Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillors John Morgan and Raymond Graham with Councillors Brian Stead and Pat Jackson substituting.

The Chairman informed the Committee that Cllr Carol Melvin was withdrawing her vote from Agenda Item 6 and would leave the room.

The minutes of the meetings held on 8 May and 30 May 2013 were agreed as a correct record.

Application for a material amendment to Planning Permission ref. 9305/APP/2011/1584 for the installation of proposed amenity/balcony area for the approved first floor flat.

Application for a material amendment to Planning Permission ref. 9305/APP/2011/1584 for the installation of proposed amenity/balcony area for the approved first floor flat.

Cllr Melvin left the room and did not take part in the discussion or vote.  

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.  Officers informed Members a petition in objection had been received after the report had been written.

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 application was setting an unhealthy precedent for future applications in the area.
• The proposed terrace would overlook properties in Kiln Way, Northwood.
• Additional noise problems would be created.
• Petitioners requested that the application be refused.

The agent for the application raised the following points:

• Original application was made on 14 December 2012.
• Had regularly liaised with officers in charge.
• Neighbours had continually objected.
• Had invited neighbours into property to discuss the application.
• There had been further alterations.

The Chairman informed the Committee that Cllr Richard Lewis supported the petitioners’ request.

Members questioned a point raised by the petitioner in relation to condition 16.  Officers explained that this was part of the original condition.  Officers also highlighted that condition 16 had a typo and should read ‘than’ rather than ‘tha’.

Members discussed the item and agreed it was important to listen to petitioners’ concerns; however, the application was seeking approval for a small terrace.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

Two storey, 6- bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing dwelling (Resubmission).

Two storey, 6- bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing dwelling (Resubmission).

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in support of the proposals was invited to address the meeting. The lead petitioner was also the applicant and raised the following points:

• Had approved planning permission in December 2012.
• This application was not much different from original.
• Roof lights would not be visible from street scene.
• Property opposite had a large crown roof which was refused but then overturned on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.

Members discussed the item and agreed it was suitable to defer the application following further investigation of the comments made by the applicant/petitioner.

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

Resolved - That the application be deferred.

Single storey side/rear extension.                     

Single storey side/rear extension.

This application was deferred from the Committee on 8 May 2013 for a site visit. The site visit took place on 22 May 2013.

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:

• If this application was granted it would breach a positive covenant.
• The measurements on the plans differ from what was actually in place and they should be accurate.
• The size and design would be an eyesore on the street scene.
• A car parked on the drive of the neighbouring property would be unable to open the passenger door of their car if the extension was approved.
• Farmlands was within a flood plain risk area.
• There would be a loss of light to the adjoining property.

The agent/applicant raised the following points:

• The proposal was not visible from the street and would not affect nearby properties.
• The garage was dead space and the conversion to a habitable space would make it more useable than what existed currently.
• There would be sufficient amenity space remaining as the garden was the longest in the street.
• Highlighted the need for the extension due to the expanding family and to enable them to remain and enjoy the property long term.
• The front extension does not compromise the off street parking situation, as there would still be sufficient space for 2 cars.

The Chairman thanked the Committee for attending a site visit.

The legal officer present at the meeting informed the Committee that any restrictive covenants would be a private matter between the parties involved.  Legal advice would have to be sought independently.

Members discussed the application and agreed that it was a shame when neighbours fell out over planning applications.  Members agreed the proposals put forward were acceptable and fit for purpose for a young expanding family.

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.

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class D1 (Non-residential Institutions) to provide childcare provision involving alterations to rear elevation (Resubmission).

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class D1 (Nonresidential Institutions) to provide childcare provision involving alterations to rear elevation (Resubmission).

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in support of the proposals was invited to address the meeting. The lead petitioner was also the applicant and raised the following points:

• Had been working with the landlord.
• Sainsbury’s was being extended.
• The proposals would bring more foot fall and local shops would benefit from more trade.
• No objections had been received from other tenants of the parade.
• 80% of users would travel by foot or public transport.
• Consent had been given by the landlord to clean up the car parking area.
• The gate would be monitored and fully functional before the nursery opening.

A Ward Councillor spoke on behalf of the applicant/petitioners and raised the following points:

• Understood the concerns of the highway officer.
• Had visited the site and there was a lot of space that could be utilised.
• A nursery would be more beneficial than a take-away.
• Asked for the Committee to support the application.

Members discussed the National Planning Policy Framework and how it encourages localism.  Members were aware of their power to change the use of the premises from class A1 (retail) to class D1 (non-residential institutions), however, the Committee agreed that the site was not suitable for a nursery.

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.

Demolition of existing detached garage and erection of single storey detached outbuilding to rear to be used as a children's activity business (Use Class D1 - Non-residential institutions).

This application was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces.

Installation of replacement 11.8m telecommunications mast, together with two new telecommunications cabinets.

Installation of replacement 11.8m telecommunications mast, together with two new telecommunications cabinets.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

Members discussed a previous review undertaken by the Residents’ and Environmental Services Policy Overview Committee which investigated the effects of these types of applications.

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

Resolved - That the application be agreed as per the agenda.

Two storey, 6-bedroom detached dwelling with basement level with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Two storey, 6-bedroom detached dwelling with basement level with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.  Officers also referred to the appeal decisions which were circulated to Members prior to the meeting.

Members discussed the planning history of Oakhurst and neighbouring land.  Members had read the decision made by the appeal Inspector who fully accepted the demolition of the Oakhurst as a Heritage asset.

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

Councillor Carol Melvin asked for her objection to the decision to be minuted.

Resolved – That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

Single storey extension to Lynda Jackson Macmillan Centre.

Single storey extension to Lynda Jackson Macmillan Centre.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

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.