Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Carol Melvin. Councillor Judith Cooper attended as a substitute.

Councillor John Morgan declared a pecuniary interest in Item 12 – Enforcement        Report. He left the Committee Room and did not participate in the item.

The minutes of 11 December 2012 were agreed as an accurate record.

None.

All items were considered in Part 1 with the exception of Item 12 which was considered in Part 2.

Erection of 55 tailored care living units (extra care accommodation) with communal facilities and car parking (variation of 38402/APP/2008/2733) and the erection of 25 retirement living (category ii type) sheltered apartments with communal facilities and car parking

Recommendation: Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

Erection of 55 tailored care living units (extra care accommodation) with communal facilities and car parking (variation of 38402/APP/2008/2733) and the erection of 25 retirement living (category ii type) sheltered apartments with communal facilities and car parking

In discussing the application, the Committee enquired about energy demands and whether or not non-standard condition 10 applied in this case. In response, officers confirmed that this would apply to ensure the development reduced its impact on climate change in accordance with Policy 5.2 of the London Plan.

In relation to the ages of the occupiers of the care living units, it was noted that the minimum age was 55 years old.

In discussing the S106 Agreement, it was noted that the S106 officer had advised that there was no requirement to provide a proportion of the retirement flats as affordable housing and the overall package of the benefits sought was appropriate.

In view of the development being in excess of £2 million, Members questioned how the decision not to provide a sufficient affordable housing contribution had been arrived at. In response, Officers confirmed that S106 valuations and contributions were out sourced to a third party consultant and owing to the costs involved to the developer, the cost analysis was based on commercially sensitive confidential information. On the balance of what officers had explained the Committee felt the current report did not provide sufficient information on how the S106 had been determined and requested that the application be deferred.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote that the application be deferred for further scrutiny of the Financial Viability Appraisal (FVA) and further information on how this assessment was made.

Resolved –

That the application be deferred for further scrutiny of the Financial Viability Appraisal (FVA) and further information on how this assessment was made.

Two storey building with habitable roofspace to create 5 x self-contained flats with associated parking and landscaping and installation of vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing detached dwelling

Recommendation: Approval

Two storey building with habitable roofspace to create 5 x self-contained flats with associated parking and landscaping and installation of vehicular crossover, involving demolition of  existing detached dwelling

Resolved -

The item was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning.

Change of use of ground floor from retail (Use Class A1) to restaurant/cafe (Use Class A3) involving installation of extract duct to rear and new door to rear.

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use of ground floor from retail (Use Class A1) to restaurant/cafe (Use Class A3) involving installation of extract duct to rear and new door to rear.

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

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution a representative of the petition in objection to the propos\al was invited to address the meeting. The following points were raised:

• Although empty premises were undesirable, Victoria Road did not require any further restaurants
• The petitioner had contacted the majority businesses in the locality (the petition contained 93 signatures in objection) and only 5 had supported the application

A representative of the Applicant / Agent did not attend the meeting.

In discussing the application, Officers confirmed that the hours of operation condition did include the clearing up time and no staff were permitted to be on the premises after the times specified in the report. Officers confirmed that proposed air extraction system for the development had been checked by the Environmental Protection Unit and that this had complied with its guidance.

Members noted that the usual condition in relation to food hygiene had been omitted from the Officer report in error and requested that this be added top the Officer report as a standard condition.

In relation to vehicular movements and the provision for deliveries, collections and waste operations, officers confirmed that adequate provision had been made.

Resolved –

That the application be Approved as set out in the agenda and  addendum subject to the inclusion of an additional informative relating to food hygiene. 

Two storey, 5- bedroom detached dwelling to include habitable roofspace, with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

Recommendation: Refusal

Two storey, 5- bedroom detached dwelling to include habitable roofspace, with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing detached dwelling

Officers introduced the report and in doing so confirmed that although no shadow diagram had been produced, the proposal would result in significant overshadowing.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution a representative of the petition in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. The following points were raised:

• The proposal would result in significant amount of overshadowing to number 37
• The proposal would threaten an area of special local character and result in the loss of an Arts and Crafts style dwelling.
• The proposal would constitute an inappropriate and intrusive form of development by virtue of its size, scale and bulk.
• The proposal would result in an infilling of the skyline  and be detrimental to the street scene
• The proposed development would result in a compression to the street scene by virtue of flank walls  being considerable closed together
• Neighbouring properties would be overshadowed and it was liked to living next to a three storey block of flats
• The plans in the Officer were inaccurate
• The spread of the oak tree was understated on the plan and the tree might be damaged as a result

A representative of the Applicant / Agent did not attend the meeting.

In discussing the application, the Committee agreed that the proposal would amount to an inappropriate form of development in an area of special local character. It was proposed, moved and seconded that the application be refused as set out in the officer report.

Resolved –

That the application be Refused as per agenda. 

Erection of 3 detached 5/6 bedroom houses incorporating integral garages and roofspace accommodation, with associated vehicular access and amenity space (involving demolition of existing tennis courts).

Recommendation: Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

Erection of 3 detached 5/6 bedroom houses incorporating integral garages and roofspace accommodation, with associated vehicular access and amenity space (involving demolition of existing tennis courts).

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

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition in objection to the application was invited to speak at the meeting. A representative did not attend the meeting.

The Agent spoke in response to the petition in objection to the application. The following points were raised:

• The current application addressed previous concerns which had been raised about the arboreal impact of the application
• The current application provided for three detached homes with associated car parking. It was reported that the Highways Officer had confirmed that turning circles and  access were acceptable
• The application made a significant contribution to provide recreational improvements to the local area
• The current application supplied the most up to date information on trees and landscaping
• The developer had met with local residents about the application to address their concerns.

Members expressed concerns over site access and whether there would be sufficient width in the road to accommodate construction vehicles. In response, Officers confirmed that there would be sufficient room to allow construction vehicles (and subject to a grant of permission), refuse vehicles to use the road.  The Committee also raised the question of whether there was any likelihood that trees might suffer damage during the construction phase. Officers confirmed that in this case, no objections had been raised by the tree officer.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote that the application be approved with six votes in favour, with one against.

Resolved –

That the application be Approved as per agenda and Addendum - Subject to a S106 agreement

Installation at roof level of 6 telecommunications antennae shrouded within 3 replica 'dummy' chimneys and 2 associated equipment cabinets

Recommendation: Approval

Installation at roof level of 6 telecommunications antennae shrouded within 3 replica 'dummy' chimneys and 2 associated equipment cabinets

Officers introduced the report. Members noted that the application was supported by the Conservation Officer and no objections had been raised.

Resolved –

That the application be Approved as per the agenda. 

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).

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed that consideration of the enforcement report be deferred for a site visit and digital measurements.

Resolved –

That the consideration of the enforcement report be deferred for site visit and accurate digital measurements.