Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Duncan Flynn with Cllr Ian Edwards substituting.

None.

The minutes of the meetings held on 9 December 2014 and 6 January 2015 were agreed as a correct record.

None.

It was confirmed that items marked Part 1 would be heard in public and those marked Part 2 would be heard in private.

Two storey, 3-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace to include associated parking, amenity space, bin and cycle store.

Recommendation : Refusal.

Two storey, 3-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace to include associated parking, amenity space, bin and cycle store.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

The application related to an area of land to the rear and forming part of No. 147 Cornwall Road and sought permission for the erection of a two storey 3 bedroom detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space.  The application site was located within a residential street within the developed area.  The site was not located within any designated areas.  The trees on the site were not subject to preservation orders.

Members noted that the main issues with respect to the proposal were the loss of garden land, the appearance of the development within the street scene and the impact on neighbouring amenity.

In respect of the garden land the proposal would be located on the rear garden of No 146 Cornwall Road and as such the land did not constitute brown field land.  The openness of the road in this location would be significantly affected by the loss of this garden and the proposal would therefore be inappropriate and detrimental to the character of the area.

The proposed development would be located only 12m from the facing wall of the property at No 14 Cornwall Road, as such it would have an over dominant and overbearing impact to the amenity of these occupiers.  Members noted that the proposal would be detrimental to neighbouring properties and would unacceptably reduce levels of privacy.

Members noted that concerns relating to parking have arisen from the public consultation, but the proposal would provide adequate car parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards and accordingly the development was considered acceptable in this respect.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting the proposals addressed the meeting.

The petitioner objecting to the proposals made the following points:

·         Was representing the lead petitioner.

·         Residents were not happy that another application had been submitted.

·         Rosebury Vale was one of the premier roads in the local area.

·         There were a high number of elderly residents who lived in the area.

·         Residents did not understand why the proposal would have a Cornwall Road address when it sat on Rosebury Vale.

·         The character of the road would not change.

·         There would be a direct visual impact.

·         The living conditions for new residents would not be practical.

·         The area would be over developed.

·         Resident's house prices would be diluted.

·         Only the applicant would benefit from the proposals financially.

The Chairman highlighted that the local Ward Councillors for this area had strongly objected to the proposals and supported petitioners' concerns.

Members agreed that application constituted as blatant garden grabbing.  Members also noted that there was inaccuracies in the officers report and requested these be rectified should the application go to appeal.  Officers explained that section 3.2 of the officer's report stated that the 2^nd bedroom would be located in the roof space.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

Part two storey, part first floor side extension, single storey rear extension, conversion of double garage to habitable use, raising of roof to allow conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 3 x rear dormer and 1 x front dormer and 2 new gable end windows to front and installation of canopy to front.

Recommendation: Approval.

Part two storey, part first floor side extension, single storey rear extension, conversion of double garage to habitable use, raising of roof to allow conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 3 x rear dormer and 1 x front dormer and 2 new gable end windows to front and installation of canopy to front.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application related to No 2 Linksway and sought permission for extensions to the existing residential property.  The site was located within an Area of Special Local character and had an extensive planning history.  Members were aware that the North Planning committee voted to approve a replacement dwelling at the site on the 21st January 2015. The current application was for extensions which were smaller than that proposal.

The main issues related to the impact of the development on the appearance of the Area of Special local Character and on the amenity of the neighbouring occupier at No 3 Copse wood Way.

The proposal was of a similar design to the previously consented replacement dwelling; however, the built form was smaller and designed as subordinate extensions to the original house.  It was considered that the proposal would have an appropriate appearance within the street scene, particularly when the approval of the replacement dwelling, which was a material consideration, was taken into account.

The application would also be smaller scale and have greater separation from No 3 Copse Wood Way than the previously consented replacement dwelling. There were no windows which would cause unacceptable loss of privacy.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the applicant addressed the meeting:

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

·         Wanted to say thank you for the Committee approving the previous application.

·         This application before Members was smaller than the previous proposal.

·         Time had become crucial to implement the proposal.

·         No trees would be harmed.

·         Over 140 people had signed a petition supporting the proposals.

Members agreed that the proposal before them was a preferred option to the last application approved at Committee on 21 January 2015.

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 officers' report.

First floor rear extension, single storey side extension, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include rear dormer and conversion of attached garage to habitable use and alterations to associated driveway.

Recommendation: Approval.

First floor rear extension, single storey side extension, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include rear dormer and conversion of attached garage to habitable use and alterations to associated driveway.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

This application related to No 12 Maxwell Road and sought permission for extensions to the property including first and single storey and roof alterations. The proposal also sought alterations to the drive way and the conversion of the garage to habitable use.

Members  noted that the application site was located within the Northwood Town Centre Conservation and sites within a predominantly residential street. It was located opposite the Grade II Listed Northwood Police Station.

The proposed development has been designed such that the proposed extensions and alterations would appear subordinate and harmonise with the original property and the wider conservation area and it was noted that the Conservation Officer considers the proposal acceptable.

The proposal had also been designed such that it would retain an appropriate relationship with neighbouring properties in accordance with the Council’s adopted guidance. Accordingly, it was not considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable impacts on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

In respect of the loss of the garage, the amended driveway was of a sufficient size to accommodate parking and manoeuvring for two cars in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards whilst maintaining an appropriate level of soft landscaping.  Accordingly, the proposal would be acceptable in terms of car parking.

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.

Installation of 43 additional parking spaces, resurfacing of access road and installation of storage shed to rear.

Recommendation: Approval.

Installation of 43 additional parking spaces, resurfacing of access road and installation of storage shed to rear.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

This application related to the Riverside Health and Racquets Club and sought the installation of an additional 43 parking spaces, the resurfacing of the access road and the installation of a storage shed to the rear.

The application site was an existing Virgin Active Health Club located within the Green Belt on Ducks Hill Road.  Officers informed Members that there were existing flood lights located on the tennis courts.  Officers made a verbal change to the addendum that the word 'no' be placed before floodlighting, additionally vehicle was spelt incorrectly.

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.

1. That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report was agreed.

2. That the Committee resolved 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).

1. That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report was agreed.

2. That the Committee resolved 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).

1. That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report was agreed.

2. That the Committee resolved 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).