Officer Report

Application No.: 14/01295/B Applicant: Mr Matthew Corcoran Proposal: Erection of eight garages Site Address: Heathfield Yard Patrick Street Peel Isle of Man Case Officer : Miss Melissa McKnight Site Visit: 26.02.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Heathfield Yard which is located to the east of Patrick Street in Peel. The yard is occupied by three rows of private lock-up garages used for storage and the parking of private vehicles. The site currently accommodates eighteen garages.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 This application seeks approval for the erection of eight additional garages; five of which would be erected above the southernmost row of garages in the yard and a further three erected along the eastern boundary projecting into the yard and would adjoin an existing garage in the south eastern corner of the yard which would be altered to have the access fronting the yard. - 2.2 With regards to the five garages that would be erected above the southernmost row of existing garages, this element of the planning application was previously granted planning approval under PA 10/00092/B. This approval has now expired and as a result planning approval is sought. The garages would be accessed from Roxwell Terrace Lane. The new garages would stretch just less than 18 metres in length, have a depth of 5.6 metres and height between 3.3 and 2.9 metres due to the change in levels. The existing sandstone wall would be partly demolished to create five garage door openings. The façade of the garages would be finished in re-used sandstone. The roof of the garages would be mono-pitch finished with dark grey metal sheeting. - 2.3 The three new garages within the yard would project 5.2 metres from the wall, have a length of 9.7 metres and height of just less than 2.3 metres. - 2.4 All garages would have roller doors.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The application site has been the subject of ten previous planning applications, all of which are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application and have been listed below:

PA 10/00092/B: Erection of five additional garages. This previous planning application was permitted. This approval has now lapsed.

PA 07/02314/C: Change of use of garage 7 to private lock up storage unit and garage 14 for private vehicle use. This previous planning application was permitted.

PA 07/02313/B sought approval to vary condition one of PA 07/00197/B and reposition containers along the eastern/south eastern boundary wall to improve vehicular access. This was refused at appeal for the following reason, "The retention of the containers, which was the subject of two previous applications where both concluded that the containers must be removed from the site, would restrict the amount of space available for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the legitimate use of the existing units on site. In addition, the containers would, if used, generate a need for parking and manoeuvring space. Finally, the position of the containers would restrict vehicular access to units 7, 8 and 9 within the yard," and the containers were required to be removed before 1st September 2008.

PA 07/00197/B sought approval to discharge condition one of 05/00665/R to retain containers. This was approved at appeal with the following conditioned imposed:

"On or before 1st December 2007, the existing five temporary metal storage containers in the yard shall be removed. Thereafter, the yard shall remain permanently open and shall not be used for storage of any permanent or temporary items or structures."

PA 05/01273/R: Retrospective application for the renovation of existing workshops and garages to provide private lock - up storage units. This previous planning application was permitted.

PA 05/00665/R: Retrospective application for the erection of four lock up private storage units. This previous planning application was permitted.

PA 03/00283/B: Erection of a block of eight apartments with garaging to replace existing outbuildings. This previous planning application was refused on the following grounds:

• R 1. The proposal to create 8 apartments would represent an over development of the site by reason of:

• a) the lack of external space and the close proximity to the site boundaries.
• b) the proposed tandem parking arrangements and limited opportunity for the turning of vehicles considering the restricted size of the site and the lack of provision for on-site parking.
• c) the height and massing of the apartment block which would dominate the surrounding buildings to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.

• R 2. There would be restricted visibility for residential traffic at the access onto Patrick Street; its use to serve the development would be contrary to the interests of road safety.

PA 03/01453/B: Refurbishment of existing and erection of five additional garages on lock up garage site. This previous planning application was refused on the grounds that by virtue of the number of garages proposed and the restricted visibility available to vehicle drivers exiting the site onto Patrick Street, the proposed development would be contrary to the interests of road safety.

PA 01/01571/B: Change of use of yard for parking/storage depot. This previous planning application was refused on the grounds that the development as proposed would involve the regular movement of different types of vehicle into and out of the site and the restricted visibility for vehicles at the access onto Patrick Street would be contrary to the interests of road safety.

PA 94/00698/C: Change of use to retail supply of building materials. This previous planning application was permitted.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the site is located within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential under the Peel Local Plan Order 1989. The site is also located on the periphery of Peel Conservation Area. - 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains three policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

Environment Policy 36 states: "Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area."

Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicles and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental

objectives of this plan."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Peel Town Commissioners recommend the application be approved (21/11/2014). - 5.2 A further representation from Peel Town Commissioners has been received, 05/03/2015, objecting to the upper level garages accessing the side lane that leads to Patrick Street stating that much needed residential parking in the area will be reduces and additional traffic exiting and entering the Patrick Street junction may increase the risk of vehicular accident due to the poor visibility splay. - 5.3 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services do not oppose the current planning application subject to the imposition of the following condition: "The manoeuvring space between the garages must be kept clear from obstruction

Reason: to ensure that there is sufficient manoeuvring space to allow all the units to be accessed." (11/12/2014).

5.4 On receipt of amended plans, Highway Services have no objection and have no change to the above comments (06/03/2015). - 5.5 The owner and/or occupier of 54 Patrick Street objects to the planning application on the grounds that the side lane, serving Roxwell Terrace, is too narrow to support the traffic generated by this scheme, the junction with Patrick Street is also dangerous, the footpath serving Roxwell Terrace would be lost, vehicles exiting the garages would have no sightlines before driving over the footpath, the application is not safe on traffic grounds (23/11/2014). - 5.6 The owner and/or occupier of 58 Patrick Street objects to the current planning application on the grounds of the site being in a Conservation Area, increase in traffic, knocking down sandstone walls, traffic would be a hazard to those using the park and school and poor visibility coming from the side lane, serving Roxwell Terrace, onto Patrick Street (08/12/2014). - 5.7 The owners and/or occupiers of 56 Patrick Street have made a representation regarding the current planning application which has been summarised below:

• - The five garages built on top of existing garages would be over a footpath leading to housing and play park;
• - The lane, serving Roxwell Terrace, which due to recent re-development will be busier than ever;
• - The centre section of the yard has already been the subject of a planning application whereby the containers had to be removed as the Planning Department stated anything in the centre restricted access to the existing units and the centre had to remain clear for access of the emergency services;
• - Some of the existing units are used to store cars, motorbikes, timber stored and prepared to supply firewood/logs businesses and generators are running constantly, all potentially a fire risk;
• - Access to land is owned by the owners and/or occupiers of 56 Patrick Street and the wear and tear due to constant increased usage has caused erosion and flooding; and
• - Any vehicles using these units would have to join Patrick Street, which is extremely busy with vehicles that constantly exceed safe speed limits and where residents of terraced houses have no other option but to park their vehicles kerbside (09/12/2014).

5.8 A further representation has been received from the owners and/or occupiers of 56 Patrick Street (10/03/2015) following revised plans who have made the following comments:

• - The second floor garages are not safe;
• - Previous planning application proposing two garages along the eastern/south eastern wall was refused on the grounds of restricted visibility available at the access onto Patrick Street for vehicles emerging from the site. The volume of traffic, speeding down Patrick Street, has increased considerably since that statement made in 2003;
• - The repositioning of the containers under PA/07/02313/B along the eastern/south eastern were considered to reduce access to the existing garages/storage units in the yard;
• - More units would reduce access for emergency vehicles, fire engines, should an emergency occur; and
• - The owners and/or occupiers of 56 Patrick own the access land from Patrick Street to Heathfield Yard and considerable wear and tear is occurring due to the speed that some of the vehicles enter/leave the yard.

5.9 The owner and/or occupier of 52 Patrick Street uses a garage at the site and has raised concerns regarding access to garages as a result of the centrally placed garages, there would be little room to manoeuvre to be able to get in and out of the garage and when other others are around access would be very difficult due to the fact there would be no passing or parking area (11/12/2014). - 5.10 The owner and/or occupier of 60 Patrick Street objects to the planning application on the grounds that;

• - Patrick Street is a busy street and there is already ample traffic accessing the street from the existing garages and the Commissioners garages and properties on Roxwell Terrace;
• - The four large containers placed within the yard were a nuisance and made access to some of the garages difficult. There was also an increase in the number of vehicle entering and existing the yard on an already busy road;
• - Parking spaces will be lost along Roxwell Terrace lane as a result of the five garages above the existing garages;
• - There will also be a problem with vehicles offloading into any storage units parking in the lane and hindering existing traffic;
• - This lane, Roxwell Terrace Lane, is frequently used by young children from the area to access Westview Playground;
• - Heathfield Yard is at the end of this part of the Conservation Area of Peel and allowing the garaged to be built above existing garages will destroy the existing, original wall of what was formally the garden of Heathfield House;
• - The boundary wall is made of local sandstone, several examples of which have been lost in Peel. If approved, the front wall of the garages should be built or faced with sandstone and the wall taken above the roof line as a parapet with sandstone coping running the full length;
• - The site boundary is indicated by the red line on the plans and does not include the area between the boundary wall and the lane over which access is to be taken;
• - The plans are not detailed as they do not show the type of garage doors to be used. If up and over they would open out over the land outside the boundary of the site. As the path is a public footpath, and should be retained as same, this would present a danger to the public; and
• - Condition 3 of the original approval (10/00092/B) states, "not for any other purposes including commercial" - this could mean that the owner of the site cannot charge any rent (11/12/2014).

Within the representation reference was made to the siting of the yellow notice and that the application was not listed in the file available to the public at Planning & Building Control and

land ownership matters, both of which are not considered material planning considerations and as such holds no weight in the assessment or determination of a planning application.

5.11 A further representation has been received from the owner and/or occupier of No. 60 Patrick Street, 23/02/2015, further objecting to the planning application on the following grounds:

• - The location plan and site plan drawing shows garages and gardens that are no longer there and have been replaced by a car park for seven vehicles;
• - Where will the tenants park visiting the garages along Roxwell Lane Terrace;
• - Questions have been asked regarding whether anyone in Planning has visited the site;
• - The height and width of the dropped kerb has also been queried;
• - Several cars park in this lane during the day and overnight and do not pose a problem for other vehicles, these parking spaces will be lost if this application is approved;
• - The architect states that Peel Commissioners own most of the houses in the immediate area, this is not the case as the majority of the house are in private ownership; and
• - At the moment very few cars are parked in any of those garages as they are mostly used for storage purposes and what guarantee is there that will not happen with the proposed new garages? Several times a week one or two cars are parked in the yard.

5.12 The owners and/or occupiers of 64 Patrick Street object to the current planning application on the following grounds:

• - Patrick Street and Glenfaba Road are busy streets and there is already a lot of traffic using the streets from the existing garages and the Commissioners garages and properties on Roxwell Terrace. A large volume of traffic uses the streets on a daily basis and the vehicles cause a problem to the residents trying to cross the roads;
• - Provision of extra garages/storage should not come before the safety of children;
• - Erecting garages on Roxwell Terrace Lane will create problems with existing traffic and the additional traffic will be dangerous to pedestrians;
• - Increase in traffic and increased possibility of an accident;
• - There is also increased noise from vehicles engines, something that already causes a problem as the children's bedrooms face on to the road (12/11/2014).

Within the representation queries made regarding the ownership of the public footpath which is believed to be public and queried who has given permission for this to change. Land ownership is not a material planning consideration and holds no weight in the assessment or determination of a planning application.

5.13 Peel Heritage Trust has expressed the following concerns:

• - Additional garages will further exacerbate the existing egress from the site given the poor site due to parked vehicles in Patrick Street;
• - Access to the new garages fronting Roxwell Terrace Lane will cross a public pavement to the children's playing fields and the rear of a number of properties. This is also a much used public access route to the centre and upper town. The existing line of parked vehicles will either be displaced or will cause a permanent obstruction; and
• - The remaining old sandstone walls are preserved as they are an important element in creating the character of Peel. Their reflected glow in the evening light is an important element in the creation of 'Sunset City' (10/12/2014).

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 There are two parts of this planning application; the erection of five new garages

• above the existing garages along the southern boundary of the site, and the erection of three new garages along the eastern/south eastern boundary wall:
• 6.2 It is considered appropriate to assess each element of the planning application separately considering the following:

• 1) the impact of the proposed development upon the amenity of the surrounding area;
• 2) the impact of the development upon the adjacent conservation area; and
• 3) the highway implications of the proposal.

6.3 Firstly, the erection of the five garages that would front onto Roxwell Terrace Lane will be assessed. - 6.4 No. 1 Glenfaba Road is situated to the south of the site is the closest property to the proposed new garages. Roxwell Terrace Lane serves the rear of Roxwell Terrace, properties of Glenfaba Road and provides access to a car park and children's playground. Under PA 10/00092/B the Case Officer identified that the use of the garages would not be dissimilar to the existing situation where cars park at the side of the road and it was concluded that there would not be any unacceptable impacts arising from the development. - 6.5 The approval granted under PA 10/00092/B has now expired and therefore the proposal must be assessed as a new planning application; the extant approval granted does not give an automatic justification for allowing a development. Since PA 10/00092/B a number of houses were demolished to the south east of the site and a car park was created in their replace and as a result there has been a slight increase in users of Roxwell Terrace Lane and the children's play park. - 6.6 The use of the garages proposed has not clearly been defined but would either be used for storage purposes or for the parking of vehicles. It is the use of the garages would be significantly different from one simply parking their car on the street, contrary to the assessment made under PA 10/00092/B. - 6.7 It is considered that the additional garages would undoubtedly increase the use of the site and Roxwell Terrace Lane which in itself could potentially result in an increased disturbance and generate a level of noise pollution, along with the increase the coming and goings along Roxwell Lane Terrace of tenants frequenting their garages. - 6.8 Whilst it is difficult to judge whether the level of increased activity would be such to cause harm, it needs to be remembered that the level of activity could not be adequately be controlled by condition, it would depend on how the garages were used and who by. It would also be difficult to enforce the use of the lock-up garages for residential purposes such as general household storage and vehicle storage only. It is fairly reasonable to assume that the garages could be visited on a daily basis, and it could be early morning, daytime or late into the evening, which in turn would result in disturbance to the local residents of the surrounding properties and cause conflict with users of Roxwell Terrace Lane generally. - 6.9 Turning to the visual impact of the development, the proposal would inevitably alter the existing sandstone wall which Peel Heritage Trust identified as being an important element in the character of this ancient place and its reflected glow in the evening light is an important element in the creation of 'Sunset City'. - 6.10 As previously mentioned the site is not within the Peel Conservation Area but is relatively close to the edge of the designated conservation area. Environment Policy 36 sets out that development that is proposed outside of, but close to the boundary of a conservation area, will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out

• of the conservation area. It is judged that the proposed development would not adversely affect any important views into or out of the Conservation Area. The re-use of the sandstone will assist in allowing the development to blend in with the surrounding area and as a result the character and amenity of the conservation area would be adequately protected by this development.
• 6.11 With regards to the impact upon the flow of traffic and highway safety, Highway Services do not oppose the current planning application and make sole comment to the proposed garages that would be erected within the yard itself. As identified under PA 10/00092/B, the existing parking which takes place partly on the pavement is unauthorised and this application will prevent this whilst providing the opportunity for additional off-street parking.
• 6.12 From visiting the site, it was noted that there did not appear to be any parking restrictions on the highway of Roxwell Terrace Lane which is a public adopted highway. The additional five garages that would open directly fronting Roxwell Terrace Lane would not necessarily provide parking for vehicles and could be used for either the parking of vehicles or storage purposes. As a result, there may potentially be parking along the highway as one uses a garage which could interrupt the flow of traffic along Roxwell Terrace Lane by causing an obstruction and potential conflicts with other motor vehicles and pedestrians.
• 6.13 On assessment, based on the above of the key issues surrounding this development proposal, it is judged that this element of the planning application is unacceptable to the users of Roxwell Terrace Lane by representing an unacceptable impact on road safety and general disturbance to the users of nearby properties.
• 6.14 It is now essential to consider the impacts of the erection of four additional garages within Heathfield Yard.
• 6.15 PA 07/00197/B sought approval to discharge condition one of PA 05/00665/R which stated, "Prior to the use of the permitted four private storage units, the existing five temporary metal storage containers in the yard shall be removed. Thereafter, the yard shall remain permanently open and shall not be used for the storage of any permanent or temporary items or structures." This application was approved at appeal to a limited extent. Condition 1c) this approval stated, "On or before 1 December 2007 the existing five temporary metal storage containers in the yard shall be removed. Thereafter, the yard shall remain permanently open and shall not be used for storage or any permanent or temporary items or structures. It was under PA 07/02313/B that sought approval to vary condition one of PA 07/00197/B and to reposition the containers so that they were all positioned along the eastern boundary wall facing the garages to the east of the site. The containers were laid out in a similar position to the garages proposed under this current scheme.
• 6.16 This planning application was refused at appeal on the grounds that the retention of the containers, which was the subject of two previous applications where both applications concluded that the containers must be removed from the site, would restrict the amount of space available for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the legitimate use of the existing units on site. In addition, the containers would, if used, generate a need for parking and manoeuvring space and the position of the containers would restrict vehicular access to units 7, 8 and 9 within the yard. A note was also included stating that the containers on site must be removed within one month of the date that the decision becomes final.
• 6.17 The garages proposed would inevitably restrict access to the other garage units within the yard, most notably three garages in the south eastern corner of the site. This in itself would cause traffic congestion within the yard that may well lead onto Patrick Street which

• has been acknowledged as an already congested road. As with the two previous planning applications to retain the containers, the garages within the yard would without doubt obstruct the ability of vehicles visiting the site to manoeuvre safety and appropriately and also restricts the manoeuvrability of emergency vehicles if such is required.
• 6.18 It is considered that the additional garages within the yard are not acceptable on the grounds that the ability of vehicles accessing the site and manoeuvring within the site would be detrimentally affected and the additional garages are overdevelopment of the site for this reason.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 On assessment, it is considered that the erection of the additional garages fails to comply with the provisions set out in General Policy 2 or Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and as such is recommended for refusal.

8.0 PARTY STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (include by name any Departments or agencies who have written in and who should receive interested person status);
• (d) The Highways Division of the Department; and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:

The owner and/or occupier of 54 Patrick Street The owner and/or occupier of 58 Patrick Street The owners and/or occupiers of 56 Patrick Street The owner and/or occupier of 52 Patrick Street The owner and/or occupier of 60 Patrick Street The owners and/or occupiers of 64 Patrick Street

it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:

Peel Heritage Trust

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 29.04.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval

• N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
• O : Notes attached to refusals

• R 1. The use of the site for lock-up garages would be likely to result in increased activity, noise and general disturbance to the nearby residential properties on a day to day basis resulting in an adverse impact on the amenity of local residents and the character of the locality contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
• R 2. The proposal would result in an increased number of vehicle movements and parked vehicles along Roxwell Terrace Lane. Due to the narrowness of Roxwell Terrace Lane the additional number in vehicle movements and parked vehicles may result in an obstruction to traffic flow and conflicts with existing users contrary to General Policy 2 (h and i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
• R 3. The access onto Patrick Street from Heathfield Yard and Roxwell Terrace Lane affords limited visibility and is not considered satisfactory to serve the additional garages proposed. The additional garage units would intensify vehicular movements onto Patrick Street which would cause danger and inconvenience to users of Patrick Street contrary to the interests of road safety contrary to General Policy 2 (h and i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

9.0 PLANNING COMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT - 9.1 The planning application was presented at Planning Committee on 15th June 2015 and the members of the Planning Committee unanimously overturned the recommendation of the case officer and the application was approved subject to the following conditions:

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. The garages hereby approved shall be used for storage purposes and the parking of private cars only and shall not be used for commercial purposes. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.
• C 3. The garages hereby approved shall be fitted with roller shutter garage doors. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
• C 4. All external facing of the southern elevation boundary wall facing Roxwell Terrace Lane, shall be finished in re-used sandstone from the existing boundary wall with any additional material required to complete the wall in its entirety to be natural sandstone which matches that of the existing wall in respect of type, size, colour, bond, pointing, coursing, jointing, profile and texture.

• Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
• C 5. No development shall commence until samples any additional natural sandstone required to be used in the construction of the external facing of the southern elevation boundary wall facing Roxwell Terrace Lane, have been provided on site and approved in writing by the Department. The approved natural sandstone shall be kept on site for reference until the development is completed. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

This approval relates to Drg No PA 01A, PA 02A and PA 03A all date stamped as received 17th February 2015.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Approved Committee Meeting Date:…15.06.2015 Signed :M McKnight Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES See Paragraph 9.0 above