Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Melvin declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 7, as she had been involved with the local residents on the original application.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2020 be agreed as a correct record.

None.

It was confirmed that items 6 – 9 were marked Part I and would be considered in public, while Items 10 – 11 were marked Part II and would be considered in private.

Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning ref: 8032/APP/2019/2401 dated 11-09-19 (Conversion of the existing property from a bed and breakfast (Use Class C1) to a single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3)) namely; to allow the installation of a lift, conversion of a window to a door as shown on the side elevation, and the relocation of an en-suite from one room to anothher and introduction of a wet room (retrospective).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning ref: 8032/APP/2019/2401 dated 11-09-19 (Conversion of the existing property from a bed and breakfast (Use Class C1) to a single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3)) namely; to allow the installation of a lift, conversion of a window to a door as shown on the side elevation, and the relocation of an en-suite from one room to another and introduction of a wet room (retrospective).

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum.

Two petitions were received in objection to the application, and the petitioners submitted written representations which stated that the application should be rejected based on its proximity to the local primary school. Members heard that the changes to the property took place during lockdown, and were much more suited to a Class C2 facility that C3. Local residents and parents have expressed concern regarding parking, and noted that anti-social behaviour and noise disturbances have distressed families and children in the past. The petitioners stated that the application is not appropriate in the current location and requested the Committee refuse the application.

A written representation was received by the agent of the application who noted that the application sought to improve the comfort of members of the household and included only minor changes to the premises, and did not propose a change of use to the dwelling. The Committee was informed that the officer’s report provided no detailed explanation to why the amendments detailed were unsuitable, and stated that residents appear to be objecting to the dwelling being used to accommodate members of the household with care needs.

Councillors stated that officers had provided a clear and strong report, and moved the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded, and upon being put to a vote, unanimously agreed by the Committee.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of four two-storey detached dwellings with habitable roof space with parking, amenity, cycle provision, refuse and external landscaping and associated works.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to an additional condition.

Demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of four two-storey detached dwellings with habitable roof space with parking, amenity, cycle provision, refuse and external landscaping and associated works.

Councillor Carol Melvin declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item and left the meeting during the discussion of this item.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum.

A petition was received in objection to the application, and the petitioners submitted a written representation which stated that the application showed no significant changes to the original development, and remained an overdevelopment of the site. Members heard that the site was not suitable for four large houses, and would result in a loss of amenity for surrounding dwellings. The petitioners noted that emergency vehicles would struggle to access the site, and the refuse and recycling arrangements were not acceptable and would lead to bin bags and spillages being left on Lingfield Close. The Committee was urged to reject the application.

A writer representation was received by the agent, who stated that comments in pre-application discussions from neighbouring properties had been taken into account, and the proposals revised to ensure the design, scale, layout and separation distances within the site all comply with the Council’s policies and guidance. The agent noted that the application had been revised to overcome previous reasons for refusal, and Members heard that there were no concerns from the Council’s Landscape Officer or Highways Engineer. The agent stated that the application delivered high quality family-sized homes with amenity for the local area, and requested the Council approve the application.

Councillor Richard Lewis, Ward Councillor for Northwood, submitted a written representation on behalf of himself and Councillor Scott Seaman-Digby Collins in objection to the application. Councillor Lewis noted that the application showed no marked changes from the previous application, and the minimal changes that have been made do not mitigate or minimise the issues that resulted in the previous refusal. Members were informed that the application was an overdevelopment of the site, with a major impact on surrounding properties and the street scene, which required the removal of numerous trees and shrubs and resulted in a loss of privacy for all neighbours. Councillor Lewis also expressed concern regarding the transporting and leaving of refuse and recycling in Lingfield Close, and noted that these arrangements were unacceptable.

The Head of Planning, Regeneration and Transportation commented that if the Committee had concerns regarding refuse disposal, the Committee could seek to withdraw permitted development rights to ensure the occupiers of future dwelling houses could not convert them to HMOs without planning permission.

The Committee discussed whether there were significant changes between this application and the previous application that was rejected, and noted that the application still sought four detached, three-storey dwellings that could be considered an overdevelopment.

Responding to Councillors’ questioning, officers clarified that the road was sufficient for emergency vehicle access, and noted that residents should not have issues with the refuse collection, as distances for carrying refuse were within policy.

Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Demolition of existing garage and erection of two-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension and addition of a disabled access ramp to side elevation.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to agree an additional condition.

Demolition of existing garage and erection of two-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension and addition of a disabled access ramp to side elevation.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum, including an additional condition.

The Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration noted requested a minor condition change to request samples of the materials being used in the development, in place of a matching materials condition, and the Committee agreed to delegated authority to agree this condition.

Members noted that they liked the application, and were reassured by the plans before them. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to replace the matching materials condition with a condition to request samples of the materials to be used in the development.

RESOLVED: That the S106 Quarterly Monitoring Report be noted.

RESOLVED: That the S106 Quarterly Monitoring Report be noted.

RESOLVED:

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

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 it issuing the formal beach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

This item is declared as exempt from publication as it involves the disclosure of information in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraphs 1, 2 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), in that the report contains information relating to any individual, information likely to reveal the identity of an individual and information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

RESOLVED:

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

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 it issuing the formal beach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

This item is declared as exempt from publication as it involves the disclosure of information in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraphs 1, 2 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), in that the report contains information relating to any individual, information likely to reveal the identity of an individual and information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

RESOLVED:

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

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 it issuing the formal beach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

This item is declared as exempt from publication as it involves the disclosure of information in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraphs 1, 2 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), in that the report contains information relating to any individual, information likely to reveal the identity of an individual and information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

RESOLVED:

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

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 it issuing the formal beach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

This item is declared as exempt from publication as it involves the disclosure of information in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraphs 1, 2 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), in that the report contains information relating to any individual, information likely to reveal the identity of an individual and information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.