Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of the following:

Councillors Ayub, Fisher, Hurn, Zak Khan and Whitehead.

The following acted as substitute representatives:

Councillor Abdul Khan for Councillor Ayub

Councillor Dad for Councillor Fisher

Councillor Cassidy for Councillor Hurn

Councillor Dominik Allen for Councillor Zak Khan; and 

Councillor Aziz for Councillor Whitehead.

One Labour seat vacancy.

There were no interests or dispensations declared at the meeting.

To submit the Minutes of the last meeting of the Planning Committee held on  3^rd August 2022, for approval as a correct record.

Recommended                    - That the Minutes be received and approved as a correct record.

The Minutes of the last Planning Committee held on 3^rd August 2022 were submitted for approval as a correct record. 

Resolved                               -  That the Minutes be received and approved as a correct record.

The attached report sets out recommended action on the following application for a Certificate of Lawful Use (S192 Proposal):-

11/22/0135               30 Epping Avenue, Altham BB5 5DR

                                 Certificate of Lawful Use; Proposed: Use of dwellinghouse to provide permanent residential accommodation for a mother and child or (as the case may be) a child/ren and up to three resident adult carers.

Recommended           -        That the application be determined as set out in the report.

The Chief Planning and Transportation Officer submitted a report setting out recommended action on the following application for a lawful development certificate:

11/22/0135      30 Epping Avenue, Altham BB5 5DR

Certificate of Lawful Use; Proposed: Use of dwellinghouse to provide permanent residential accommodation for a mother and child or (as the case may be) a child/ren and up to three resident adult carers.

The application related to a detached 3 bedroomed dwellinghouse in a residential area.  The dwelling has a rear garden and a forecourt surfaced to provide 3 car parking spaces and otherwise laid to lawn grass. 

The Committee considered relevant issues as set out in the report and raised at the meeting in their determination of the application.  These included legal issues related to the approval of certificates of lawful development, other applications having being approved for use at other properties in the borough, the age of the children to be accommodated, the number of objections to the application received and the right for children to receive a safe, caring and settled upbringing.  

Resolved                               -   That a Certificate of Lawful Use be refused for the following reason:

The information provided by the applicant failed to satisfy, on the balance of probabilities, that the proposed use described in the application would be lawful, in particular, the use would not fall within use class C3 (including part C3(b) and C3(c)) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 and it would make a material change of use of the application site, thereby comprising development requiring planning permission.

N.B. 1. The Chief Planning and Transportation Officer drew the Committee’s attention to the extra information contained within the update report which was released before the meeting and related to the application for a certificate of lawful use.  

2.  There was also additional information submitted at the meeting from those objecting to the application and from the applicant.  This information was circulated to Members of the Committee as part of the determination of the application.

3. Councillor Miles Parkinson spoke in favour of the Officer’s recommendation of refusal and referred to the submitted application not meeting the required class use to approve the application.

4.  Craig Hetherington, representative of local residents, spoke in favour of the Officer’s recommendation of refusal and outlined the concerns of the residents. 

5.  Edward Smethurst, representative of the applicant, spoke against the Officer’s recommendation of refusal.  He referred to an alleged misunderstanding of the application by the Committee and of issues that supported the application such as the business becoming more regulated, that it was based locally and that the Officer’s report had failed to deal with the mother and baby aspect.