Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:-

To agree requests to speak from Councillors who are not Members of the Committee, in accordance with Committee Procedure 4.1.

RESOLVED:  That, in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 4.1, Councillor Anthony Seymour, who was not a Member of the Committee, was allowed to speak on Kodak Site, Headstone Drive & Harrow View (P/3405/11).

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 7 - Kodak Site, Headstone Drive & Harrow View (P/3405/11)

Councillor Anthony Seymour declared a personal interest as a solicitor who had worked on transactions with Land Securities, although not with regard to the planning application site.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Susan Hall declared a personal interest as a business owner within the vicinity of the planning application site.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Committee Procedure Rule 15 (Part 4B of the Constitution) with regard to the planning application to be considered at the meeting.

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions or deputations were received.

To confirm whether representations are to be received, under Committee Procedure Rule 18 (Part 4B of the Constitution), from objectors and applicants regarding the planning application on the agenda.

RESOLVED:  That in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 and following agreement to suspend Rule 30.4, representations be received in respect of agenda item 7 (Kodak Site, Headstone Drive & Harrow View (P/3405/11)).

Report of the Divisional Director, Planning - circulated separately.

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Planning Protocol, where Councillors disagree with the advice of the Divisional Director, Planning, it will be the Members' responsibility to clearly set out the reasons for refusal where the Officer recommendation is for grant.  The planning reasons for rejecting the Officer's advice must be clearly stated, whatever the recommendation and recorded in the minutes.  The Officer must be given the opportunity to explain the implications of the contrary decision.

In accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the Addendum was admitted late to the agenda as it contained information relating to various items on the agenda and was based on information received after the despatch of the agenda.  It was admitted to the agenda in order to enable Members to consider all information relevant to the item before them for decision.

KODAK SITE (COMPRISING KODAK FACTORY & FORMER SPORTS GROUND (ZOOM LEISURE)), HEADSTONE DRIVE AND HARROW VIEW (P/3405/11)                   

P/3405/11:- (L S Harrow Properties Ltd).  Outline planning application for a comprehensive, phased, mixed use development of land at Harrow View and Headstone Drive, as set out in the Development Specification (March 2012). The development comprises the demolition of existing buildings and structures (with the exception of the chimney and part of powerhouse) and redevelopment of the site for a mix of uses comprising business and employment uses (within Use Classes B1(a), B1(b), B1(c), B2 and B8 – up to 35,975sqm); residential dwellings (within Use Class C3 – up to 985 units); student accommodation (Sui Generis use – up to 220 units); senior living accommodation (within Use Class C2); assisted living care home (within Use Class C2) (total C2 uses up to 9,300sqm); retail and restaurant uses (within Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 – up to 5,000sqm); commercial leisure uses (Use Class D2); community uses (Use Class D1); health centre (Use Class D1); a primary school (Use Class D1) (total D1/D2 uses up to 8,830sqm); energy centre (Sui Generis use – up to 4,500sqm); together with new streets and other means of access and circulation; highway improvements; associated parking; re-profiling of site levels; utilities diversions and connections; open space; landscaping and ancillary development including infrastructure, works and facilities.

It was reported that a site meeting had taken place.  In introducing the report, an officer outlined the basis for the recommendation of officers advising that the site was a comprehensive development of employment and community uses, enabled by new residential development. The Committee was being asked to consider the approval of the outline planning application in accordance with a number of parameter plans.  He noted that the Council had sent out 16,000 letters and that the applicant had held a variety of community engagement and consultation events to seek views on the application proposals. 50 responses had been received to the planning application consultation with the views and concerns expressed summarised within the planning report. A late letter from Gareth Thomas MP had also been received and was reported on the Addendum sheet. 

He also made the following points:

·                    with regard to the transport impacts officers were working hard to achieve an optimised solution, balancing the interests of all (motorists and pedestrians/cyclists);

·                    building heights had been informed by the character of the area, existing buildings on the site, a market appraisal and consultation with the community, resulting in an application which provided low to mid rise buildings.

·                    it was estimated that re-development of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 286.