Agenda item

DM/20/03760/FPA - First to Third Floors 4 - 6 Silver Street, Durham, DH1 3RB

Partial change of use to create 58 bed Student Accommodation Facility to include the erection of a single storey extension to existing roof and associated access arrangements (amended title) (updated elevation and floor plan to south west).

Minutes:

The Senior Planning Officer, Jennifer Jennings, gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site and photomontages of the proposed development.  The application was for partial change of use to create 58 bed Student Accommodation Facility to include the erection of a single storey extension to existing roof and associated access arrangements (amended title) (updated elevation and floor plan to south west) and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Councillor N Jones entered the meeting at 9.41am

 

The Chair asked Councillor L Brown, representing the City of Durham Parish Council to speak in relation to the application.

 

Councillor L Brown explained that the Parish Council remained unhappy with the planning application, despite one storey being removed from the originally planned 70 bedroom purpose built student accommodation (PBSA), leaving a group of 5-6 bedroomed houses in multiple occupation (HMO), together comprising 58 bedrooms.  She added that within a 100 metre radius of, and including 4-6 Sliver Street, 74.1 percent of properties were Class N exempt student properties as defined by Council Tax records.  She noted that whilst that clearly exceeded the 10 percent threshold included in Policy 16.3 of the County Durham Plan (CDP), the site was nevertheless situated within the heart of the city in an area characterised predominately by commercial uses.  Councillor L Brown noted, as such, the introduction of residential dwellings to the upper floors of the retail unit were not considered to have any acceptable or fundamental impact upon the achievement of balanced communities which Policy 16.3 sought to ensure.

 

 

Councillor L Brown noted that, however, that was not the basis on which the Parish Council objected to the application.  She noted that the fact remained that the application site was located within the Durham City Conservation Area (CA), as well as the setting of the Durham Castle and Cathedral World Heritage Site (WHS).  She explained that CDP Policy 45 was clear that “the Durham Castle and Cathedral WHS is a designated asset of the highest significance.  Development within or affecting the WHS and its setting will be required to sustain and enhance the significance of the designated asset; and be based on an understanding of the Outstanding Universal Value of the site, having regard to the adopted WHS Management Plan and Statement of Outstanding Universal Value”.

 

Councillor L Brown added that Durham City Neighbourhood Plan (DCNP) Policy H1 was also relevant to the determination of the application and cleared stated: “Development proposals throughout Our Neighbourhood should be shown to sustain, conserve and enhance the setting of the WHS”.  She explained that it was the Parish Council’s firm belief that the application, which proposed an additional storey to the building within the setting of the WHS, constituted overdevelopment under the walls of the castle and cathedral.  She noted that the Parish Council considered that the application was in breach of CDP Policy 45 and DCNP Policy H1.  She added that view was clearly supported by the WHS Coordinator who stated: “this proposal continues to have failures in heritage and WHS assessment.  The importance and significance of the WHS and its relationship to the city townscape is underestimated.  The design, size and form of the proposals has high negative impact and fails to uphold the views to and from the WHS”.  Councillor L Brown reminded Members that it had not been too long since Liverpool was stripped of its WHS status because of the cumulative and irreversible effect of unsympathetic development within its setting.  She added that a vote in favour of the application today put Durham one step further to a similar fate and noted that must not be allowed to happen.

 

Councillor L Brown noted the site was also within the Durham City CA which was protected by DCNP Policy H2 and CDP Policy 44.  She added both policies sought to preserve and enhance the significance of the CA and the significance of its setting and heritage assets.  She noted that those policies had been hard won and could not now be forfeit.  She explained that it was the Parish Council’s strong belief that the application failed the test of those important policies.  She reiterated that the application, in its current form, was in breach of Policies H1 and H2 of the DCNP and Policies 44 and 45 of the CDP and that the application must therefore be refused.  She concluded by noting that the Parish Council had been clear throughout consultation that it would be willing to accept such a scheme within the existing envelope of the building and therefore urged that the application be refused.

 

The Chair noted the comments as regards Liverpool and WHS status.  He asked Mr Max Wilkinson, local resident, to speak in objection to the application.

 

Mr M Wilkinson thanked the Chair and Committee and noted he was a local resident living behind the proposed development on Moatside Lane.  He explained he was also speaking on behalf of other local residents, Mr Burton, Mr Knowles and Mr Dobbs as well as Miss Davies who all would also be affected by the development.  He added that he believed the Committee report overlooked certain key issues, and ones within the CDP.  He noted that Policy 16.3(g) noted that for any HMO development there needed to be consideration given to the security of local residents.  Mr M Wilkinson noted that the Applicant had failed to submit any consideration for security of local residents and therefore, as such, was material grounds for refusal of the planning application.  Mr M Wilkinson explained that had such been carried out, the issue of lighting along Moatside Lane would have become obvious.  He noted that Moatside Lane was currently dark and suffered from anti-social behaviour.  He explained that should the site be developed, the quickest way from Durham University’s Lower Mountjoy site and Hild Colleges to the development would be via Moatside Lane, dramatically increasing the use of that path.  He noted, in line with the streetlighting policy of Durham County Council (DCC), that would make Moatside Lane eligible for streetlighting.  He explained that, additionally, the increase in height of the building would mean there was extra shading of the lane, especially in the early mornings and evenings, contributing further to the darkening of the lane. Mr M Wilkinson reiterated those issues would mean Moatside Lane was eligible for streetlighting in line with DCC policy and therefore the Council should ensure a Section 106 contribution was provided by the developer.

 

He added that, in reference to the development and construction management, he had made written submissions to the Committee alongside the issue of lighting the site at night.  He noted that, however, within the Committee report there was no mention of his worries and concerns about excessive lighting of the site.  Mr M Wilkinson explained that his four, large bedroom windows backed on to the application site and noted that if there were floodlights throughout the night, that would prevent him, and other residents from Moatside, from being able to sleep.  He noted that therefore they would request conditions that reduced the impact of such lighting, either in requesting lights be turned off by a certain time or stating that light must not intrude upon the resident’s development as a result of months of construction.  He added that allowing for construction to begin at 8.00am on a Saturday was unreasonable for local residents, noting that behind the development was a residential area, with residents working hard all week and being deserving of a weekend lie-in. 

 

The Chair thanked Mr M Wilkinson and asked Mr Michael Hurlow, representing the City of Durham Trust, to speak in objection to the application.

 

Mr M Hurlow noted the City of Durham Trust had made a clear case for the refusal of the application, seeing no reason for the enlargement of the property to create a new student accommodation by harmful development.  He added there was no public benefit.  He explained the Trust was disappointed that flaws of the Applicant’s assessments were echoed within the recommendation for approval. 

 

Mr M Hurlow explained that the significance of the adjacent WHS, namely the Castle and North Terrace, was underplayed and the negative impact of the extension was underappreciated.  He added that the concern was shared by the WHS Coordinator.  He explained that the key impact was upon the Castle North Terrace, a seventeenth century promenade, part of the evolution of the castle walls from defence to leisure use.  He added that it was significant in its own right and as part of the WHS.

 

Mr M Hurlow noted that the application building and two large blocks adjacent already intruded into Silver Street and intrude views from the terrace.  He added that the dominance of the terrace was revealed in a survey that established the significance of the castle walls and terraces, with the County Council having helped to commission the survey.  He noted that the proposals pushed the large two-storey rear extension closer to the WHS and would be clearly on view from the terrace as a result of the angles inherited from the medieval plot shape.  He noted it added to the negative impact of the existing building and would cause cumulative damage to the view.  He added that trees did not currently mask the view and must be regarded as transitory, having only grown on the castle banks since the late 1940s.

 

Mr M Hurlow noted the design was basic and demonstrated no enhancement, as required to meet DCNP policies, and brought nothing to the CA.  He added that the Trust therefore asked that the Committee refuse the application, based upon its negative WHS impact and obvious failures against CDP and DCNP policies.  He noted that the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), in reviewing the recent WHS expansion proposal, recommended referring the application back and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) subsequently required more proof that planning protection for the new expansion.  He added that ICOMOS were very concerned as regards the development in the WHS immediate setting, citing the Elvet Business School proposal and also development north of the WHS.  Mr M Hurlow noted that, in view of this, to approve the application could be seen as provocative and certainly very unhelpful.

The Chair thanked Mr M Hurlow and asked the Agent for the Applicant, Mr Ian Kettlewell, to speak in support of the application.

 

Mr I Kettlewell noted he was from Lichfields Planning Consultants for Metropolis Land and Property Developments Limited, the Applicant, and thanked the Chair and Members for the opportunity to speak at Committee.  He explained that the planning application was submitted following extensive pre-application discussions with Council Officers following the submission, and response to the comments made by Officers, the application was significantly amended to reduce the number of bed spaces by almost 20 percent, from 70 to 58 with the removal of the fourth floor of accommodation.  He noted the proposed development therefore comprised of the change of use of the first and second floors of the existing building, together with the formation of the third floor with a mansard roof to provide a total of nine apartments with 58 en suite bedrooms.  He explained that, in addition to the apartments, communal facilities would be provided, including a large common room and games room, a private dining room and meeting room, and a gym and Peloton studio.  Mr I Kettlewell added each apartment would have its own living room and kitchen.  He noted that the ground floor would continue to operate as a large retail unit and noted the proposals were brought forward in the context of increased demand for such form of shared accommodation, and also in the context of a lack demand for large floor plate retail units spread over multiple floors.  He explained that the building had been actively marketed for over three years, with no interest forthcoming for the reoccupation of the entire building.  Mr I Kettlewell noted the pandemic had accelerated the change in retail habits, with large town and city centre units no longer being required by retailers.  He added Bradley Hall - Chartered Surveyors had stated that they would not expect any retailer to require the upper part of the premises, the 10,000 square foot ground floor being large enough for most retailers.

 

Mr I Kettlewell noted that it was therefore the case that without the proposed development the upper floors would remain vacant and become a liability.  He added the planning application demonstrated there was a need for type of accommodation proposed and that there was a shortfall in supply in Durham.  He noted that paragraph 95 of the Committee report confirmed the proposals would not lead to any oversupply of such accommodation, notwithstanding there was no requirement to demonstrate such a need in any event, as set out in paragraph 96.  Mr I Kettlewell noted that Durham University had raised no issue to the principle of the proposed development and added that no changes were proposed to the front elevation of the building, other than the creation of a new mansard roof to form a third floor, set back from the front of the building. 

 

 

Mr I Kettlewell noted paragraph 108 of the Committee report referred to that roof as “successfully fitting with the upper neo-Georgian style façade of the host building”.  He added the removal of the unsightly flat roof, which added nothing to the city’s character, allowed the creation of a new, more interesting roof that better reflected and added to the defining roofscape characteristics as set out in the CA Character Appraisal.  He noted the building remained subordinate to its neighbours and added it was pleasing to note that Officers considered that the proposals would enhance the conservation area in that regard.  Mr I Kettlewell reiterated that the proposal would have a positive impact on the CA and would easily assimilate itself within its setting.  He noted the new roof structure resulted in the removal of unsightly external plant, together with the use of high quality materials, and would be a positive addition and improvement in that part of the city centre.

 

Mr I Kettlewell noted a full assessment of the proposals impact on the WHS had been undertaken with a range of visualisations submitted.  He explained Council Officers had considered the assessment and concluded that the development would not be harmful to the WHS.  He added that, as set out within the report, the development was in accord with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), CDP and DCNP.  He noted that the proposal would deliver a wide range of public benefits, including the reuse of a vacant building in an economic climate where large retail units were no longer in demand.  He added the increase in footfall in that part of the city would generate a capital investment of around £4.2 million, 85 full-time equivalent construction jobs and an additional 100 indirect jobs in the construction industry and supply chain during the build period.  He added there would be an additional £11.2 million in economic output during the build period and net additional expenditure by residents of the development by £365,000 per year, which could support five full-time equivalent jobs in local shops and services.  Mr I Kettlewell concluded by noting the planning application and Committee report demonstrated that the proposed development was in accord with the development plan and the NPPF and urged Members to accept their Officers’ recommendation and approve the application.

 

The Chair thanked Mr I Kettlewell and noted the occupancy of the ground floor retail unit on a month by month basis and asked if there would be impact upon the current tenant as a result of a successful application.  Mr I Kettlewell noted ground unit would remain available for retail use on the same basis, as the tenant required.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted the issue of a bat roost and a condition that a licence be sought and asked what the position would be should analysis show that the bats should remain in-situ and a licence was not granted.  The Senior Planning Officer noted the Committee report detailed the position in relation to a further survey that was undertaken, with the roost found within the annex building. 

She explained that roost covered a small number of Common Pipistrelle bats and based upon the type of bats found and nature of the roost found, i.e. the roosts were not considered to be a maternity or hibernating roost, the Council’s Ecology Officer assessed the details and was satisfied that a licence could be obtained from Natural England. If there was a possibility that a licence could not be attained, the Authority would have to take that into consideration, however, based on surveys received and assessment of these the Authority is satisfied that a licence would be provided.  Accordingly, a condition is attached requiring strict adherence to the recommendations and mitigations set out within the bat report. 

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the significant concerns raised by objectors relating to the impact on the WHS, with reference made to a potential cumulative impact and future loss of the WHS status.  She noted that Officers were generally satisfied, having looked at the details of the proposal, impacts and visualisations, that the extent of change was acceptable and would not be of a significance to the continuing dominance of the WHS.  She added that original submission had proposed two additional floors and there were concerns raised by Historic England at that time.  She noted that submission of a reduced scheme was subject to further consultation where Historic England had no further comments and were happy to defer to the Council’s Design and Conservation Officers.  She explained those Officers had assessed the proposals and felt that essentially the proposals would have a sustaining, conserving impact and felt there would be a minor enhancement in terms of the removal of a lot of the roof clutter on that floor, with a roof design that was in keeping with the building, a modern building that was not listed.  She added that the mansard roof had been designed to be in scale with the building adding an additional 2.6 metres to the height, not significant and certainly no higher than the adjacent Tesco building and was quite a bit lower than the annex building to the rear.  Accordingly, the Senior Planning Officer noted Officers had no concerns that there would be a negative impact upon the WHS in that regard or cumulatively undermining the special values of that particular site.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted the issue raised as regards construction works and explained that the condition applied was the standard construction condition with timing of operations.  She added a Construction Management Plan (CMP) would be sought, with specific details of how construction works being proposed not to start before 8.30am on a Saturday.  She noted in respect of the concerns raised as regards excessive lighting, there may be the opportunity to apply a condition for detail specific to the lighting on site and limit hours of operation, however, there was a condition for a management plan for the site and issues regarding hours of lighting in the rear courtyard could be covered and assessed within that.

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised that Officers had taken into consideration the possibility of lighting along Moatside Lane and that, in terms of the overshadowing, Officers did not consider that would be significant as the mansard roof was set back from the parapet wall.  She referred to the development layout plan and noted that any proposal to use Moatside Lane would be a significant detour for future occupants at the site, with Officers noting that it would be 153 metres and a steeper walk for future residents.  Accordingly, in terms of increasing footfall on that pathway it was not anticipated that the development would lead to any notable increase and therefore it would be hard to justify the need for lighting at this point.  The Senior Planning Officer clarified that external construction works were conditioned as 8.30am to 2.00pm on Saturdays, however, internal works could commence from 8.00am, so long as it was not audible outside the site boundary.

 

The Chair asked for any comments from the Highways Officer and Solicitor on the comments made by the speakers.

 

The Principal Development Management (DM) Engineer, David Smith explained that the existing vennel was not lit and historically had not been lit.  He added that the Council maintained the surface of that vennel and reiterated the comments of the Senior Planning Officer in terms of the vennel not being a convenient route for regular use by occupants of the proposed development.  He noted there were no reported accidents on the vennel, even though it was not lit, and noted the public highways of Silver Street and Saddler Street were both lit to public highway standards P4 and P6 which were the Council’s standard for lighting.  The Principal DM Engineer explained that those technical standards related to high flow of pedestrians at night-time, with the vennel not being a receptor for high levels of pedestrian flow.  He reiterated that it was not felt that it was necessary for the development to provide any lighting along the vennel for the reasons stated.

 

The Solicitor – Planning and Development, Clare Cuskin noted that if the Committee were minded to seek Section 106 monies in respect of street lighting, Members would need to be satisfied that planning permission would otherwise have to be refused if that streetlighting was not provided, and that the requirement for the streetlighting was arising solely from the proposed development.  She noted Members had heard from both the Planning Officer and Highways Officer who were both of the view, a view she shared, that it would be difficult to impose the imposition of a Section 106 obligation in this instance relating to street lighting.

 

The Chair asked Members of the Committee for their comments and questions.

 

 

Councillor J Elmer noted he had lived in and around the city for some time and added he felt most would be able to appreciate that a single building going forward had been considered by the heritage team of the Council as not posing any real threat to the heritage value of the city. 

He added he felt the question was not the impact of an individual building, rather the cumulative impact of building after building.  He explained that all would be able to see that over the last 10, 15, 20 years that in the development of Durham City, that was exactly what had happened.  Councillor J Elmer noted all could see that the cumulative impact of all the large buildings that had gone up and modifications to existing buildings had been extremely significant.  He added he felt all were worried that at some point in the future it may threaten the WHS status of the city centre.  He noted that needed to be borne in mind and that the question was did the development have an impact upon the WHS.  He noted it was a difficult question to ask and that there were differing opinions that had been presented to Committee by differing people and groups that had considered the matter.  He added that, on the one hand, the Council’s Heritage Team who had noted a net improvement from the proposed development to the heritage value of the city centre, and on the other hand there was a group of organisations including the WHS Coordinator, City of Durham Trust, ICOMOS, and the Parish Council stating that the opposite was the case.  Councillor J Elmer noted, for him, it was a matter of who did he trust, and who had an interest in conserving the heritage value of the city centre and put it to Members that it was the latter organisations that had a real interest in conserving the heritage interest of the city centre.  He noted he would have to trust those organisations and concluded that the proposals would have an overall net negative impact on the heritage value of the city, and he asked Members to consider than very seriously and reject the application on that basis.

 

Councillor J Elmer noted additional concerns as regards the bat licence, noting he felt the survey and assessment work should have been completed prior to getting to Committee in order to inform Members’ deliberations.  He added he also had concerns as regards the security of adjacent residents, loss of retail, and breaches of policies within the DCNP.  He added the latter was of importance to him as he felt Members should be listening to local people who, over the last few years, had come together to create a Neighbourhood Plan for the area.  He added he felt strongly that decision making in relation to the city centre should be delegated down to the people that actually lived in an area.  Councillor J Elmer noted that while he would like Members to reject the application, it did not prevent the development going forward, rather the development needed to exist within the existing envelope of the building, not with an additional storey placed on top, reducing the number of rooms, with any future still being able to include visual improvements to the roof.

 

Councillor C Marshall noted from his experience serving on various Planning Committees that applications within Durham City were often contentious, with a range of different people with views and opinions. 

He added that the starting point was to look at any application in terms of policies in place, and he noted his thanks to the Officers for the way it had been presented and the level of detail shared with Members.  He noted that planning was a matter of opinion, however, he had found some of the comments made by Councillor J Elmer were quite derogatory as regards the staff and teams at the Council.  Councillor C Marshall noted it was not a matter of trust, it was the professional opinions of those Council Officers and people would always have different views and opinions as regards planning decisions.  He explained that, in looking at the application, one of the questions that came to light related to the viability of the scheme as there was a risk that if nothing was done with the building, which was outside of the Council’s ownership, there was the potential for the building to remain vacant, void and become a blight on the city, as similarly seen in towns right across County Durham.  He noted therefore he would be interested in the economic viability of trying to have a scheme within the existing envelope of the building.  He suggested that the Applicant would have looked at the viability while pulling together the proposals before Committee, clearly why an additional storey was being sought.  Councillor C Marshall noted that if Members were minded to refuse the application, he felt there was potential for the decision to come back and bite the Council with a large building in the city sitting empty.  He noted issues in terms of viability in terms of delivering the quality of development, adding that if the scheme was within the existing envelope then perhaps the cloth would need to be cut to suit in respect of renovation works and standards.  He noted the concerns raised by those neighbouring the property should be taken into account and he noted Members should be looking to condition in that respect and look for those requirements being met as part of the management plan going forward so the Council had as many powers as possible to make sure it was carried out sympathetically to those neighbouring the development. 

 

Councillor C Marshall returned to the policies and noted that the Council’s Heritage Team, the statutory consultees, were satisfied the proposals sat with the policies laid down within the CDP.  He noted he felt Members needed to be very careful in terms of planning and not look to amend planning policy at Committee.  He added if Members were not happy with a policy the Council had or the policies developed in the Neighbourhood Plan, both of which had been developed recently, then they should go back and review and amend those policies, otherwise there would be no confidence from the private sector to come and develop and spend money in County Durham.

 

 

Councillor C Marshall noted he felt there were two questions for the Committee, with one being did the proposals sit within planning policy, with the professional Officers from the Council stating that in their view that they did.

 

He added that if Members were not happy about that, they were not in a position to make planning policy up within the Committee meeting and all that would do would be to undermine confidence for investment, regeneration, growth, and jobs in the county.  He noted Members needed to be very careful in terms of any precedent they set, very careful as regards the risk of appeal and the reputational risks to the Council going forward.  Councillor C Marshall noted, having listened to all sides, he had reached the opinion that the application did sit with planning policies and that if the Committee did refuse the application his view was that the Applicant would have a strong case at appeal, which would cost the Council money.  On that basis he moved that the Committee supported the Officer’s recommendation and approve the application.

 

The Chair noted the issue raised by Councillor C Marshall as regards the viability of the proposals and asked if the Agent wished to respond and if a fallback position had been considered should the application be refused.  Mr I Kettlewell noted that, in simple terms, the scheme would not be viable as a simple conversion of the existing building and first two floors.  He added that the scheme was only just viable as it stood with the one additional floor and mansard roof.  He noted there had been much debate with the Applicant as regards viability and reiterated that without the third floor as set out within the proposals before Members, the scheme would not be viable.

 

Councillor C Kay seconded the proposal of Councillor C Marshall to accept the Officer’s recommendation, noting a lot of what he would have said had already been put succinctly by Councillor C Marshall.  He noted the situation as regards Liverpool losing WHS status, however, he noted that Members of the Committee were not deciding upon an issue in Liverpool or what would happen with a cumulative effect, rather each application would be looked at in isolation, with applications standing or falling on their own merits.  He noted that the Solicitor had referred to conditions relating to lighting and understood that conditions could only be applied if the application would not be able to be approved without such a condition being made.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that Members could only impose a condition if Members felt that condition was necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, or to say without the condition it would be refused.  She noted that perhaps the best way to deal with a lighting scheme, as it was off site, would be for a Section 106 obligation to be imposed.  She added that again, such a Section 106 obligation could only be imposed if Members felt that planning permission would have to be refused without that obligation.

The Chair asked the Senior Planning Officer to respond to the points raised by the Committee.

 

The Senior Planning Officer noted that in terms of the bat licence, the Authority would not be in any position to make a decision until it was satisfied on the position as regards bats within the building, so all the works and surveys were undertaken, reports written up and fully assessed.  She added that Officers were satisfied that a licence could be achieved, as noted by the Council’s Ecologist.  She added that ICOMOS was a body that would inform UNESCO and had not specifically written to the Council, however, the Council requested that the Applicant undertake an assessment in line with the ICOMOS assessment in terms of impact of change, which was undertaken, and Officers were satisfied that the impacts were acceptable in that regard.  The Principal Planning Officer, Paul Hopper added that the cumulative impact could be a material planning matter, however, Officers were of the view that there was an enhancement.

 

The Chair noted the proposal for refusal by Councillor J Elmer, Councillor C Marshall noted that the motion proposed and seconded for approval should be voted upon first, then any subsequent motions proposed and seconded should the first motion fall.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development asked Councillor C Marshall as regards additional conditions he wished to attach.  Councillor C Marshall noted they were in reference to the nuisance to neighbours during construction and, as mentioned by the Senior Planning Officer, there would be the management plan that would be required to be signed off by the Authority prior to works commencing.  The Solicitor – Planning and Development asked therefore if the Member was asking for any additional conditions, Councillor C Marshall noted he was not.  

 

Councillor C Marshall moved the Officer recommendation for approval, he was seconded by Councillor C Kay.

 

Upon a vote being taken it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as set out within the report.

 

Supporting documents: