Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
14/00192/B
Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 14/00192/B Applicant : Jones Services Ltd Proposal : Erection of a building to provide garaging and service facilities Site Address : Land To Rear Of IOM Seafood Products Ltd Isle Of Man Food Park Mill Road Peel Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Miss Melissa McKnight Photo Taken : 04.03.2014 Site Visit : 04.03.2014 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 a piece of land adjacent to Isle of Man Seafood Products Ltd, Mill Road, Peel. The site is part of the Isle of Man Food Park which is situated to the southern side of the highway. The site is situated to the eastern side of the Isle of Man Seafood Products Ltd building. The site partly includes the scrubland to the east of the existing building, this land slopes quite steeply upwards towards the east and abuts the rear garden of a number of properties of Patrick Street.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a building for garaging and service facilities adjacent to an existing Isle of Man Seafood Products building. The building would be a portal framed building which would measure approximately 23m in length x 9.1m in width with a height of approximately 6.8m to eaves level; ridge height of 8.1m.
2.2 In the gable end of the building there would be two roller shutter doors which would be approximately 3.7m in width x 5.7m in height. The building would be finished with grey cladding with a concrete retaining wall beneath. The building would have five rooflights in either side of the building.
2.3 The erection of the building partly within the area of scrubland would result in digging out part of the area of The Brooghs, as a result there would be approximately 300 cubic metres of soil removed from the site and disposed off site to a licensed tip.
2.4 Also proposed is the erection of a 35 metre stretch of retaining wall at no more than 2.7 metres high with a thickness of 1.7 metres which would be erected 900mm from the eastern elevation and rear elevation of the proposed building with an 11 metre stretch protruding beyond the front elevation of the building. There would be a 4.4 metre stretch of walling at the rear of the building.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 2 ====
14/00192/B
Page 2 of 10
3.1 There have been a number of previous applications in the Food Park for the erection of industrial buildings, none of which relate specifically to this site.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area zoned as Predominantly Industrial under the Peel Local Plan 1989. Planning Circular 6/89, the written statement that accompanies the local plan, contains two polices that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
Policy 6.7 states: "The land which has been zoned for industrial use is considered sufficient and no further allocation is envisaged."
Policy 6.8 states: "Residential development in the vicinity will be discouraged."
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains four 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: 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; 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."
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."
Business Policy 5 states: "On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage and distribution; retailing will not be permitted except where either: a) The items to be sold could not reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature; or b) The items to be sold are produced on the site and their sale could not reasonably be severed from the overall business; And in respect of (a) or (b), where it can be demonstrated that the sales would not detract from the vitality and viability of the appropriate town centre shopping area."
Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
==== PAGE 3 ====
14/00192/B
Page 3 of 10
Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 sets out the current standards for general industrial buildings. Appendix 7 states that there should be 1 space per 50 square metres gross floor space.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Peel Town Commissioners requested a structural engineers report before any approval is given (16/01/2015). In a further representation, 23/02/2015, Peel Town Commissioners indicate that they recommend approval but retain some degree of concern over the stability issues in respect of The Broogh behind the development and have requested that when the building control application is made that the Commissioners be copied into the reports. On submission of further amended plans regarding vehicular movements, Peel Town Commissioners recommend the application be approved (05/03/2015).
5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services do not oppose the current planning application (06/03/15).
5.3 Department of Environment Food and Agriculture, in an email received 8th January 2015, comment on the application. The Department is concerned with the lack of information in respect of the excavation works to the bank. They also note that there is no information detailing how such excavated materials will be dealt with. They also note that there is a lack of information within the application in respect of the perimeter fence and its reinstatement.
5.4 Manx Utilities Authority recommends that the applicant contact the Authority prior to commencement of works (06/03/2014).
5.5 The owner and/or occupier of No. 60 Patrick Street, in a letter received 3rd July 2014, comment on the application. They have concerns regarding the impact of the development upon the rear boundary walls of the properties along Patrick Street. They question what the building is to be used for, and whether this is for refuse collection. They note that the site is part of the Food Park but the application is not related to food production. Will it be funded by the money allocated for Isle of Man Food Park. The application states that the land is owned by DEFA but they have become aware that it is owned by DoI. They note that the building is much taller than the adjacent building and are concerned that this would impact the view, some consideration should be given to the view from the Conservation Area. They also query the accuracy of the plans, and they have concerns with the stability of the bank. They also question why they were not made aware of the application.
5.6 The owner and/or occupier of No. 60 Patrick Street, Peel in an email received 1st January 2015, further objects to the application. Part of their objection relates to the new location of the building, the height and position of it would obscure their view. They question why a non-food business is allowed on the food park. The site plan does not show a fence, and it does not show the fence on the proposed site plan, they advise that the residents were informed that there would be no development outside the fenced area. They are concerned that a precedent will be set if this non-food related business is allowed in the Food Park.
5.7 In a further letter from the owner and/or occupier of No. 60 Patrick Street received 20th February 2015, objecting to the planning application as it is proposed that a new, large building be built on The Brooghs outside the existing fence of the Isle of Man Food Park. When this fence was erected the residents were told that there would be no building outside of it and residents received a letter from DAFF, now DEFA, in July 2012 explaining that this area was being managed as a wildlife corridor. It was explained that there is colony of common butterflies there and details were given of suggested planting. Comments were made regarding the intended use of the building and in the event that the application is approved, it is a condition that no bins can be stored outside the building. The building would
==== PAGE 4 ====
14/00192/B
Page 4 of 10
be higher than any other building in the Food Park and will be an eyesore from Peel Hill and from the properties along Glenfaba Road and Patrick Street which are in a Conservation Area. Further comments were made about a landslip that occurred about 40 years ago. At a meeting with the applicant, Peel Town Commissioners and residents it was confirmed by the applicant that a high retaining wall would be built along the length and at the rear of the proposed building which will have bolts into the land behind that is mostly sand. The applicant was also asked if there would be a wall along the length of the driveway and would the entrance be secured by a gate. The applicant stated there would be a wall but neither a wall one metre high nor a gate is shown on the plans. One of the residents of the area is a geologist and she produced a geological map which shows that The Brooghs is on a fault line. The Structural Engineer's Report refers to the Geological Map of the Isle of Man, Drift Edition however no mention is made of the fault line. PA 04/00420/A was turned down initially and at review partly because "it is judged that there is a high risk of ground instability on the site, which may, if developed, increase the risk of land slippage which may have a detrimental impact upon the industrial land surrounding the site to the north and west." There is a high concern about the lack of stability of the land where it is proposed that this building be built. In the event that the plans are approved and it is subsequently confirmed that the land is unstable, residents will surely be able to hold the Government responsible and liable for any structural damage to these properties in the future.
5.8 The owner and/or occupier of No. 54 Patrick Street, Peel, in an email received 3rd July 2014 object to the application. Their main area of concern is the proposal to cut into the bank at the rear of Patrick Street as they are concerned with the stability of the bank. They say that there have been landslips before and this has damaged the rear boundary wall. They also question the use of the building and whether it is appropriate in a designated Food Park.
5.9 The owner and/or occupier of No. 56 Patrick Street, Peel, in a letter received 4th July 2014, object to the application. They do not object to the building itself but the position of the new building. They are concerned with the impact upon the bank as there have been a number of landslips in the past resulting in some of the rear boundary walls of properties along Patrick Street collapsing and having to be rebuilt. They also have concerns that the building will be much closer to the rear of the properties on Patrick Street. They also note that they live in a Conservation Area and they are restricted in terms of what they can do to their property, but note that there do not appear to be constraints on external developers in terms of the power station extension and the House of Mannanin all of which have affected their view and de-valued their property.
5.10 A further letter received 26th February 2015 from the owner and/or occupier of No. 56 Patrick Street raising further concerns regarding the stability of the steep bank in which the access road and building walls would have to be cut. The letter further states that there has been significant structural movement of the back wall of No. 56 Patrick Street in recent years. Reference has been made to PA 04/00420/A. Comments have been made with reference to the Government and the applicant being liable for any costs or reduction in the value of No. 56 Patrick Street if land slippage occurs now or in the future to safeguard heirs or future owners. Further comments have been made regarding the location of the fault line.
5.11 The owner and/or occupier of No. 64 Patrick Street, Peel, in an email received 14th July 2014, object to the application. They question why none of the residents have been informed as they encounter problems with the back wall and no one wants to take responsibility for the piece of land. They also question whether refuse will be stored in the building.
5.12 A further representation was received from the owner and/or occupier of No. 64 Patrick Street, Peel, in a letter received 5th January 2015, objecting further to the application. They object to the loss of the view from their property and they question how high the
==== PAGE 5 ====
14/00192/B
Page 5 of 10
building will be. They are concerned that once the fence is removed that this will leave it open for people to access the rear of their property. Their main concern is the stability of the land to the rear of the properties on Patrick Street.
5.13 In a further representation received from No. 64 Patrick Street, in a letter received 26 February 2015 opposes the new building. Questions have been asked regarding whose responsibility it will be if the land proves unstable, damage occurs to the properties because of the land being unsecure, will the residents be able to sell their houses, will new buyers be able to get a mortgage, will having such a large structure be within keeping with the area, will it set a precedent for other buildings outside the fence and how can the architect guarantee that the retaining wall will stabilise the bank.
5.14 The owner and/or occupier of No. 32 Glenfaba Road, Peel, in an email dated 18th February 2015 has raised two concerns regarding the application. The site of the building extends past the boundary of the Isle of Man Food Park. It was understood that the Food Park boundary fence was to be the limit of development on the site, and it would not be acceptable to see creeping development extending it by stealth. The final concern was made regarding the stability of the slope. There are serious worries about the slope beyond the retaining wall, with the consequent affects it could have on the houses at the top of the slope. No.32 Glenfaba Road from the application site, but there are concerns of any knock on effect as a result of the decision.
5.15 The owner and/or occupier of No. 6 Glenfaba Road, Peel, in an email received 25th February 2015 object to the current planning application. It is an inappropriate area to erect a building for garaging and maintenance of refuse waggons and 'recycling facilities' in such close proximity to a 'foodpark'. The possible instability of the slope; it is understood that there have been landslides in some places in recent times. Disturbances through development and continued use of heavy, frequent and regular vehicular traffic could have a cumulative effect and cause problems with the stability. Residents already live with the constant vibration from the power station. The development, if passed, will require excavation and removal of a considerable amount of soil. It also requires an access road, adding to the vibration during construction and heave wagons subsequently. Mr Gray, civil engineer, has informed the residents that he has been monitoring the retaining walls for 25 years which would suggest there is already concern about the stability of this area. The geological survey map also shows that this area cannot be considered stable. The effects of the 9th July 1984 earthquake were felt, the epicentre of the earthquake was in North Wales which is known to be a seismically active area and this makes it prone to earthquakes.
5.16 The owner and/or occupier of No. 52 Glenfaba Road, Peel, in an email received 27th February 2015, objects to the current planning application. Concerns are raised regarding the stability of the bank, the stability of the whole bank has not been ascertained, and indeed cannot be guaranteed. Given the formation of the area where the development is to take place, different rock types, any unconformable boundary between different rock types is considered a line of weakness. Patrick Road and Glenfaba Road runs along the boundary between two superficial drift deposits and along the underlying fault between the downthrown block of the Peel Group sediments, and the Glen Dhoon Formation of the Manx Group. If these plans are permitted, the intense vibrations caused during construction, as well as increased vibrations in the immediate vicinity once the building is operational, will only enhance the instability of the bank. Additionally, if metal pins are drilled into the bank below the houses along this natural line of weakness then these metal pins will serve as a focal point for directing the ubiquitous vibrations from the Power Station, as well as vibrations from the HGV and plant equipment already in use at the Isle of Man Food Park straight into unconsolidated glacial deposits along the fault line. Cumulative effects of potential future development could cause significant damage to properties along the length of Patrick Street/Glenfaba Road. Comments were made regarding existing stability of the bank and
==== PAGE 6 ====
14/00192/B
Page 6 of 10
previous landslips. The construction of the retaining wall on part of the bank will alter the natural flow of water as it drains through the bank; effectively halting erosion in the area of the wall but increasing the rate of erosion further along the bank and thereby making the rest of the bank more prone to landslides in the future.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a building for garaging and servicing facilities; there are five issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application which are as follows:
The principle of the development; 2) The impact upon the adjacent industrial buildings; 3) The impact upon the character and appearance of the area and nearby Conservation Area 4) The impact upon the living conditions of the neighbouring residential properties on Patrick Street; and 5) The impact on highway and other vehicular movements within the Isle of Man Food Park.
6.2 THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
6.2.1 The site is within an area zoned as industrial as identified on the Peel Local Plan, the proposed use is for garaging and service facilities, while the garaging and servicing of vehicles would not strictly fall within the definition of industrial it is considered that use would be appropriate for an area identified for industrial use given the intended use of the building which would not be uncommon within an industrial yard/area.
6.3 IMPACT UPON ADJACENT BUILDINGS
6.3.1 The proposed building would be fairly large in terms of floor space and height and would be used in association with the adjacent building which is currently used by Isle of Man Seafood Products Ltd who are involved in fishing, processing, transportation and export of shellfish. The proposed building would be used for garaging and servicing which would be ancillary to the Isle of Man Seafood Products Ltd building. It is not considered that the building itself would cause harm to the adjacent building.
6.4 IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITY LOCALITY
6.4.1 The edge of Peel Town Conservation Area is 12 metres from the eastern edge of the application site. The edge of the Conservation Area runs along the rear gardens of the properties of Patrick Street and along the entrance and northern/north western boundary of the Food Park. Disregarding views from the rear gardens of Patrick Street it is unlikely that the new building would be visible from within the Conservation Area. There would however be distant and partial views of the new building from the summit of Peel Hill.
6.4.2 The building would have the appearance and form of an industrial building and would have a similar appearance to other buildings within the Isle of Man Food Park. Given that the proposed building would be used in association with the existing Isle of Man Seafood Products Ltd building and would reflect its purpose it is considered that no undue harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the locality or nearby Conservation Area. In addition to this, the building would be viewed in association with the other buildings of the Food Park and would not appear incongruous within the locality.
6.5 IMPACT UPON LIVING CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTIES OF PATRICK STREET
==== PAGE 7 ====
14/00192/B
Page 7 of 10
6.5.1 The proposed building would be approximately 21m from the rear of the houses along Patrick Street at its closest point, but there is quite a significant difference in levels given the topography of the land adjacent to the application site. This land slopes steeply upwards towards the rear of the properties along Patrick Street. While the proposed building would be approximately 8.3m in height to the eaves, given the difference in levels between the application site and the properties on Patrick Street it is considered that the proposed building would not have an adverse impact upon the amenities of those occupiers in terms of appearing overbearing or resulting in a loss of light.
6.5.2 The owners/occupiers of a number of the properties along Patrick Street have raised concerns regarding the stability of the bank. It is completely understandable that the residents of the properties along Patrick Street extending to Glenfaba Road have concerns and evidently have some anxiety regarding the impact of the development on the stability of the bank. The structural engineers report has set out that it has been identified in the past, on behalf of previous work for DEFA, that the bank is stable apart from isolated areas where the slope has been increased or decreased by the addition or subtraction of soil, or where soakaways have been installed at the top of the bank taking rainwater from property along Glenfaba and Patrick Roads. In more recent times, an escape of water from a water main caused localised instability and damage.
6.5.3 The applicant has provided a structural survey and drawings demonstrating the amount of material to be removed and the method in how they would do it and stabilise the bank. The construction of the retaining wall is something that will be carried out in accordance with Building Regulations and as such Building Control has suggested conditions so that no works are carried out prior to Building Regulations approval. Conversely, the structural details and engineering works fall squarely within the remit of Building Control.
6.5.4 Of concern is the disturbance that will be caused upon the residents of Patrick Street and a handful of properties of Glenfaba Road as a result of the manoeuvring of vehicles and general sounds created by refuse trucks. There is already a significant amount of vehicle movement in and out and within the Isle of Man Food Park. The erection of the building proposed would result in large vehicle movements being closer to the residential properties of Patrick Street.
6.5.5 Noise and vibrations are relevant planning considerations. Intermittent and sustained operating noise may be a problem if not kept to acceptable levels, and particularly if night time or early morning work is involved. The proposed use of the building for garaging and service facilities would intensify vehicular movements and generate noticeable increased traffic levels, noise and disturbance particularly as the refuse trucks are entering the building with the reversing alarms sounding.
6.5.6 Vehicle reversing alarms are just one of the sources of noise which cause the most environmental disturbance. Alarms are fitted for safety reasons, but can cause annoyance through their tone even when the level of background noise is higher than the noise emitted by the alarm.
6.5.7 It may well be the case that the vehicles operate during the day time when it would be assumed that the majority of residents would be at work. Nonetheless, one cannot assume that all residents along Patrick Street and Glenfaba Road would be at work every day during the work. Whilst the use of the new building and operation of associated vehicles can be conditioned, this would be difficult to enforce as this type of noise could not be effectively controlled by condition due to its intermittent nature.
==== PAGE 8 ====
14/00192/B
Page 8 of 10
6.5.8 The operating of the vehicles within such close proximity to the bank between Patrick Street and the site, may well result in vibrations to the properties set above the bank. It is understood that the residents already experience a level of vibrations as a result of the power station. The type of vehicles in operation and nature of the work involved may potentially intensify vibrations which would be unacceptable to the living environment of the residents and may possibly intensify the existing vibrations caused as a result of the power station. One must not disregard the formation of the bank and the previous landslips experienced would suggest that any levels of increased vibration may well result in an impact upon the stability of The Brooghs.
6.6 HIGHWAY AND EXISTING VEHICULAR SAFETY
6.6.1 On submission of the planning application the original failed to demonstrate the existing and proposed parking arrangements or vehicle movements in and out of the site. Amended plans were submitted which show that the refuse trucks would reverse into the site and enter the new building. The vehicles would reverse past the northern elevation of the existing Isle of Man Seafood Products building and parking area and the south of three other buildings within the Food Park. Aerial photographs of the site show that there are a number of cars and other HGV's parked outside the buildings situated to the north of the application site. In total the refuse trucks would reverse over 58 metres.
6.6.2 The drawings do not show the full movement of the vehicles from entering the Isle of Man Food Park site to turning into position to reverse into the building nor has the parking of other vehicles been shown of the other buildings which can be seen on aerial photographs of the site. Pedestrian movements have also not been shown on the submitted drawings.
6.6.3 Although Highway Services do not oppose the planning application, it is considered that the number of vehicles coming to, and leaving the site would give rise to disturbance, through general vehicle noise, and reversing bleepers and would not be able to manoeuvre safely within the site without undermining the safety of other vehicular and pedestrian users within the site.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Whilst the principle of development would be appropriate within the Isle of Man Food Park, the location for the development is not deemed acceptable by reason of noise and vibration disturbance to the residents of Patrick Street and Glenfaba Road and potential impacts of the manoeuvring of the refuse trucks upon existing users and parked vehicles within the food park and as a result the planning application is recommended for refusal.
8.0 OTHER MATTERS
8.1 A number of concerns were raised regarding where the liability and responsibility would lie should the development proposed result in the weakening of the instability of the bank more with potential impacts upon the properties and gardens above. This is not a planning matter, but a civil one.
9.0 PARTY STATUS
9.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application, the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture,
==== PAGE 9 ====
14/00192/B
Page 9 of 10
as their comments have been deemed material [delete if inapplicable]; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
9.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
The owner and/or occupier of No. 54 Patrick Street; The owner and/or occupier of No. 56 Patrick Street; The owner and/or occupier of No. 60 Patrick Street; The owner and/or occupier of No. 64 Patrick Street; and The owner and/or occupier of No. 6 Glenfaba Road.
9.3 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
The owner and/or occupier of No. 52 Glenfaba Road The owner and/or occupier of No. 32 Glenfaba Road
10.0 POST-PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE
10.1 Planning Committee considered the officers' recommendation but felt that those living in such close proximity to an industrial estate such as that where the application site is situated would be subject to a degree of noise and disturbance, and the proposed building would not be so detrimental to what is already an existing situation as to warrant the application's refusal.
There were concerns raised with respect to the early morning traffic movements and the noise that might be created by vehicles reversing. By a margin of 1, Committee concluded that the application should be approved. Further details are to be found within the minutes to the Planning Committee meeting.
Conditions to support the approval, agreed per circulation of the minutes, were:
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 No servicing of any vehicles shall take place outside of 0800 hours to 1730 hours inclusive, and only on Mondays to Fridays inclusive.
Reason: In the interest of protecting the residential amenity of those living nearby.
Note: Due to concerns regarding possible disturbance caused by the warning system reversing vehicles very early in the morning it is recommended that 'white noise' warning sensors are used between 8pm and 8am
==== PAGE 10 ====
14/00192/B Page 10 of 10
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused - overturn to approve Date of Recommendation: 09.04.2015
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 proposed use of the building would generate significantly increased noise disturbance from increased vehicle movements resulting in a detrimental impact upon the living conditions of the residents of Patrick Street and Glenfaba Road contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2. It has not been fully demonstrated that the vehicular movements to and from the building would not undermine the safety of existing vehicles and vehicular and pedestrian movements within the Isle of Man Food Park site.
--
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 : ...PER... Committee Meeting Date:...05.05.2015
Signed :...E RILEY... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph).
YES/NO as above
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal