Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brownridge, K Phythian and Surjan.

There were no items of urgent business received.

There were no declarations of interest received.

A Public Question was received from Mr Schofield.

“Can the Chair of the Planning Committee please explain why the Planning Application relating to the conversion of the business premises at Prospect House, George Street Shaw, which has a proposal to add a large extension, and build into the roof space in order to convert it into 12 one and two bedroom apartments, the effect of which will have a detrimental effect upon the neighbourhood in relation to aspect, privacy and highways issues, along with the loss of a well established training centre and therefore jobs, is not to be heard by the Planning Committee, but rather left with unelected council officers to determine, despite the level of public opposition to this development based upon its present scale.

This council is frequently talking about openness and transparency, however this application clearly seems to be being dealt with behind closed doors with no openness and transparency to be seen.”

The following response was provided:

“The Council fully appreciates the concerns raised by Mr Schofield regarding application FUL/348433/22.  As with all planning applications, this proposal is being carefully considered by the Council’s Planning Service as part of the procedure for determining planning applications, including having regard to what the Council’s Constitution sets out regarding who the decision should be made by. 

While applications more significant, complex or contentious are debated and decided by elected members at Planning Committee, for example proposals that aim to create 20 new homes or more, the vast majority of planning applications are considered and decided by officers, under the Scheme of Delegation on planning applications established by the Council’s Constitution (which has been agreed by elected Councillors).  This is necessary because the Council typically receive around 100 planning applications a month and it is not feasible to bring all of them before Planning Committee, and so a line must be drawn to distinguish which applications come before Planning Committee and which are decided by officers.

As such, in relation to planning application FUL/348433/22, the starting point under the process for considering planning applications that has been agreed by elected Members is that the application should be considered and decided by officers.

On occasion, a ward councillor can ask that a specific planning application, that would normally be considered by officers under the Scheme of Delegation, be referred to Planning Committee for a decision instead.  In such instances, the Constitution states that the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee, must decide whether the application warrants a referral to the Planning Committee and so depart from the process that has been agreed by Councillors under the Constitution. 

With regard planning application FUL/348433/22, Cllr C Gloster has made such a request for referral, but after considering the matters of relevance in the application and the degree of public interest in the application, it was not considered appropriate to agree to that referral request.  In particular, it should be noted that while 22 objections to the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 9^th March 2022 are attached for Members’ approval.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9^th March 2022 be approved as a correct record.

APPLICATION NUMBER: FUL/347540/21

APPLICANT: Mr Jake Crompton

PROPOSAL:  The erection of up to 365 dwellings across Parcel A and Parcel B; together with other associated works including the laying out of road and footways, car parking, other infrastructure, public open space, footpaths, and landscaping

LOCATION:  Land off Rosary Road (Parcel A) and land off Hill Farm Close (Parcel B), Fitton Hill, Oldham.

It was MOVED by Councillor Al-Hamdani and SECONDED by Councillor F Hussain that the application be APPROVED.

On being put to the vote, it was UNANIMOUSLY cast IN FAVOUR OF APPROVAL

DECISION: That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions as outlined in the report.

NOTES:

1.         That an Objector and the Applicant attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

2.         In reaching its decision, the Committee took into consideration the information as set out in the Late List attached at Item 11.

APPLICATION NUMBER: FUL/346977/21

APPLICANT: Mr John Albutt

PROPOSAL:  Proposed 1040 sq.m general industrial unit to include use class B2 and B8 with associated service yard, parking and new site entrance.

LOCATION:  Plot 21, Grimshaw Lane, Chadderton, Oldham

It was MOVED by Councillor Dean and SECONDED by Councillor F Hussain that the application be APPROVED.

On being put to the vote, it was UNANIMOUSLY cast IN FAVOUR OF APPROVAL

DECISION: That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions as outlined in the report.

APPLICATION NUMBER: FUL/347720/21

APPLICANT: Taqwa Institute

PROPOSAL:  Change of use of Units 16-19 and 36-41 at the Meridian Centre, Oldham from planning class E(g)(i) Offices to E(f) Creche/Day Nursery and F1(a) Education.

LOCATION:  Meridian Centre, King Street, Oldham, OL8 1EZ

It was MOVED by Councillor Dean and SECONDED by Councillor F Hussain that the application be APPROVED.

On being put to the vote, it was UNANIMOUSLY cast IN FAVOUR OF APPROVAL

DECISION: That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions as outlined in the report.

APPLICATION NUMBER: FUL/348315/22

APPLICANT: Mr T Mushtaq

PROPOSAL:  Proposed alterations and change of use of public house (sui generis) to Class E (commercial, business and service) at ground floor and 2no. 1 bedroom residential apartments at first floor

LOCATION:  26 Yorkshire Street, Oldham, Oldham, OL1 1SB.

It was MOVED by Councillor Dean and SECONDED by Councillor F Hussain that the application be APPROVED.

On being put to the vote, it was UNANIMOUSLY cast IN FAVOUR OF APPROVAL

DECISION: That the application be GRANTED subject to the conditions as outlined in the report.

RESOLVED that the Planning Appeals Update be noted.

RESOLVED that the information contained in the Late List be noted.