Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor John Morgan declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 10 and remained in the room to discuss and vote on the item.

The minutes of the meetings held on 16 April and 9 May 2013 were agreed as a correct record.

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.

3-bedroom, detached dwelling (Outline planning application with all matters reserved). 

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

3-bedroom, detached dwelling (Outline planning application with all matters reserved). 

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection of the proposals was invited to address the meeting. The lead petitioner spoke on behalf of the petitioners and raised the following points:

• The proposals did not harmonize with the existing properties.
• Properties had large spacious gardens.
• Privacy would be evaded.
• The proposals did not contribute to the wider community.
• Garden grabbing was against the Mayor of London’s policy (clarify which one)
• Petitioners hoped the Committee would take the officers’ recommendations into account.

Members discussed the application and agreed with petitioners’ concerns.  Members discussed policies which were put in place to prevent ‘garden grabbing’.

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.

Single storey outbuilding for use as storage of golf buggies.

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval

Single storey outbuilding for use as storage of golf buggies.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the application.  Officers informed Members that the proposed building would have a minimal impact on the open character of the Green Belt and would facilitate an appropriate use within the Green Belt.

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.

To amend the profile of the roof  (Erection of a three storey building to contain 7, two-bedroom and 1, one- bedroom flats, together with associated parking and amenity space (amendment to previous approval ref. 5740/app/2007/1043 to allow for an additional flat at second floor level).

This is a retrospective planning application to retain the as built roof profile.

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

Retrospective planning application to vary Condition 27 (that development shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the plans hereby approved) to planning Permission Ref: 5740/APP/2008/1214 (Erection of a three storey building to contain 7, two-bedroom and 1, one-bedroom flats, together with associated parking and amenity space) to seek retention of the existing roof profile which is a departure from the approved roof profile.

The Chairman informed the Committee that this was a retrospective application for the roof profile and the rest of the property would not be discussed.

Officers outlined the report.  The profile of the house was marginally different from the last application.  The stairwell needed extra height which was not taken into consideration in the initial design of the property.

Two Ward Councillors were present, one of which outlined their concerns to the Committee as follows:

• The overall bulk, scale and design of the property was already overbearing to neighbouring properties.
• Disagreed with the statement the conservation officer had made that suggested the visual impact was difficult to assess.
• Concern that there was an error in the drawings.

Members reiterated that the application was brought before the Committee to consider the change to the roof profile not the overall appearance of the building.  Members agreed that the application was slightly better than what was previously approved, however, was still a poor design.

Members discussed the previous application that was approved by Committee and agreed that although this was a minor alteration from the original design it could set a precedent to other developers if approved.

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

Councillors David Allam and Robin Sansarpuri both asked for their abstention to the decision to be minuted.

Resolved – That the application be refused as per the agenda.

The recommendation contained in the officer’s report with the changes outlined in the addendum was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously 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.

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 contained in the officer’s report with the changes outlined in the addendum was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously 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.