Agenda and minutes

No apologies for absence were received.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2015 were agreed as a correct record.

It was confirmed that there were no items notified in advance or urgent.

All items were considered in Part 1, with the exception of item 9 which was considered in Part 2.

Two storey, 3-bed, detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space

Recommendation: Refusal

Two storey, 3-bed, detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity Space.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the details of the application. The application was a resubmission of a previous application seeking planning permission for a two storey, three bed detached dwelling with one car parking space. The proposed house would front onto Newnham Avenue, although its rear elevation would be sited abutting the boundary fence with No.5 Woodlands Avenue. It was clarified that the proposed development did not include a basement.

Officers considered that the proposed development was unacceptable for a number of reasons. It was felt that the proposal would constitute an inappropriate development of garden land that would impact on the character, appearance and amenity of the site and the surrounding neighbourhood.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, the meeting was addressed by a  representative of the petitioners and by a local ward Councillor.

The petitioner made the following points in objection to the application:

·         The petitioners expressed their thanks to officers for the work undertaken in relation to the application and the recommendation for refusal.

·         The petitioners felt that there was no need to repeat all their reasons for objection as these had been well covered by the officer's report.

·         There would not be sufficient parking for the proposed development and it would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area.

·         It was hoped that the Committee would reject the application in accordance with the recommendations made by officers.

Cllr. Michael White, ward Councillor for Cavendish made the following points in objection to the application:

·         The proposed development amounted to land grabbing and parking provision would be inadequate.

·         There would be a detrimental impact on the local amenity space and there would be a lack of privacy given the close proximity to neighbouring properties.

·         It was requested that the Committee accepted the officer's recommendation to reject the application.

The Committee asked officers to confirm the distance between the closest wall at the existing adjacent property at 52 Newnham Avenue and the proposed development. Officers estimated that this was six metres and advised that the separation between the property boundary and nearest wall was one metre.

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

Resolved - That the application be rejected as per the officers' report.

Variation of condition 5 (Opening Hours) of planning permission ref: 1095/APP/2014/3713 dated 30/01/2015 to allow extended opening hours (Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A3 (Restaurant) involving, installation of new shopfront, outdoor seating to front and installation of extraction fan to rear associated works)

Recommendation: Approval

Variation of condition 5 (Opening Hours) of planning permission ref: 1095/APP/2014/3713 dated 30/01/2015 to allow extended opening hours (Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A3 (Restaurant) involving, installation of new shopfront, outdoor seating to front and installation of extraction fan to rear associated works).

Officers introduced the report and advised that an application had previously been approved for a change of use from Use Class A1 (shops) to Use Class A3 (Restaurant).

The application to be considered by the Committee was for an amendment of a condition that set the permitted opening hours of a restaurant at the site. The restaurant was currently permitted to be open 7am to 11pm. The applicant had requested that this condition be amended to allow the restaurant to open for an extra hour, from 7am to Midnight.

Officers advised that the premises had formerly been a Blockbuster video hire store and had had been vacant since the collapse of Blockbuster. The only relevant factor for the Committee to consider in determination of the application was whether the proposed increase in opening hours was likely to result in an unacceptable noise impact.

The premises were in Northwood town centre and in a secondary shopping area. There were office premises immediately above the restaurant. Officers, considered, therefore, that the proposals were unlikely to result in an unacceptable noise impact. Approval of the application would also have the benefit of bringing disused premises back into use. 

The Council's Environmental Protection Service had been consulted and had no objections to the application. It was noted that the sale of alcoholic beverages would require a licence application and that this would enable licensing conditions to be imposed if they were considered to be appropriate.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, the meeting was addressed by a representative of the petitioners and by the applicant's agent.

The petitioner made the following points in objection to the application:

·         The comments made by internal consultees within the officer report made no reference to the impact on green space in the neighbouring area.

·         The petitioner drew the Committee's attention to some photos that they had brought to the meeting. These showed litter and an area that the petitioner said was used for late night parties.

·         Granting of permission for increased opening hours was likely to result in an increase in late night noise and litter in the area and would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area.

·         The petitioners did not object in principal to the operation of a restaurant from the premises, but this should only be permitted where resulting impacts could be alleviated effectively. The petitioners felt that food would be taken and eaten away from the premises, resulting in increased litter.

·         The petitioners disagreed with the suggestion that there were no residential properties in close proximity to the premises. Planning policies OE1 (Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties) and OE3 (Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance - mitigation)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

This report provides financial information on s106 and s278 agreements in the North Planning Committee area up to 31 December 2014 where the Council has received and holds funds.

Resolved - That the Committee Members note the contents of the S.106/278 Planning agreements quarterly financial monitoring report.

Resolved:

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).