Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Carol Melvin. Councillor Brian Stead was in attendance as substitute.

None.

None.

It was confirmed that all items marked Part 1 would be considered in public and all items marked Part 2 would be heard in private.

Erection of a 45 Bed Care Home (Use Class C2) with associated landscaping and parking.

Recommendation: That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

Erection of a 45 Bed Care Home (Use Class C2) with associated landscaping and parking.

Officers introduced the report andoutlined the changes made as per the addendum.

Officers confirmed the location of the Council owned lay-by for additional parking, which was located on High Meadow Close. Officers also confirmed the number of beds in the previous car home had been 31.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Mr Michael Barrett spoke on behalf of the petitioners and it was noted that Members had received a copy of his speech prior to the start of the meeting:

• A 45 bed care home was substantially larger in bulk and mass than the former building on the site. Although the Council’s planning officer agreed with the developer, that a series of ‘irregular blocks’ diluted the bulk of the building, those that signed the petition strongly disagreed with this and felt the proposed development was too large.
• The building was of significant size and scale seeking to utilise the entire plot to the detriment of outside amenity space and to the neighbouring properties. The proposal hinged on the fact that the developers had reduced the number of beds from 50 to 45. Whilst petitioners agreed this was a step in the right direction they felt developers should be considering a smaller scale commercial operation of fewer bedrooms given how small the site and location was.
• Petitioners believed there was a lack of outdoor amenity space due to the scale of the build.They were concerned that the needs of the care home residents had not been adequately considered due to an over reliance in them being infirm and not being encouraged to venture outdoors. Given the size and scale of the building compared to the plot size, which was an awkward shape, and that it was surrounded by residential rather than commercial properties, the small current outdoor amenity provision exaggerated the scale of the building further and failed to support the built form in the context of the site.
• The petitioner spoke about lack of parking and the concern over emergency access.It was not a sustainable located site. The Council agreed with a 1A rating.  A key reason stated by the Council for the closure of Frank Welch Court was due to a lack of public transport. The petitioner stated that it could not be denied that staff, visitors and services to the site would have had no option but to drive.
• Petitioners remained extremely nervous about the validity of the transport surveys that had been completed since the initial proposal. The overwhelming opinion of petitioners was that the care homes audited for parking had better public transport access than the High Meadow site.
• Daymer Gardens was a relatively narrow road. It was imperative that passage for residents and emergency vehicles was ensured and that overflow parking from the care home was avoided.
• Increased volume  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Erection of 1 x 3 bedroom and 1 x 4 bedroom two storey detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space involving the demolition of existing bungalow.

Recommendation: That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

Erection of 1 x 3 bedroom and 1 x 4 bedroom two storey detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space involving the demolition of existing bungalow.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes made as per the addendum.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Mr Ashby spoke on behalf of the petitioners:

• Petitioners felt the application would ruin the area.
• The lead petitioner questions the accuracy of the plans submitted and that plans focused on no.38 when in fact it was no.36 that would be overlooked if the application was approved.
• The road was private and any new people moving in would have no right to park on the road.
• The petitioner stated that no one had looked at no.140, that side of the application would mean that there was no privacy to no.140.
• It was an elderly person area and an application for two bungalows would be acceptable.
• There was enough housing for families in the area and two 2 storey houses were not required in the area.
• Families moving in the area would upset neighbours by causing noise and it was stated there were no schools nearby.
• The petitioner stated that the residents had not been consulted on this application.

The agent/applicant was not present.

Members asked officers to comment on the inaccuracies that petitioners mentioned. Officers clarified that it would be no.38 where there would be main impact, and there was not a material impact on no.36 as was indicated by petitioners.

Officers further clarified the impact on no.140 and stated the new property would be closer to no.140 than it currently was. This would be 1 metre, which was the minimum distance required. Any potential overshadowing on no.140 was discussed and officers stated that experts advised overshadowing diagrams would not assist in this instance as there would not be overshadowing on the property and any overshadowing would occur out onto the road.

Members asked officer clarification on parking and officers stated if the road was private then the parking issues would be a private matter rather than for Council restriction. The application provided sufficient parking as per Council guidelines.

Members felt this application was suitable for the area and were happy with the officer’s report and recommendations.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum,

Proposal to enclose the lightwell between the original manor house and the 2 storey car park to create 2 rooms to serve 2 individual flats within the original manor house.

Recommendation: Approval

Proposal to enclose the lightwell between the original manor house and the 2 storey car park to create 2 rooms to serve 2 individual flats within the original manor house.

Officers introduced the report. Members noted this application was fully supported by the Council’s Conservation Officer and were happy with the officer report and recommendations.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda.

Proposal to enclose the lightwell between the original manor house and the 2 storey car park to create 2 rooms to serve 2 individual flats within the original manor house (Application for Listed building Consent).

Recommendation: Approval

Proposal to enclose the lightwell between the original manor house and the 2 storey car park to create 2 rooms to serve 2 individual flats within the original manor house (Application for Listed building Consent)

Officers introduced the report. Members noted this application was fully supported by the Council’s Conservation Officer and were happy with the officer report and recommendations.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda.

Single storey building for use as a corporate facility involving demolition of existing building.

Recommendation: Approval

Single storey building for use as a corporate facility involving demolition of existing building.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes made as per the addendum. It was noted that the application would be on the existing hard surface, and existing second building and car park would not be affected.

A Ward Councillor was present and spoke on behalf of the application submitted to the Council:

• The Ward Councillor was speaking on behalf of residents and had spoken to the Northwood Residents Association who were in support of the application.
• The application would bring economic benefits to the area, including employment.
• The current building was not fit for purpose.
• Other Ward Councillors had showed their support for the application.
• There was a high level of corporate business use for this site, for example, team building activities.
• It was noted that officers had done a remarkable job and had worked with the applicant in producing an acceptable proposal.
• The application would be of a real benefit to the Borough.
• It was a beautiful site with so many wildlife on the site.
• The Ward Councillor asked the Committee to approve this application.  

Members discussed the application and agreed with the officer’s recommendation. Members felt that this was an appropriate use of Green Belt land and were in total support of the application. This would not take anything away from the Green Belt land and should assist in enhancing the site.

Members discussed any possible noise increase from the discharge of weapons and officers advised that there would not be a noticeable increase in noise or parking on the site. That the site currently erected a marquee for busy periods and this accommodation was to be in place of the marquee. It was noted there had been no noise complaints regarding the site.  

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report and changes as per the addendum was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved:

1. That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report and changes as per the addendum be agreed.

2. That the Committee resolved to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in this report into the public domain, solely for the purposes of issuing the formal breach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

The report relating to this decision is not available to the public because it contains information which reveals that the authority proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; and (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).