Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
1.1 Apologies were received from Councillors Stuart Ashley & Chris Tew
2.1 The following interests were declared: · Councillor Karl Gauden declared a Personal Interest in Agenda item 4 as the application site was within his ward. · Councillor David Williams declared a Personal Interest in Agenda items 4 & 5 as a member of Llanyrafon Community Council which has been consulted on the applications.
3.1 Members agreed that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 25th May 2023 be confirmed as a correct record.
4.1 The Senior Planner displayed photos and plans for the proposed site and went through the report in detail. 4.2 The Chair informed members that there were a number of third-party speakers who wished to speak in relation to the application and invited the first of the third party speakers to address the committee. 4.3 Mrs Gay Reynolds, local resident, raised the following points: · Whilst she accepts the current clubhouse building needed improvements, she felt that adding a 2nd storey to the building would lead to an increase in issues with noise and anti-social behaviour. · She doesn’t believe that the proposals further the Club’s aims to increase participation in sports, particularly for youths and girls. · The Club has changed from solely sports to a members only social club in the last 2 years, with members drinking till 11pm and 7 days a week. · These changes have resulted in noise that carries across to the neighbouring properties well into the evening which has impacted residents enjoyment of their properties and gardens. · Complaints have been submitted to Club Directors over a 10-month period and complaints have now been submitted to TCBC Housing Safety and Environmental Protection. · The Club has increased its number of events arranged and there would be a further increase if the addition of a 2nd storey was granted permission. · If permission is granted then the noise would increase due to the increased capacity as well as the stage being utilised, with the noise travelling further and therefore impacting residents further. 4.4 Mr David Reynolds, local resident, raised the following points: · It was his belief that the development would have a negative impact on the recreational area. · An increase in traffic would affect children’s safe route to school and there are 8 school age children that live by the field. · The addition of a 2nd storey would be an invasion of privacy for neighbouring residents. · Neighbouring properties are 50m from the proposed development with the windows and balconies able to overlook into these properties gardens and rooms. · There has been an increase in standing water on the site since drainage was installed in 2021/2022 and on behalf of the objectors, he requested approval be suspended until SUD certification had been obtained. · Nearby residential areas were being used for overflow parking by members of the club and this was affecting emergency vehicle access for residents and the club. 4.5 Mr John Parfitt, applicant commented as follows: · He responded to the comments around noise and disturbance for neighbouring residents, explaining whilst they may occasionally cause disturbance to neighbours it is not their intention and they do look to inform neighbours of upcoming events ahead of time. · Neighbours are given advance notice through leaflets as well as having a duty director and dedicated phone line for residents to use to deal with any issues. · Complaints that have been raised to the club are investigated and actions are taken to ensure these don’t reoccur. He went on to add that there were other licensed premises in the vicinity and that some of the anti-social behaviour could be attributed to people leaving these premises. · He highlighted the overall support for the application, as shown on the report, with more support being shown than objections. · He refuted the comments in the report from objectors saying that there was no public consultation around the proposal, explaining they had held a public meeting with 60 residents, as well as the Ward Councillor, also advertising the proposal through the local Community Council and on social media. · He also queried the conditions relating to the opening times, as he felt these were more matters for the Licensing department, as well as the removal of the canopy on site. · He finished my stating that the proposal was expected to bring over £1million of investment into the local community as well as helping with the Councils aims around health and wellbeing, sports and leisure and public health. 4.6 Members then asked a number of questions and Officers responded as follows: · There were queries from members around clarification of the conditions for the sustainable urban drainage (SUD) scheme for the site. The Senior Planner responded that the drainage would have to come as a separate application. There were also questions around the potential impact on the sewage system and if Welsh Water had been engaged. The Senior Planner clarified they had been consulted but this would also be part of the separate SUDS application. · There were also questions on providing screening around the boundary to help deal with any privacy issues or light pollution issues. The Senior Planner explained that this had been considered in the report, but ultimately it was decided there was sufficient distance between the site and the neighbouring properties. There was however a condition within the report to provide a landscaping plan regarding planting. The Head of Planning & Development added to this that any screening would not reduce the noise, but the conditions in the report were to limit the noise and protect amenity during more sensitive hours. There was also a question around the potential for additional light pollution, to which the Senior Planner responded that Environmental Health had been consulted on the application and had no objections. · It was explained by the Head of Planning & Development that the reason that the canopy was conditioned to be removed was due to the omission of the canopy within the drawings submitted to the Planning department, he added that the condition could be removed with the Committees permission if approval was granted to the application. There were no objections to this from Councillors. · The Head of Planning & Development clarified that the conditions relating to the operating hours were under the remit of the Local Planning Authority, any issues relating to alcohol licensing would be the responsibility of the Licensing department. · In response to questions around parking and emergency vehicle access, the Senior Planner explained that as part of the conditions on the application a Parking Management Plan was to be provided, he added that Highways had been consulted on the application and they had no objections. In regard to emergency vehicle access it was explained that this would need to form part of the management plan. 4.7 Members agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions laid out in the report with 9 Members voting in favour, 1 Member abstaining.
5.1 The Senior Planner displayed photos and plans for the proposed application and went through the report in detail. 5.2 Afterwards Members asked a number of questions and Officers responded as follows: · It was raised that there were concerns around the location of the site, as mentioned within the report and it was queried why different sites were unable to be used instead that would be more suitable. In response the Head of Planning & Development explained the reasons why other sites were unsuitable, including signal issues, highway safety and visual impacts. It was also explained that after concerns around the appearance of the installation the application had been changed to reflect those concerns, reducing the height and the bulky appearance. It was considered that the visual impact would not outweigh the benefits of the proposal in this instance. 5.3 Members agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions laid out in the report with 7 Members voting in favour, 1 Member against and 1 Member abstaining.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.