Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Peter Curling, Jem Duducu and Carol Melvin with Councillors Manjit Khatra, David Yarrow and Brian Stead acting as substitutes.

There were no declarations of interest.

Were agreed as an accurate record.

The Chairman confirmed that Item 7 had been withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning.

All items were considered in public with the exception of items 11 and 12 which were considered in private.

Conversion of two storey, 4-bed dwelling house into 2 x 1-bed self contained flats involving alterations to rear.

Recommendation: Approval

Conversion of two storey, 4-bed dwelling house into 2 x 1-bed self contained flats involving alterations to rear.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the changes set out in the addendum.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, a representative of the petitioners objecting the proposal addressed the meeting.

The petitioner objecting to the proposals made the following points:

·         The proposal would set an unwanted precedent in the area.

·         The proposal would compromise the street scene.

·         The proposal would put an unnecessary stain on drainage and sewerage services.

·         There were insufficient parking spaces which would cause parking problems locally if it were approved.

·         No site visit had been conducted by Officers.

·         The internal layout was different to that suggested in the application.

·         The report contained no mention of the proposed alterations to the rear of the building.

·         The report made no mention of amenity space.

·         The property had been advertised on the internet as 2 double rooms available for rent.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

·         The application met all the planning standards.

·         The petitioners concerns that such a development would set a precedent was misguided. Conversions were a legitimate form of development.

·         That there had been few applications for a conversions, showed that the application met a local need.

·         The applicant accepted the Officer recommendation that the car parking needed to be re-orientated.

·         Bin storage had been moved to rear and side of the property so there was minimal impact to the street scene.

·         Drainage and sewage would not worsen as a result of the application.

·         There was no evidence of parking stress in the area.

·         Interior works to the property were not party to enforcement action.

A Ward Councillor raised the following points:

·         The plans and report were insufficient information on which to take a decision.

·         The building plans and proposed layouts were different to each other.

·         The application was an excuse to try and legitimise the current state of the development.

·         There was no Highways Officer report.

·         There was no Access Officers' report.

·         There had previously been a refusal for a 6m extension, but a 6m extension now existed.

·         The application should be deferred so that further investigations could take place.

·         Officers should conduct a site visit.

The Chairman began discussions by seeking a number of clarifications from Officers on a number of points. In relation to the 6m extension, Officers highlighted that this had been agreed under the prior approval route. Officers confirmed that a site visit had taken place and that the proposed change from a kitchen window to patio doors was a permitable alteration.

Referring to the internal layout, Officers confirmed that if a room was not previously designated as a bedroom, but the design had evolved, it was permissible for the room to become and be used as a bedroom.

Despite having a number of reservations about the scheme, the Committee was mindful that it could only consider the planning application before it. In relation to parking considerations, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Variation of condition 3 (Opening Hours) of planning permission Ref: 11924/APP/2013/1871 dated 27/11/2013 to allow use of property as a 24 hour, 7 days gym (Change of use from A1 (shops) to flexible use permitting A1 (Shops), A2 (Financial and professional services) or use as a Gymnasium, Dental Clinic or health Centre).

Recommendation: Approval

Variation of condition 3 (Opening Hours) of planning permission Ref: 11924/APP/2013/1871 dated 27/11/2013 to allow use of property as a 24 hour, 7 days gym (Change of use from A1 (shops) to flexible use permitting A1 (Shops), A2 (Financial and professional services) or use as a Gymnasium, Dental Clinic or health Centre.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning and Enforcement.

Two storey detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

Two storey detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the changes as set out in the addendum.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, a representative of the petitioners objecting the proposal addressed the meeting.

The petitioner objecting to the proposals made the following points:

·         The proposed development represented piecemeal back land development.

·         There had never been homes on the land.

·         It would adversely affect the openness and green and verdant character of the area.

·         The site formed a welcome break between the density of surrounding developments.

·         The development would cause congestion and parking issues locally.

·         The proposal would effect the survival / growth potential of surrounding trees.

·         The proposal would result in further pressure on the local drainage.

·         The proposal would place a further demand on the local water supply and some local residents already suffered from very low water pressure.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

·         The application before Committee was markedly different from previous applications.

·         The 'design and setting' aspects of the proposal addressed the Planning Inspectorates' previous concerns.

·         The design now incorporated a dwelling which was set into the hillside. This incorporated more timber and glass than previous designs which contributed to maintaining the openness of the site.

·         A full arboreal report had been provided which had demonstrated that the trees would be retained.

·         The site had never been 'garden land'. It was land which had been acquired by the applicant under a specific title.

·         The history of the site showed that a number of developments had been approved in the past.

Discussing the application, the Committee agreed that the application did represent a form of backland development, which, on balance would be harmful tothe characterand appearance of the area. Furthermore, as the design meant that a usefulturning areafor vehicles would be lost, this would further affect the openness andamenity ofthe area.

The Committee also raised a number of concerns about the long-termprotection ofseveral treeson andoff-site and requested that these be included as an informative to instruct any future application at the site.

On being put to the vote, it was moved, seconded and agreed unanimously that the application be refused as set out in the Officer report.

Resolved -

That the application be Refused.

Erection of a two storey and single storey rear extension, and a single storey side extension, erection of a glazed link to connect the house and barn and internal alterations to provide a bedroom suite and bathroom.

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of a two storey and single storey rear extension, and a single storey side extension, erection of a glazed link to connect the house and barn and internal alterations to provide a bedroom suite and bathroom.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote, unanimously agreed that the application be approved as set out in the Officers report.

Resolved -

That the application be Approved as set out in the Officer's report.

Listed Building Consent for a two storey and single storey rear extension, and a single storey side extension, erection of a glazed link to connect the house and barn and internal alterations to provide a bedroom suite and bathroom.

Recommendation: Approval

Listed Building Consent for a two storey and single storey rear extension, and a single storey side extension, erection of a glazed link to connect the house and barn and internal alterations to provide a bedroom suite and bathroom.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote, unanimously agreed that the application be approved as set out in the Officers report.

Resolved -

That the application be Approved as set out in the Officer's report.

It was Resolved -

1. That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed.

2. That the Committee agree 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.

It was Resolved -

1. That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed.

2. That the Committee agree 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.