Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Carol Melvin and Councillor Brian Stead acted as substitute.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Yarrow, no substitute.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Robin Sansarpuri and Councillor Janet Duncan acted as substitute.

None.

Were agreed as an accurate record.

None.

All items were considered in Part 1.

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

Recommendation: Approval

The item was withdrawn from the agenda by the Planning Services Manager ahead of the Committee meeting.

Two storey 5 bed detached dwelling, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

The Chairman introduced the item and explained that the scheme had been previously considered at 30 October 2013 North Planning Committee meeting where most of the matters had been resolved. However, it had been established that a flood report had not been published to the public website in error and so had been subject to an additional consultation period.

The Chairman explained that in this particular case, he had used his discretion to allow the petitioners that spoke at 30 October 2013 meeting to speak again on the flood report without a petition. It was noted that was highly unusual as the Constitution dictated that petitions were required to address Planning Committees.

Officers introduced the report and explained that a geotechnical report had not been available to the public when the application was considered at 30 October 2013 meeting. As a result a further period of consultation was undertaken and the application considered at this meeting would only focus on this consultation. It was noted that on the basis of all the information considered at both 30 October and 7 January 2014 meetings, the Council’s Flood and Water Management Specialist considered that there was no material harm.

Referring to the addendum sheet, Officers highlighted that the increase of the footprint from 380 square metres to 416 square metres did not alter their view. In relation to Condition 10, it was noted that the word ‘surface’ should be deleted from point 1 and that three additional pieces of correspondence had been received since the agenda had been published which were summarised in the addendum sheet.

In accordance with the Constitution the petitioner addressed the Committee and the following points were raised:

• The application was error prone, inconsistent and should be rejected.
• The Conditions in neighbouring gardens had been ignored by the structural engineering report.
• The report had ignored the impact of the removal of 21 mature trees from the site.
• The report had not investigated the cumulative impact of the scheme including the impact other basements locally and also the water run off down the slope from Copse Wood.
• The report did not refer to how an underground trench would be maintained as these systems would become blocked over time. Therefore, trenches would be ineffective.
• The report failed to apply the extra 30% climate change factor on the general increase in water run-off
• The application mentioned that soak ways would be used. However, these would be inappropriate for the development owing to the strata of thick clay which would require very deep excavation.
• The Council had still failed to demonstrate in the current report how the major reasons for refusal from the first application (regarding size and bulk) had been mitigated.
• An application at Number 7 Nicholas Way had been recommended for refusal on the grounds of size, scale, bulk, siting, design and appearance although this had a smaller footprint than the proposal at 15 Nicholas Way. Therefore, why had a much larger proposal been recommended for approval?
• At 30  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

Retention of 'pony club' lecture room (Retrospective).

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the report.

It was noted that the building would not significantly increase the built up  appearance  of the site and  would not result in  an inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Committee agreed that the application would not detract from the agricultural character of the immediate surrounding area and it was noted that there would not be an adverse impact along the adjacent highway.

It was moved, seconded and on being out to the vote agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

That the application be approved, subject to the officer report and changes set out in the addendum. (Approved as per officer recommendation)

Two storey building with habitable roofspace to create 4 x 2-bedroom flats and 2 x 1-bedroom flat, with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing dwelling (Resubmission).

Recommendation: Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the changes set out in the addendum.

Introducing the report, Officers confirmed that the application would have an acceptable impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area and the residential amenity of the adjoining occupiers. The Committee also noted that the proposal incorporated adequate parking provision and complied with the Council’s standards.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

That the application be Approved as per the officer recommendation and the addendum.

Two storey, four-bedroom detached dwelling with associated parking, involving demolition of existing garage.

Recommendation: Approval subject to a Legal Agreement

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

Referring to the overall scheme, officers explained that a previous application had been dismissed at appeal because education contributions had not been agreed. Officers confirmed that the proposal before the Committee now incorporated these and as it was in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the scheme was recommended for approval.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

That the application be Approved as per officer recommendation and  addendum sheet.

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to mixed Use Class A1/Sui Generis for use as a shop with a pet care and treatment facility.

Recommendation: Approval

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

It was noted that the application concerned a change of use from Use Class A1 to mixed Use Class A1 / Sui Generis.  Officers explained that they considered the proposal would not be harmful to the retail use of the site or harm the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

The Committee welcomed proposals that made it more likely that retail premises would remain open.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

That the application be Approved as per officer recommendation and addendum sheet.