Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Eddie Lavery with Councillor John Hensley substituting and Councillor Anita MacDonald with Councillor Janet Duncan substituting

Councillor Markham declared a personal interest in Item 12 and left the room for this Item.

Councillor Melvin declared a personal interest in Item 13 and left the room for this Item.

Councillor Payne declared a personal interest in Items 7 and 9 and left the room for these Items.

Erection of a two storey building to provide 23 one and two-bedroom apartments, together with associated parking, involving the demolition of existing day centre building (Outline application).

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of a two storey building to provide 23 one and two-bedroom apartments, together with associated parking, involving the demolition of existing day centre building (Outline application).

66033/APP/2009/1060

The officer in his presentation advised members that amended information had been circulated as there had been some amendments made since the report had been published.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received objecting to the proposal addressed the meeting. The agent was not present at the meeting.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting in support of the petitioners and a number of issues were raised. These included the bulk and size of the proposed development and the amount private amenity space. Concerns were raised in relation to access/egress and traffic congestion given the close proximity of a Doctors Surgery and Dance School to the proposed development. Further concerns were raised about the lack of comments from Thames Water in relation to drainage and sewage.

The Ward Councillor also referred to a questionnaire which had been circulated to local residents (and then collected an hour later). It was reported the questionnaire had indicated the majority of respondents were opposed to the development and 66 letters of objection had been received.

The Committee also raised concerns about the historic community use of the site. The Committee requested further information on alternative community uses and enquired whether any attempts had been made by the applicants to secure a community use for the site.

Resolved – That the application be deferred - to enable more information to be submitted by the applicant on alternative community uses that could be provided for on site and on any attempts that have been made by the applicants to secure a community use for the site.

Two storey, detached four-bedroom dwelling with habitable roofspace with associated parking and new vehicular crossover

Recommendation: Approval

Two storey, detached four-bedroom dwelling with habitable roofspace with associated parking and new vehicular crossover

56032/APP/2009/967

The officer in his presentation advised members that amended information had been circulated and there had been a further letter received in objection to the proposal on the grounds of loss of light to the garden, over dominant design, the position of the property not being sited 1 metre from the boundary of 63, 65 and 67 Lowlands Road and the distance of the dwelling from the adjoining gardens not being 15 metres.

With the agreement of the Chairman, a Ward Councillor addressed the meeting in support of the petitioners objecting to the proposal (before the petitioner spoke). The original proposal was for two, 5 bedroom houses which had now been revised to a single 4 bedroom house. The proposal has a poor layout and appearance and will not harmonise with the area.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received objecting to the proposal addressed the meeting. The agent was not present at the meeting.

Members raised a number of concerns including the size and bulk of the development, the difficulty in comparing its height to adjacent dwellings from the available plans and the size of the crossover. A Member also highlighted that part of the red line site was not in the applicant's ownership. In response, the Legal Officer explained that anyone can put in an application for planning permission provided the correct notification (service of notice) is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the General Development Procedure Order 1995. Officers checked and confirmed that the correct part of the application form had been completed.

A member suggested that as there were a number of concerns raised that the application be deferred for a site visit.

It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred for a site visit and for further plans to be produced showing the height of the proposed building in the context of existing buildings and the size of the cross over to be revised.  On being put to the vote deferment was agreed.

Two storey building comprising of 5 two-bedroom flats with associated parking in basement and habitable roofspace, involving demolition of the existing house (Outline application for approval of access, appearance, layout and scale)

Recommendation: Had an appeal for non determination not been lodged that the application would have been refused for the following reasons:

Retention of internally illuminated free-standing totem sign

Recommendation: Refusal

Single storey side/rear extension including reduction in height of roof and 1 rear and 1 side rooflight (Part retrospective application)

Recommendation: Approval

Single storey rear extension with roof lantern

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use of 61 Windmill Hill and 76 Park Way from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A3 (Restaurants and Cafes), with new shopfronts and alterations to existing shopfront at 59 Windmill Hill

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use of basement and ground floor from Class A1 Retail to Class A3/A4 Restaurants/Cafes and Drinking Establishments, to include new door and ventilation duct to rear

Recommendation: Refusal

Extension of existing fencing and new access gate

Recommendation: Approval