Provision of security cameras fixed to the exterior of the building and provision of boundary fencing for safeguarding purposes.

Applications approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendations and changes to conditions.

The planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr Fowler, spoke in objection to the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. The following principal points were raised:

·       The security cameras on Churchill House were accepted as a necessity to deter crime and anti-social behaviour;

·       There was concern that the proposed fencing would adversely affect the open nature of the park and would deter people from walking through the park to the sensory garden; mitigation was required to ensure people would continue to access the sensory garden;

·       The occupation of the building should help to deter anti-social behaviour therefore the need for the fencing was questioned;

·       Concern had been expressed by local residents that the proposed fencing was utilitarian and ugly in appearance;

·       The fencing was proposed in a conservation area, adjacent to a listed building and needed to be more sympathetic to the sensitive location.

The committee debated the application; there was agreement that there was a need for the installation of CCTV cameras on the building but there was division among the members of the committee concerning the acceptability of the fencing proposed to enclose Churchill House. It was the contention of some members that the height and colour of the fence would not represent an adverse impact on the heritage asset whilst other members felt that the fencing was unnecessary and not in-keeping with the listed building and local area.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. 

The development manager explained that a change to the conditions in the report was required; condition 3 (Fencing – Appearance) proposed as part of the listed building consent (251667) required transfer to proposed conditions listed for the full application (251666).

Councillor Stef Simmons and Councillor Dave Davies seconded a motion that applications 251666 and 251667 be approved, in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation and subject to the change to conditions as outlined above.

Application 251666 was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

Application 251667 was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED – that

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and any other further conditions considered necessary by officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers:

PLANNING APPLICATION (REFERENCE NO. 251666)

1. Time limit for commencement

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Development in accordance with approved plans

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans (383 – 05; 383 – 06; 383 – 07; 383 – 03; and 383 – 09; 383 – 04 REV B (received via email 26th January 2026) except where otherwise stipulated by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81