Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 12th November, 2020 6.30 pm

Contact: Tracey Coop  0115 9148277

No. Item


Declarations of Interest

a) Under the Code of Conduct


b) Under the Planning Code


There were no declaratios of interest.


Minutes of the Meeting held on 8 October 2020 pdf icon PDF 453 KB


The minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2020 were approved as a true record of the meeting. In regards to item 1 condition 12, the Service Manager – Communities advised that after the previous meeting officer’s considered that the wording of the condition was not precise and that it was necessary to strengthen this condition and therefore amended wording was included within the decision notice with permission of the Chairman.  The Committee confirmed that this amended condition was acceptable.


Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 300 KB

The report of the Executive Manager – Communities is attached.

Additional documents:


The Committee considered the written report of the Executive Manager - Communities relating to the following applications, which had been circulated previously.


20/01817/FUL – Change of use from dental surgery (use class D1) to a place of worship (use class D1) – 173 Loughborough Road, West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire




The Service Manager – Communities explained that the applicant had   lodged an appeal with the Secretary of State (The Planning Inspectorate) due to non-determination of the planning application. It was noted that jurisdiction to determine the application passed to the Secretary of State and that the Council were no longer able to make a formal decision on the application.


It was explained that in cases of non-determination appeals, it was important to gauge the views of the Planning Committee in order to advise the Planning Inspectorate what the decision of the Planning Committee would have been.


The recommendation for the planning application was changed in the published late representations to:


“It is RECOMMENDED that the Planning Inspectorate be informed that the Borough Council would have approved the Application subject to the following conditions.


A number of representations were received and additional comments were made by the planning officers after the agenda had been published and were circulated to the committee before the meeting.


In accordance with the Council’s public speaking protocol for planning

committee, Frances Williams (Objector) and Cllr Ben Gray (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee.




The Committee considered that the proposal provided inadequate parking and that the proposed operating hours were unsociable and therefore would cause noise and disturbance to residents early in the morning and late at night.




The Planning Inspectorate be informed that the Borough Council would have refused the application for the following reasons:


1.             The use of the premises as a place of worship, as detailed in the documents accompanying the application, would lead to a significant harmful impact, by reason of noise and disturbance, upon the reasonable amenities of the neighbouring/nearby residential properties especially during early morning and late evening/night activity. This harmful impact would arise from general comings and goings, use of the carpark as well as use of the building for the intended use. This is contrary to Policy 10(2)(b) of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy and Policy 1(1) of the Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies.


2.       Due to the intensity of the proposed use, the proposed facility would be served by an insufficient parking provision on site which would lead to significant overspill parking onto the surrounding highway network, which is already subject to high demand for on-street parking from existing residents, causing increased congestion on the highway network in the vicinity of the site. This situation would interrupt the free flow of traffic, to the detriment of highway safety through increased and unacceptable on street parking and by severely limiting the ability for two vehicles to pass each other safely within the carriageway. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy 14(2)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.


Planning Appeals pdf icon PDF 318 KB

The report of the Executive Manager – Communities is attached.


The report of the Executive Manager - Communities was submitted and noted.