Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Allan Kauffman and Michael Markham with Councillors Brian Stead and Tim Barker acting as substitutes.

None.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2012 were agreed as accurate record subject to amending paragraph 3 on page 8 of the agenda by adding the word ‘the’ between that and argument.

None.

All items were considered in Part 1 with the exception of Items 13, 14 and 15 which were considered in private.

Part two storey part first floor rear extension, part single storey rear/side extension, single storey side extension (repositioning utility), installation of additional windows to side elevations, involving demolition of (1) existing conservatory to rear, (2) existing attached garage to side and (3) existing lean-to utility to side.

Recommendation: Refusal

Part two storey part first floor rear extension, part single storey rear/side extension, single storey side extension (repositioning utility), installation of additional windows to side elevations, involving demolition of (1) existing conservatory to rear, (2) existing attached garage to side and (3) existing lean-to utility to side

Officers introduced the report and in doing so, the Head of Planning requested the sentence ‘The proposed two storey element of the proposals and the amount of roof are considered to fit well with the rear 'back-scape of the properties’, paragraph 4 on page 18 of the report to be removed.

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

The petitioner made the following points:

• Extending beyond permitted development was not within keeping of the character of the house or others of the same style within the road.
• The proposed development would not be in keeping with other properties in the road.
• The proposed development was too bulky.

The agent made the following points:

• The applicant had taken and followed the advice provided by the Planning Department.

• The proposed development would blend in with the current street scene and harmonise with an area of special local character.
• The petition received in objection to the proposal was not representative of the local area.

Officers clarified that the main reason for the recommendation of refusal was because officers were of the view that the development would be detrimental to existing building and not be in keeping with an area of special character.

In response to a query about the shadow diagrams, officers explained that the proposed development would not detrimentally affect right to light and it was the officer view that this reason could not be defended on appeal.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused with six votes in favour, with one against.

Erection of a 2-bedroom attached house with associated amenity space and parking (Part retrospective application).

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of a 2-bedroom attached house with associated amenity space and parking (Part retrospective application)

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes as set out in 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.

The petitioner made the following points:

• Parkfield Crescent predominantly consisted of 2 and 3 bedroom semi-detached properties. The proposed application would turn 111 Parkfield Crescent into a terraced home which would be out of character with the current street scene and would result in the end house looking far too small and unsightly.
• The proposed development would set a dangerous precedent for the road if it were approved.
• The proposed development would result in place an undue pressure on the number of localised parking places and impede resident’s ability to park safely.
• The proposed development would create a parking pressure in the evening and at the weekends.
• The proposed development would affect the privacy of local residents.

The agent  / applicant did not attend the meeting.

Two Ward Councillors made the following points:

• The proposed development was contrary to BE 13 (street scent), BE 19 (character of the local area), BE 20 (daylight and sunlight considerations) and BE 23 (provision of amenity space).
• The developer had shown a disregard for the local area and had damaged fences and walls.
• The developer had removed hedges and bushes which had resulted in a loss of privacy to local residents.
• The Committee were urged to refuse the application.

In discussing the application, the Committee agreed that attempting to squeeze further development onto the site would be a mistake and would be detrimental to the street scene and would fail to enhance the appearance of the local area.

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 officer’s report and the changes set out in the addendum.

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) involving installation of extractor duct to rear.

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) involving installation of extractor duct to rear

The application was withdrawn by the Head of Planning.

Installation of 2 x temporary portakabins for use as changing rooms involving demolition of existing outbuildings.

Recommendation: Approval

Installation of 2 x temporary portakabins for use as changing rooms involving demolition of existing outbuildings

Officer’s introduced the report. In discussing the application, the Committee agreed that outdoor leisure activities were important and recreational uses of the Green Belt should be supported.

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

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

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension with 1 rooflight involving demolition of existing garage to side.

Recommendation: Approval

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension with 1 rooflight involving demolition of existing garage to side

Officer’s introduced the report. In discussing the application, the Committee noted that the scheme was subordinate to the existing dwelling.

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 officer’s report and the changes set out in the addendum.

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to a disability vehicles shop (Sui Generis).

Recommendation: Approval subject to no further objections being received

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to a disability vehicles shop (Sui Generis)

Officer’s introduced the report. In discussing the change of use application, Officers clarified that an error had been made and the application site was located in Northwood ward and not Northwood Hills as cited in the report.

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

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

Single storey side/rear extension involving demolition of existing side extension.

Recommendation: Approval

Single storey side/rear extension involving demolition of existing side extension

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

Resolved – That the application be approved as per the officer’s report

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

This item is included in Part II as it contains information

which a) is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and b)

contains information which reveals that the authority

proposes to give, under an enactment, a notice under or by

virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person. The

authority believes that the public interest in withholding the

information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it

(exempt information under paragraphs 2 and 6(a) of Part 1 of

Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to

Information) Act 1985 as amended).

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report 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 be agreed.

2. That the Committee resolve 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).

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

This item is included in Part II as it contains information

which a) is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and b)

contains information which reveals that the authority

proposes to give, under an enactment, a notice under or by

virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person. The

authority believes that the public interest in withholding the

information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it

(exempt information under paragraphs 2 and 6(a) of Part 1 of

Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to

Information) Act 1985 as amended).

This item was deferred to enable officers to check and clarify the measurements cited in the officer report.

Resolved –

That the item be deferred to a future committee meeting.

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

This item is included in Part II as it contains information

which a) is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and b)

contains information which reveals that the authority

proposes to give, under an enactment, a notice under or by

virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person. The

authority believes that the public interest in withholding the

information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it

(exempt information under paragraphs 2 and 6(a) of Part 1 of

Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to

Information) Act 1985 as amended).

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report 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 be agreed.

2. That the Committee resolve 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).