Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies received from Cllr Duncan Flynn with Cllr Brian Stead substituting, and Cllr Manjit Khatra with Cllr Janet Duncan substituting.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes from 20 February 2018 be approved as an accurate record.

None.

It was confirmed that all matters were in Part I and would be considered in public.

Variation of condition No. 4 (External Fenestration) and Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref: 71761/APP/2016/2308 dated 09/08/2016 to alter the window/door on the rear/side elevation and increase the height of the parapet wall to the front and rear (Single storey rear extension and conversion of garage to habitable use involving alterations to front elevation (Resubmission))

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the variation of condition No 4 and condition No 2 of a previous planning permission application (71761/APP/2016/2308) dated 8 August 2016 to alter the window/door on the rear side elevation and increase the height of the parapet wall to the front and rear. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petition spoke in objection of the application. The Committee heard that the petition consisted of 91 signatures and was supported by the constituency MP Nick Hurd asked for refusal of the application. The petitioner submitted that this application sought to rectify planning that failed to build in accordance with originally approved plans. The applicant had demonstrated a disregard for the character of the neighbourhood, the impact on local residents and the visual intrusion into one resident's private space. In summary, the applicant had ignored the Council's original conditions by building a large extension, including changing the design, building out of hours at weekends and failing to provide a privacy screen along the boundary of No 6 Edinburgh Close. The petitioner referred to the pictures which were circulated to the Committee and applicant prior to the meeting. The petitioner questioned the compliance of the current application, and explained how security was compromised on the site. The petitioner asked that the retrospective application be refused as it did not match the original plans, contravened HDSA policies and indicated that there was no intention by the applicant to seek approvals of the changes made to the property. This showed disrespect for the Council's authority but was contrary to HDSA policy para 2.19 which required planning permission before any alterations to the original plan being made. The petitioner also asked for enforcement action to be taken to ensure that modifications to the property were made to bring it back close to the original specification.

Members the suphate in the front and questioned the character of the drainage and guttering. The pans originally passed had a l shaped folding door, having this door on the back helps improve the privacy for no 6. The single door facing the other property and asked whether there could be frosted glass. Members considered that the overlooking the conservatory and noted it was in policy. The Head of Planning confirmed that the HDSA guidance was not policy, but there was a 10 cm deviation but was not sufficiently material that an appeal would be upheld.

Members discussed adding informatives for the size of the suphate to be reduced. The Head of Planning confirmed that an informative would not make a difference. He confirmed that he and officers had spoken to the building control team as there was some confusion as to why that approach had been taken, but it allowed by inspectors and they understood the position of the suphate. The building control team did not see a reason why a soffit needs to be so deep, members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 164.

Installation of replacement lattice stub tower supporting headframe supporting 9No. antennas and transmission dish and ancillary appartus, removal of 2No. pole mounted antennas all on rooftop of building, and installation of ground based equipment cabinets (removal of existing redundant cabinet) and ancillary apparatus

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the installation of replacement lattice stub tower supporting head frame supporting 9 No. Antennas and transmission dish and ancillary apparatus, removal of 2 No. Pole mounted antennas all on roof top of building and installation of ground based equipment cabinets (removals of existing redundant cabinet) and ancillary apparatus. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Installation of canopy and side screen over car wash area (Retrospective).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the application and provided an overview. Planning permission was sought for the installation of canopy and side screen over car wash area. This was a retrospective application. Officers made a recommendation for approval.

The Chairman noted that no objection comments had been received.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Single storey flat roof side extension connecting to existing single-storey rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for a single storey flat roof side extension connecting to existing single - storey rear extension. Officers made a recommendation for approval.

The Head of Planning explained that a further condition could be included to cover window openings, which could be justified given the corner plot location.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.