Agenda and minutes

None.

None.

These were agreed to be an accurate record.

None.

Items marked part 1 were considered in public and items parked part 2 were considered in private. There were no part 2 items to consider.

Permanent use of the land as gypsy and traveller caravan site.

Recommendation: Refusal

Permanent use of the land as gypsy and traveller caravan site.

This application seeked permanent planning permission for the use of the site as a gypsy and traveller caravan site which had previously been granted twice at appeal, on a temporary basis.

The application site comprises a 0.25ha triangular shaped field located on the southern side  of  Jackets  Lane,  approximately  700m  to  the  south  east  of  its  junction  with Northwood Road. It was located within open countryside which formed part of the Green Belt and a Countryside Conservation Area and also  lies  adjacent  to  a Nature Conservation Site of Metropolitan or Borough Grade 1 Importance.

The two previous Inspectors did not consider that this site was suitable for a permanent gypsy and traveller caravan site, the harm to the character and appearance of the Green Belt and Countryside Conservation Area being too great. They had only been prepared to grant temporary permission, mainly due to the compelling personal circumstances of the applicant and his  family.  The previous Inspectors were  also  concerned  about  the Local Planning Authority's lack of assessment of traveller's needs within the UDP and no alternative site's being available in the vicinity. A temporary permission would enable the Local Planning Authority to progress the LDF and for site-specific allocations to be made.

Although the personal circumstances of  the applicant and,  to a more  limited extent his family, were  still  valid and  there are  still no alternative  sites available,  in  considering  the previous application, the last Inspector considered that the matter was finely balanced so that a 4 year temporary permission was considered acceptable so that at least the harm to the Green Belt could be restricted by limiting the duration of the use, in which time it was hoped the LDF could be progressed. The LDF has been progressed but not to the extent that specific sites have been allocated (if required). To allow a further period would be to extend the duration of the harm so that it is considered that on balance, the other factors,  including  the  personal  circumstances  of  the  applicant  and  his  family would  no longer justify a further extension of time with a continuation of the harm.

Furthermore, although this application was described as being for the permanent use of the land as a gypsy and traveller caravan site and no operational development was described, the submitted plan did not accurately shown existing caravans/mobile homes/ buildings on site.  The  agent  had  been  advised  of  the  apparent  discrepancies  and  requested  to clarify  precisely  what  was  being  sought  but  to  date,  no  such  clarification  had been forthcoming. As such, the Local Planning Authority could not be certain of the full extent and impacts of the works being proposed. Nonetheless, it was clearly evident that the real harm  of  the  proposals  was  greater  than  the  submitted  plans  indicate with  respect  to  the Green Belt and landscape of the Countryside Conservation Area.

The  Environment  Agency  also  objected  to  the  absence  of  an  assessment  dealing  with pollution  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

Part two storey, part single storey rear/side extension and single storey detached garage to side/rear involving demolition of existing detached garage to side.

Recommendation: Approval

Part  two  storey,  part  single  storey  rear/side  extension  and  single  storey detached  garage  to  side/rear  involving  demolition  of  existing  detached garage to side.

The  application  property  was  a  distinctive,  two  storey,  detached  dwelling  situated  on  the western side of Catlins Lane. The  property  dates  from  1904,  was  locally  listed  and  within  the  Eastcote  Village Conservation Area.

To  the  rear,  the  two  storey  elements  of  the  building  were  broadly  "L"  shaped with  a  two storey element extending out to the rear at the northern end of the building, adjacent to an existing  garage  and  outbuildings  that  were  set  behind  the  rear  elevation.  A  large  single storey  (original)  conservatory  structure  occupied  the  area  to  the  south  of  this  return, extending to the same depth.

The building was located opposite St Catherine's Farm which is a Grade II Listed Building. The  streetscene  was  verdant  and  semi-rural  in  nature.  It was primarily  residential with  large two storey individually designed houses, generally set in large plots, with the buildings set well back from the road.

The application was  for  the erection of a  two storey side extension  to  the southern side of the building, a rear extension and a replacement garage. The plans had been amended from that originally submitted, principally resulting in changes to the proposed siting of the garage, alterations to the extent of the patio/terrace area at the rear and alterations to the proposed landscaping at the front of the property.

The  two  storey  side extension would be 3.425m wide and  set back  from  the main  front elevation of the house by 1m. It would extend beyond the rear elevation of the two storey element  to  which  it  was  attached  by  4.8m.  This  would  be  1.2m  beyond  the  existing conservatory, and broadly in line with the rear elevation of Westcott that lies to the south. A 1m gap would be retained to the boundary with Westcott. No windows were proposed in the flank elevation and external materials would be to match the existing house.

To the rear of the house a two storey extension was proposed at its northern side, closest to the garage.  This  element would  be  3.5m  in  depth, with  the width  reflecting  that  of  the gable above. The extension would continue the existing roof form, extending out further from the house than that existing. The extension would be finished in a smooth render, as would the whole of the house. There would be no windows in the northern flank wall.

The gap created by the two storey extensions either side at the rear would be infilled with a  single  storey  rear  extension,  extending  to  the  same  depth  as  the  southern most  two storey extension adjacent to Westcott.

The existing garage would be removed and replaced with a larger garage that would be 6m deep and 3.7m wide. It would feature a hipped roof with front and rear gables, with a ridge height of 3.3m.  Land  levels  drop  to  the  rear  of  the  garage  and  within  the  rear garden.

In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

Installation of a 14.8m high telecommunications monopole, associated equipment cabinet and ancillary developments works (Consultation Under Schedule 2, Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) (as amended).

Recommendation:

(A) Prior approval of siting and design is required

(B) Details of siting and design are refused

Installation of a 14.8m high telecommunications monopole, associated equipment cabinet and ancillary developments works (Consultation Under Schedule 2, Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) (as amended.)

This  application  had  been  submitted  by  Vodaphone  and  02  Orange  and  seeked  to determine whether prior approval  was  required  for  the  siting and design of a 14.8m high monopole  supporting  3  number Vodaphone  antennas  and  3  number  02  antennas,  the installation of an associated radio equipment cabinet and ancillary development works.

The  proposed  installations  would  be  located  in  the  centre  of  a  roundabout  nestled between  6  existing  trees. To  the  north west  and  north  east  of  the  site  are  a  series  of detached  and  semi-detached  houses,  to  the  south  of  the  site  is  King College  Playing Fields containing the Kings College Pavilion and the Eastcote Hockey & Badminton Club and  their  respective  car  parks. The  site  and  its  immediate  surroundings  had  a  verdant quality to it, was populated with trees, and was generally free of an excess of street furniture that can give rise to a sense of clutter within the streetscape.

The  installation  of  the  telecommunication mast  and  associated  cabinet would  have  an adverse  impact upon  the  visual amenity  value gained  from  the  trees  located within  the roundabout,  be  detrimental  to  the  general  streetscene  and  to  the  setting  of  the  high quality public open spaces located to the south of the site that is designated as forming part of a Green Chain  link.

The applicant had  failed  to demonstrate  that the  trees will  be  unaffected  by  the  development  and  had  not made  provision  for  their long-term protection. As such, refusal, was recommended on these grounds.

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 John Scrivens addressed the Committee on behalf of the petition submitted against the application.
• In 2006 Mr Scrivens had spoken in regard to a phone mast application that was submitted by Orange.
• He was surprised a Vodafone application had been submitted since.
• The phone mast would be visually intrusive.
• The health effects needed to be considered.
• The landscaping trees officer objected to the application as it would result in some of the tree roots being destroyed and trees dying. This, in-turn, would mean that the phone mast would not be hidden.
• The mature trees had wide trunks and these would be difficult to replace.
• The petitioner stated that Vodafone sold a ‘sure signal’ device on their website which was box around the size of a modem. This device helped to get good signal and cost around £50. This was something that could be looked into.
• He stated that as all mobile phone companies used similar technology that this in-turn should reduce the need for phone masts.
• Resident views should be considered rather than occasional users who drove past the area.
• There was a genuine depth of feelings against this application. 

The agent was not present and therefore  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Change use from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to Class D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) for use as a Education Institute.

Recommendation: Refusal

Change use from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to Class D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) for use as a Education Institute.

Planning permission was sought for  the change of use of a 3 storey office building  to an educational training centre with associated parking. No external alterations were proposed and the use has already commenced.

The  application  failed  to  demonstrate  that  the  proposal  would  not  harm  highway  and pedestrian safety and would provide sufficient amenities for wheelchair users.

Members asked officers for clarification on whether attempts had been made to ask the applicant to clarify the outstanding points required by planning. Officers confirmed that several attempts had been made but further information had not been provided.

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

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the agenda.

Replacement of the existing O2, 17.5m high streetworks pole with a 17.5m high streetworks pole, complete with three dual user antennas within a shroud, an associated radio equipment cabinet and development ancillary.

Recommendation: Approval

Replacement of the existing O2, 17.5m high streetworks pole with a 17.5m high streetworks pole, complete with three dual user antennas within a shroud, an associated radio equipment cabinet and development ancillary.

DEFERRED ON 11th January 2011 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

The  proposed  replacement  17.5m  mast  and  cabinet  installation  was  considered  to  be visually  acceptable  in  this  location  which  utilises  an  existing  telecoms  site.  In  addition officers  had  been  unable  to  suggest  any  more  appropriate  alternative  sites.  It  was considered  that  the  proposal  is  consistent  with  advice  in  Policy  BE37  of  the  Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007 and Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 and, as such, approval is recommended.

It  was  proposed  to  replace  the  existing  17.5m  high monopole mobile  phone mast, which currently  served  O2,  with  a  new  17.5m  high  monopole  mobile  phone  mast  (including antennas) incorporating three antennas, to serve both O2 and Vodafone.  An additional 1.58m x 0.38m x 1.4m high equipment cabinet, to be located adjacent to the existing  cabinets,  was  proposed.  The  mast  would  be  coloured  grey  and  the  equipment cabinet would be coloured green.

Members spoke about the Residents’ and Environment Services Policy Overview Committee review on phone masts. As it stood there was nothing the Council could do to change this kind of application.

This application was for an existing phone mast to be replaced. Members questioned whether it was premature at this stage to grant this application permission considering other devices and technology available to phone companies.

The area around being a conservation area was discussed by Members and that the application was near a double mini roundabout. Concern was expressed with regard to large vehicles usage and safety of the local residents using the particular section of the pavement where the proposal was. Officers confirmed that there would be no reduction in the footpath that existed.

Members asked highways officers about the location of the cabinet, and whether it was satisfactory. Members and officers discussed the location of the cabinet and whether the size/width was appropriate, including when the doors of the cabinet were open.

Members also discussed where service vehicles would park and whether this would affect pedestrians. Officers commented that service vehicles would park as close to the cabinet as possible and that should not differ to what the situation was with the existing phone mast and cabinet. There should be temporary traffic measures in place to allow pedestrians to pass when the cabinet was being serviced if the footpath was to be blocked.

Members discussed the previous appeal that went to the planning inspectorate and it was stated that the highways objections were unacceptable. It was felt that Members hands were tied with this application as it was a replacement to an existing cabinet and phone mast. If it was a new application they could have more objections against the application.

Members felt they did not really have an option but to grant permission for the application as it was a replacement for an existing phone mast.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

Installation of a 15m high telecommunications pole, associated equipment cabinet and ancillary developments works (Consultation Under Schedule 2, Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) (as amended).

Recommendation: Refusal

Installation of a 15m high telecommunications pole, associated equipment cabinet and ancillary developments works (Consultation Under Schedule 2, Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) (as amended.)

This  application  had  been  submitted  by  Vodaphone  and  02  Orange  and  seeked  to determine  whether  prior  approval  was  required  for  the  siting  and  design  of  a  15m  high monopole  supporting  3  number Vodaphone  antennas  and  3  number  02  antennas,  the installation of an associated radio equipment cabinet and ancillary development works.

The  proposed  installations  would  be  located  at  the  back  of  the  pavement  in  close proximity  to  a  zebra  crossing.  The  land  behind  the  site  was  occupied  by  advertising hoardings located adjacent to the railway embankment. Due to its height, position, design and appearance together with the existence of a large number of other structures within close proximity of the proposed mast  the proposal  was  considered  to have a detrimental visual impact. As such, refusal, was recommended.

Officers noted that the coverage diagrams did not present a strong case as there was coverage in the area and it was not a black spot.

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

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the agenda.

This report provided financial information on s106 and s278 agreements in the North Planning Committee area up to 30 September 2011 where the Council had received and held funds.

Resolved – That the Members noted the contents of the report.