Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Cllr Eddie Lavery, with Cllr Michael White substituting.

Cllr Carol Melvin declared a personal interest in Item 11 – Flat 1, 38 Murray Road, Northwood as she lived in the road. Cllr Melvin took part in the discussion on this application.

The minutes were agreed as an accurate record.

It was confirmed that all items on the agenda were marked Part 1 and were considered in public.

Conversion of existing part two storey, part three storey building (Class B1) to provide a 76 bedroom hotel (Class C1) together with a commercial unit (Class A3) at ground floor level, with associated internal and external alterations to the building and alterations to the car parking.

Recommendation: Refusal

Due to a large influx of information regarding this application the Head of Planning withdrew this item from the agenda prior to the meeting.

Provision of glazed conservatory to plot 261: Application to vary parts of the approved layout under Reserved Matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 Dated 13/03/2008 (Details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping in compliance with condition 2 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 Dated 21/02/2008: Residential development.)

Recommendation: Approval

Provision of glazed conservatory to plot 261: Application to vary parts of the approved layout under Reserved Matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 Dated 13/03/2008 (Details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping in compliance with condition 2 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 Dated 21/02/2008: Residential development.)

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as set out in the officer’s report and approved.

Provision of glazed conservatory to plot 259 :Application to vary parts of the approved layout under Reserved Matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 Dated 13/03/2008: (Details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping in compliance with condition 2 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 Dated 21/02/2008: Residential development.)

Recommendation: Approval

Provision of glazed conservatory to plot 259 :Application to vary parts of the approved layout under Reserved Matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 Dated 13/03/2008: (Details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping in compliance with condition 2 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 Dated 21/02/2008: Residential development.)

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Provision of glazed conservatory to plot 224 : Application to vary parts of the approved layout under Reserved Matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 Dated 13/03/2008: (Details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping in compliance with condition 2 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 Dated 21/02/2008: Residential development.)

Recommendation: Approval

Provision of glazed conservatory to plot 224 : Application to vary parts of the approved layout under Reserved Matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 Dated 13/03/2008: (Details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping in compliance with condition 2 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 Dated 21/02/2008: Residential development.)

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Erection of a first floor side extension, part two single, part single storey rear extensions, and conversion of roofspace to habitable use involving the erection of a rear dormer and 4 side rooflights, alterations to front elevation, installation of additional vehicular entrance and crossover to front and alterations to driveway.

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of a first floor side extension, part two single, part single storey rear extensions, and conversion of roofspace to habitable use involving the erection of a rear dormer and 4 side rooflights, alterations to front elevation, installation of additional vehicular entrance and crossover to front and alterations to driveway.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• The HDAS guidance suggests a maximum extension depth of 4 metres on detached houses.
• The proposed extension was over 4 metres and would not be in keeping with the character of the street.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution representatives of the two petitions received in support of the proposal were invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

• The application had received overwhelming support in the form of petition signatories.
• The application was in accordance with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document and Development Plan
• The neighbour situated opposite the site had not objected to the application, but supported the application.
• The proposal was an improvement on the current site.
• The proposal would retain the original character of the house.
• The proposal was in keeping with the character of the street and was in harmony with the surrounding area.

The applicant was present and the agent spoke on his behalf:

§         The application had received a large amount of support.

§         The original proposed roof height had been amended as per the wishes of some neighbours

Members of the Committee said this application was a prime example of how the right result can be achieved when applicants talk to their neighbours and address each other’s concerns. The Committee agreed that it was refreshing to see an application with petitions of support from neighbours. Members said the design was sympathetic to the surrounding area and would improve the street scene.

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Erection of single storey ground floor rear extension to Flat 1.

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of single storey ground floor rear extension to Flat 1.

Members heard the Officer’s report and queried the maps and photographs of the site. The photographs in the report pack did not match the applicant’s plans of the property. Members felt that they could not make a decision on a site based on incorrect plans. The Democratic Services Officer informed the Committee and petitioners in objection to the petition that should Members hear from the petitioners and then choose to defer the item the petitioners would need to submit a fresh petition if they wished to address the Committee again. Petitioners welcomed the advice and chose not to speak at this meeting.

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be deferred due to incorrect plans.

Resolved –

That the application be deferred.

Erection of a part first floor and part two storey extension to existing rear extension to create a studio flat.

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of a part first floor and part two storey extension to existing rear extension to create a studio flat.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• The application would cause parking congestion due to the loss of a parking space
• The bulk and scale of the proposal was not in keeping with the surrounding area.
• There would be a loss of privacy and loss of light on neighbouring dwellings.
• The refuse bins were not sited in a suitable location which caused bad smells and maggot infestation when it rained.
• The proposal was visually intrusive.

The applicant was not present at the meeting.

A Ward Councillor was present at the meeting and addressed the Committee:

• Parking congestion in the area would increase with the proposed application
• The proposal was an overdevelopment
• The proposal was badly designed

Members of the Committee agreed that the proposal did not fit in with the surrounding area and would cause unnecessary noise disturbance and visual intrusion.

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be refused.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Erection of a five-bedroom, two storey detached dwelling with habitable roofspace, integral garage to side and associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of a five-bedroom, two storey detached dwelling with habitable roofspace, integral garage to side and associated parking and amenity space.

As there were no petitions relating to this item the Committee went to officers for clarification regarding the garage space and parking facilities. Officers clarified that the garage would be too small to fit a car.

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be refused.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

The Committee noted the S106 Quarterly Monitoring Report.