reported that Councillor Murray-Smith had called this application in and asked for it to be considered by the Committee.

The Planning Officer reported that since the publication of the committee report an updated Unilateral Undertaking (UU) has been received with the correct GIRAMs and public open space contribution amounts included, with appropriate proposals for these to be paid prior to the commencement of development. No legal advice has been received as yet regarding the substantive terms and proposals therein. For context, the proposed Unilateral Undertaking is provided at Appendix 2 to this Addendum Report.

The Planning Officer reported that since the publication of the Committee Report, the Planning Inspectorate’s examination of the Belton with Browston, Burgh Castle and Fritton with St Olaves Neighbourhood Plan 2022 – 2038 has concluded. The Independent Examiner’s Report was received by the LPA on 23rd December 2024. 

It is the Officer’s opinion that the modified Neighbourhood Plan Policies 2 and 11 should be taken into account and given some weight in the decision-making process. Whilst the proposal would appear to comply with Policy 2, it could be interpreted to be at odds with aspects of Policy 11, but there are significant material considerations in favour of the development to suggest that the conflict with policy would still be outweighed by the benefits of the development, and the application should continue to be recommended for approval in line with the Officer Recommendation.

The Neighbourhood Plan and the Inspector’s comments are now important material considerations for the determination of this planning application. 

The Planning Officer reported that:-

(a) The plan is well advanced but still subject to referendum and LPA adoption. The Inspector has not recommended further consultation, nor suggested that the referendum should extend beyond the Neighbourhood Plan area, so subject to the LPA accepting the suggested modifications, the proposals should have almost fully-adopted status.

b) Public consultation was undertaken in January to February 2023. There are no objections to the policies which have not been subject to independent assessment, but because the referendum has not been undertaken it is not possible to say that any objections ti the initial consultation have been completely resolved; and,

c) The policies have been found to be consistent with the NPPF of December 2023 (as required under the transitional arrangements of the Dec. 2024 NPPF), as has been confirmed by the Examination Inspector.

The Neighbourhood Plan does not have full ‘weight’ in decision making yet and will not form part of the adopted local development plan until such time as it has been subject to public referendum and LPA adoption, but some weight can be assigned to the relevant policies therein. The most relevant policies of the Neighbourhood Development Plan in respect of this proposal for outline planning permission are:
• Policy 2 – Housing Mix
• Policy 11 – Walking and Cycling Improvements.

The Planning Officer reported that, for the avoidance of doubt, the published Committee Report Section 12 should have identified that the Committee is recommended to resolve to approve the application and delegate authority to officers to grant outline planning permission subject to criteria (i)-(iv). Although the LPA has received an updated draft Unilateral Undertaking there are some concerns that the content may need to be amended further, and legal advice has been sought to that effect. Criteria (i) and (ii) are unaffected despite receipt of the updated UU. As part of the process of reviewing the UU terms, it may also be necessary to add further planning conditions to any resolution to grant planning permission, so Officers recommend an update to part (iii) of the recommendation.

The Planning Officer reported that the published recommendation at Section 12 of the Committee Report should be amended to state:-

It is recommended that application 06/24/0742/O should be approved and Committee should resolve to delegate authority to Officers to grant outline planning permission with all matters reserved, subject to:-

(i) First securing an appropriate legal agreement to guarantee undertaking and delivery of the dwelling as a self-build dwelling, including in the terms expected by the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015;

(ii) First securing appropriate payment prior to permission being granted, or securing a suitable legal agreement to guarantee payment of the £221.17 GIRAMS contribution (index liked) and the £1,005.10 Off-site Open Space contribution (index linked) prior to commencement of development;

(iii) subject to the proposed conditions listed at paragraph 12 of the published committee report (to be amended or modified as necessary), and subject to any additional conditions considered appropriate to ensure the development is secured, undertaken and delivered as a self-build dwelling; and,

(iv) If the Section 106 Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking is not progressing sufficiently within three months of the date of this resolution, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to (at their discretion) either refer the application back to the Development Management Committee at the earliest opportunity for reconsideration of the application, or to refuse the application directly on the grounds of failing to secure the necessary planning obligations that would be required as part of any resolution to grant permission.

The Planning Officer reported that, if the Committee were minded to approve the application, that the proposed amended conditions should be attached as follows:-

Condition 2 - Require details of tree impacts with details of layout

Condition 3 - Remove reference to the August 2023 Arboricultural Impact Assessment

Condition 4 (Tree Protection) - Delete

New Condition - Require submission of an updated Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA) with Reserved Matters application(s)

New Condition - Require development to be undertaken in strict accordance with an approved updated AIA

New Condition - There shall be no creation of the new access to Forestry Cottage without express permission from the LPA (with regard to full details of tree implications).

Mr Parker, applicant, reported that he had been on the self-build register for the past five years, he was a carpenter and joiner by trade and hoped to do the majority of the build himself. The application site was in the grounds of a property owned by his parents and his grandmother lived nearby too. The application site was in a sustainable location and he respectfully asked the Committee to approve the application.

Councillor Murray-Smith reported that he fully supported the application with one caveat that if the Section 106 Agreement is not progressed sufficiently within three months of the date of this decision, to refer the application back to the Development Management Committee at the earliest opportunity for re-consideration of the application. The Development Manager consented to Councillor Murray-Smith's request.

Councillor Annison proposed that the application be approved with the conditions as set out in the agenda report and the additional conditions as agreed at the meeting. The motion was seconded by Councillor Murray-Smith.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application number 06/24/0742/O be approved and  the Committee delegate authority to Officers to grant outline planning permission with all matters reserved, subject to:-



(i) First securing an appropriate legal agreement to guarantee undertaking and delivery of the dwelling as a self-build dwelling, including in the terms expected by the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015;



(ii) First securing appropriate payment prior to permission being granted, or securing a suitable legal agreement to guarantee payment of the £221.17 GIRAMS contribution (index liked) and the £1,005.10 Off-site Open Space contribution (index linked) prior to commencement of development;


(iii) subject to the proposed conditions listed at paragraph 12 of the published committee report (to be amended or modified as necessary), and subject to any additional conditions considered appropriate to ensure the development is secured, undertaken and delivered as a self-build dwelling; and,



(iv) If the Section 106 Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking is not progressing sufficiently within three months of the date of this resolution, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to (at their discretion) either refer the application back to the Development Management Committee at the earliest opportunity for reconsideration of the application;

and the proposed amended conditions be attached to the approval at outlined and approved at the meeting as follows:-

Condition 2 - Require details of tree impacts with details of layout

Condition 3 - Remove reference to the August 2023 Arboricultural Impact Assessment

Condition 4 (Tree Protection) - Delete

New Condition - Require submission of an updated Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA) with Reserved Matters application(s)

New Condition - Require development to be undertaken in strict accordance with an approved updated AIA

New Condition - There shall be no creation of the new access to Forestry Cottage without express permission from the LPA (with regard to full details of tree implications).

The Committee received and considered the agenda and addendum report.

The Planning officer reported that this application would be considered in conjunction with the Listed Building application.

The Planning Officer reported that the existing building is Grade II Listed, and was originally a home for shipwrecked sailors. The building has since been used as a Museum, but is currently vacant and was most recently used as a tourist information centre and offices (both of which fall under planning Use Class E). The building is detached, with 3no. storeys and a basement, and forms a corner plot between Marine Parade and York Road. The main entrance lies on the east elevation, with a secondary access to the south. The western part of the building is a later addition and forms a single storey element, with access to a rear yard. The building is characterised by its three-window range and clock extending from the parapet. The site also lies within the wider setting of a number of other listed buildings, including Grade II* listed The Hippodrome and Grade II listed The Church of St John, as well as falling within No16 Seafront Conservation Area. The building is central to Marine Parade where there is offering of a range of tourist attractions, food and drink establishments and the Marina Centre to the northeast. The site is immediately opposite a large car park, and the beach lies to the east of this.

The Planning Officer reported that the application proposes to convert and change the use of the building from office, to café and office use on the ground floor, and 5no. residential dwellings on the upper floors. The basement would remain as storage with no alterations.
The application originally proposal 5no. holiday lets in the upper floors, as was described by the submitted planning statement. Whilst the applicant has confirmed that the intention would still be that the upper floors would be utilised for holiday use and temporary accommodation, they have requested that these units are assessed as permanent residential dwellings to ensure future flexibility and to ensure that they are granted the appropriate funding. The Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended) currently makes no distinction between residential use as a permanent dwelling and residential use for short-term accommodation or holiday lets, so a use which is considered acceptable as a residential dwelling in Use Class C3 should not ordinarily be prevented from adopting a short-term use as a holiday let as doing so would not be considered development. On the other hand, if the decision maker was concerned that the use would not be suitable or appropriate for permanent residential occupation as a dwelling in Use Class C3, planning controls could be used to limit the use to holiday let and short-term occupancy if that method of occupation is considered policy compliant.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposal consists of a change of use, with no external alterations proposed as part of this application. The ground floor is already set up to successfully accommodate a café use with minimal changes, with the existing eastern access opening up directly to Marine Parade. The office use at ground floor would be provided with a second, separate access to the south of the building on York Road. The residential uses would be required to share the entrance lobby access with the ground floor uses, however the layout ensures that the ground floor units can be made secure outside of opening hours. The development proposes 1 x 2-bedroom, 2 x 1-bedroom, and 2 x studio apartments. The residential units are accommodated across the first, second and third floor, accessed via a large original staircase and hallway. The existing large rooms to the far southeast of the first and second floor are proposed to be separated in half, to assist in accommodating 2no. units of a similar layout on both floors. This does make the layout of the units awkward, and provides a studio for one unit, and a large single family room for the other unit, on both floors, where the kitchen is accessed by walking through the bedroom, where Officers would usually wish to see more optimal accommodation layouts proposed. However, the proposed works do ensure the historic fabric is altered as little as possible, and a balance is required between impacts on the quality and convenience of the accommodation layout and the retention of historic fabric. Each of these units will meet the nationally described space standards, and, on balance, the layouts are considered suitable despite their limitations. The larger unit across the third floor is considered to be of a more suitable layout. The internal alterations have been proposed to be as limited as possible, with new partition walls only proposed where necessary to separate the rooms and provide smoke lobbies for fire safety.

The Planning Officer reported that having considered the details provided, subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal is considered acceptable and to comply with policies CS1, CS2, CS6, CS9, CS10, CS13, GSP5, GY6, A1, A2, H4, E1, E5, E7 and R7. It is recommended that application 06/24/0455/CU should be approved and full planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed in the agenda report (with any modifications or updates as agreed at the meeting).

Councillor Martin reported that she was concerned in regard to the size of the accommodation. In her view, the size would be acceptable for holiday accommodation but not for residential use. The Planning Officer reported that the size of the flats accorded with the National Space Standards and exceeded 37 metres square.

Councillor Martin was also concerned with the design layout of some of the units especially the unit where the kitchen was accessed via the second bedroom and that this was also a privacy issue.. The Planning Officer reported that they had been redesigned this way on advice from Building Control to ensure that fire lobbies were provided.

The chair reported that the size and design of these flats was much superior to many of the HMO accommodation in his Nelson Ward.

Councillor Murray-Smith proposed that the application be approved with the conditions as outlined in the agenda report. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/24/0455/CU be APPROVED and full planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below with any modifications or updates as agreed at the meeting.

The Committee received and considered the agenda and addendum report.

Councillor Murray-Smith proposed that the application be approved with the conditions as set out in the agenda report. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application number 06/24/0593/LB be approved and listed building consent should be granted subject to the proposed conditions listed in the agenda report.

(i) The Chair wished the Committee a Happy New Year and reminded Members that the next DM Committee meeting would be held on Wednesday, 22 January 2025.

(ii) The Chair reminded Members who had not attended the second training event that the Head of Planning would be holding a training session prior to the next meeting which was open to all Members to attend.