Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies received from Cllr Jem Duducu with Cllr David Yarrow substituting and Cllr Manjit Khatra with Cllr Duncan substituting.

Apologies received from Cllr Jem Duducu with Cllr David Yarrow substituting, and Cllr Manjit Khatra with Cllr Duncan substituting.

None.

Cllr Yarrow declared a non pecuniary interest in agenda item 16.

The minutes from 25 October 2017 were confirmed as an accurate record.

The minutes from 25 October 2017 were confirmed as an accurate record.

None.

None.

It was confirmed that Agenda Items 1 -13 were marked as Part I and would be considered in public. Agenda Items 14 -16 were marked as Part II and so would be considered in private.

It was confirmed that Agenda Items 1 -13 were marked as Part I and would be considered in public. Agenda Items 14 -16 were marked as Part II and so would be considered in private.

Change of use of Aldis Hall (from Class C1 Residential to Class D1 Pre-School Nursery) with associated parking and landscaping and a change of use of Wetherby House (from Class D1 Pre-School Nursery to Class C3 Residential).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. This was a re-submission following a previous and similar application which was refused at Committee on highways and safety grounds.

Planning permission was sought for the change of use of Aldis Hall (from residential to pre-school nursery) with associated parking and landscaping. Planning permission was also sought for the change of use of Wetherby House (from pre-school nursery to residential).

Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner addressed the Committee and objected to the application on the following grounds:

·         The resubmitted application was almost the same as the application originally submitted, which was refused.

·         The main reason for refusal was the impact of traffic this site would have.

·         There was no evidence to support the statement that the majority of parents would arrive by foot or public transport.

·         There were only two access points available for the total site and this would result in the nursery having a narrow access point.

·         The latest site plans showed that access to the recently reduced three parking spaces, right by the entrance, were inhibited by two TPO trees.

·         To include another three spaces at the rear of the building was misleading as parents were unlikely to use these spaces.

·         The 12 spaces indicated by the agent/applicant contradicted the figures indicated on the plan dated 20 October 2017 which only showed 11 places.

·         There was no parking outside the site or across the site.

·         The availability of car parking depended on the time of the day as during peak hours more spaces would be needed.

·         There were five schools within 400 yards of the site and the total number of pupils exceeded 2000. This added to traffic congestion, leading to a negative impact on the environment and local ambience of the area.

The agent for the applicant was in attendance and addressed the Committee with the following comments:

·         The applicant and agent had critically analysed the debate at the previous planning committee meeting and worked with officers to try to resolve any reasonable concerns.

·         The proposal was for a 104 space nursery on a site.

·         Some of the concerns raised by Members were that parents would not use the car park on Green Lane for pick up and drop offs as it was 135 m from the site, parents would park illegally and that staff would park on the street causing highways safety issues.

·         Survey data indicated a surplus of available parking within the vicinity of the site, which was contrary to the reason for refusal.

·         The proposals included a commitment to planning conditions which would secure a travel plan and drop off and pick up management plan.

·         There would be 11 spaces provided on site and there was more than adequate onsite parking to accommodate pick up and drop offs.

·         The proposed nursery would open one hour earlier than a nearby nursery and this would result in less pressure on congestion in the area.

·         Staff would not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

Part two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension, conversion of roofspace to habitable space, erection of open porch to front, part conversion of garage including associated alterations and landscaping to the front and rear (REVISED PLANS).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. The application sought planning permission for a part two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension, conversion of roof space to habitable space, erection of open porch to front, part conversion of garage including associated alteration and landscaping to the front and rear.

Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner spoke in objection of the proposed development and made the following points:

·         This was a revised plans application that included the removal of the balcony and glazing.

·         The plans still indicated the overdevelopment of a four bedroom house to an eight bedroom house.

·         The plans were still virtually identical to the previous application.

·         In the current application, the ground floor print had been reduced by nine square metres, and there was no effort to scale back the double storey element.

·         The two storey side extension remained the same. The proposal was uncongressive, over dominant and detrimental to the street scene.

·         The gap between 7 and 9 Hedgeside road was disputable and they were very close together.

·         The proposed development was like a bulk on the side of a house.

·         The petitioner asked the Committee to note the conversion of the garage which may be converted to a habitable space.

·         The petitioner asked the Committee to consider the grounds for refusal from the previous application and consider whether this application ahd done enough to address the concerns.

·         The application ought to be refused on the grounds that size, scale, bulk and depth was detrimental to the road.

The applicant's agent addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         Since the Committee meeting on 3 October 2017, the agent had clarified any unclear details.

·         The proposal right side alteration to the extension retained the existing 900 mm as measured.

·         The proposed rear extension had been set back to confirm with planning requirements.

·         The applicant/agent had taken on board Members' objections and the balcony to the rear had been removed

·         The porch was now open sided.

·         There were only six bedrooms, five on the first floor and one at ground floor to assist applicant.

·         Minor changes had been made to the front access in the building.

·         There were parking spaces for three cars.

·         The rear garden was quite large and the extension being proposed would retain 90 percent of garden area.

Members considered it to be overdevelopment in terms of size and bulk. The main key revisions were the removal of the balcony and windows and opening of porch.  

The Head of Planning clarified the changes that have been made to the application and drew the Committee's attention to relevant parts of the reports.  The impact had been considered acceptable. The revised application was now fully compliant with policy and within street scene.

Although the proposed developments were big, Members accepted that the application was in policy and there was no reason to refuse it.

Members suggested for conditions to be included in relation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

Three storey, 7-bed detached dwelling house with habitable basement and roof space, involving demolition of existing dwelling house.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED - That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. The application sought planning permission for a three storey, 7 bed detached dwelling house with habitable basement ad roof space, involving the demolition of the existing dwelling house.

Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner spoke in objection of the proposed development and made the following points:

·         The Gateshill Farm estate consisted of modest four - five bedroom detached houses in spacious surroundings.

·         The proposals were large and block like.

·         The petition agreed with the officers' design and appearance grounds for refusal as there is nothing similar to this development on the estate.

·         The petitioner requested the additional reasons to be included in the refusal for the application as they were not in policy.

·         Overdevelopment - even with the amendment, altering the underground annex to become two large store rooms, it could be inhabited by up to 12 people leading to a house in multiple occupancy or small hotel.

·         The size scale and bulk as a result of the design and third storey crown roof was not in policy. Boundary rules for new developments had been ignored.

·         The basement had doubled the foot print for the house.

·         There was a flooding risk as the proposal took no account of the management of surface water and a stream at the bottom of the garden.

·         The applicant's site plan shows incorrect ownership of parts of the land.

·         There was a lack of 25 percent soft landscape on the applicant's land as they have given it over to accommodate cars.

·         Asked the committee to unanimously refuse the application and adding the considerations discussed.

The applicant's agent addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The application site had been the subject of a number of planning applications and these were material considerations in determining the current scheme on the site.

·         The most relevant application was tithe application relating to extension and alterations, including a two storey rear extension, the construction for a basement and loft conversion. This scheme was approved in April 2015. This was an important consideration as the principle building of the site had already been established.

·         Another important material factor in determining the scheme was the recent refusal for a replacement dwelling on the site.  This scheme was refused on 14 March 2017 as a result of the design and appearance of the proposed dwelling.

·         As a result of the refusal the design of the proposal had been revised.

·         Wieland Road comprises a mixture of residential dwellings of various sizes, designs and materials.

·         Based on previous approved applications, dwellings with contemporary designs have been considered acceptable in the street. This has been demonstrated at another property on the street which draws on very similar designs of the current scheme.

·         The proposed development proposed a form of development that would be partly in the footprint of development and existing forms of development on the site. The suggestion of it being cramped has been revised and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Single storey side/rear/front extension and conversion of garage to habitable use

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED - That the application be refused.

Officers introduced and provided an overview of the application. The application sought to planning permission for a single story side/rear/front extension and conversion of garage to habitable use.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused as per officer's recommendations.

Change of use from shop (Use Class A1) to use as a nail bar (Sui-Generis)  (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - That the application be approved.

Officers introduced and provided an overview of the application. The application sought to planning permission for the change of use from shop to nail bar.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved as per officer's recommendations.

2 x two storey, 3-bed semi-detached houses with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of No.7 Kingsend.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - That the application be approved.

Officers introduced and provided an overview of the application. The application sought to planning permission for two storey, 3 bed semi detached houses with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of No 7 Kingsend.

Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

Members noted that it was good application and commented that it was good to see houses being built.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved as per officer's recommendations.

Change of use to car wash, valeting and car sales (Part retrospective)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - That the application be approved.

Officers introduced and provided an overview of the application. The application sought to planning permission for the change of use to a car wash, valeting and car sales.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved as per officer's recommendations.

RESOLVED - That the contents of the report be noted.

Members noted agenda item 13.

RESOLVED - That the contents of the report be noted.

Enforcement

RESOLVED: That the officer's recommendation be agreed.

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 the 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).

Enforcement

RESOLVED: That the officer's recommendation be agreed.

RESOLVED:

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

2.    The Head of Planning be delegated authority to amend the notice if required.

3.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in the 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).

Enforcement

RESOLVED: That the officer's recommendation be agreed.

RESOLVED: That the officer's recommendation be agreed.

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 the 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).