Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Jas Dhot with Councillor Manjit Khatra substituting.

There were no declarations of interest notified.

There  were no matters notified in advance or urgent.

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

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to mini-cab office (Sui Generis)

Recommendation : Refusal

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to mini-cab office (Sui Generis)

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application, the property had been vacant for a year but no information in relation to how the shop had been marketed in that time.  

The petitioner and the applicant/agent were not present at the meeting.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

Two storey, 6-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace involving demolition of the existing dwelling

Recommendation : Refusal

Two storey, 6-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace involving demolition of the existing dwelling

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the report and details of the amendments on the addendum sheet.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting to the proposal addressed the meeting, the applicant/agent was not present at the meeting.

The petitioner objecting to the proposal made the following points:-

·         There was only a passing reference made to the fact that the property was on an un-adopted road.

·         The road comprised of wide green verges with many roadside trees and bushes, which were maintained at the residents own expense.

·         The trees on this site contributed significantly to the wooded nature of the Area of Special Local Character.

·         If the two TPO'd trees were removed this would be to the detriment of the street scene and the visual amenity of No.9.

·         Concerned over the suggested removal of several other trees in the rear garden and felt that every effort should be made to return them to good health.

·         Copse Wood had lost a number of mature trees recently through adverse decisions and disease.

·         The removal of trees from the site would affect the water uptake in the rear garden, which would exacerbate an existing problem in the area.

·         The proposed house would be twice the footprint of the existing house.

·         The front elevation would be a large dominating symmetrical design with two front facing dormers.

·         The house design was considered to be against BE13, which stated that new development must harmonise with the street scene.

·         The developer already had permission for a design that respected TPO trees T7 & T8.

In answer to a number of questions raised officers advised the Committee that the trees being suggested for removal were not covered by the TPO.  The appearance and design of the proposed house had already been approved on appeal so a refusal reason on this ground could not be supported.  The scheme was different in its design as it was wider than the previous appealed scheme, which would result in the loss of two TPO'd trees.

A member asked whether the trees in the rear garden were deemed to be in good health.

Officers advised the Committee that the tree officer had advised that the trees in the rear garden would provide visual amenity for a further 10 to 20 years.

In answer to an issue raised by the petitioner in relation to the affect on the water retention in the ground should the trees be removed, officers informed the Committee that this may have an impact but it would be difficult to quantify and there was not a policy to support a reason for refusal on this issue.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

Single storey front extension involving conversion of garage to habitable room (Part Retrospective)

Recommendation : Refusal

Single storey front extension involving conversion of garage to habitable room (Part Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the report.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

Retrospective planning permission for the erection of replacement entrance gates from Tile Kiln Lane

Recommendation : Refusal

Retrospective planning permission for the erection of replacement entrance gates from Tile Kiln Lane

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the report.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

Retention of summerhouse and small shed in garden.

Recommendation : Refusal

Retention of summerhouse and small shed in garden.

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the report and details of the amendments on the addendum sheet.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer's 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).