Issue - meetings

It was proposed by Councillor Janice Hanson and seconded by Councillor Mel Guilding:

“That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee Report.”

Upon  being  put  to  the  vote,  9 Councillors  voted  in  favour,  with  1  against  and 3 abstentions, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.   The proposal seeks to substantially increase the function room floorspace and use of the site without adequately evidencing the additional trips or proposing suitable mitigation measures to accommodate the additional capacity of the site and associated increase in travel requirements. Furthermore, the application has not been supported by any adequate measures to encourage more sustainable forms of travel. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 102, 103, 108 to 111, Development Management DPD policies DM20 to DM23, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policies DM60 to DM63.

2.   The proposed external layout and location of cycle storage provision and vehicle parking spaces would lead to a conflict between pedestrians and delivery vehicles accessing the external storage area, to the detriment of pedestrian safety. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 102, 108, 110 and 127, Development Management DPD policies DM21 and DM35, and emerging Review of Development Management DPD Policies DM29, DM60 and DM61.