Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes from the meeting held on 9 January 2019 be approved as a correct record.

None.

It was confirmed that all items marked Part I would be considered in public, and all items marked Part II would be considered in private.

Change of use of the building from a 12-bedroom bed and breakfast (Use Class C1) to a seven-bedroom care facility (Use Class C2) for persons with early onset dementia and dual diagnosis impairments.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Change of use of the building from a 12-bedroom bed and breakfast (Use Class C1) to a seven-bedroom care facility (Use Class C2) for persons with early onset dementia and dual diagnosis impairments.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum, which outlined a corrected plan.

A petitioner addressed the Committee and noted that two petitions were submitted to the Council opposing the application. The petitioner stated that there was no objection to the premise of a care facility, but the location was unacceptable given its close proximity to Frithwood Primary School and its impact on local roads and residents. Councillors were informed that there could be a daily chance that school children could encounter residents of the care facility, some of whom may suffer from serious mental health issues such as alcohol / drug dependency and schizophrenia. It would therefore prove difficult to ensure the safety of local children at all times, and the high number of traffic movements could also lead to incidents. As such, Members were urged to reject the application at this location.

Councillor Carol Melvin, Ward Councillor for Northwood, provided a written statement to the Chairman which stated that although the application had been scaled down, it was in an inappropriate location due to its proximity to residents and school children. Councillor Melvin suggested that localised criminal behaviour could be possible and the Police submitted concerns regarding the application.  As such, the Committee was urged to reject the application.

The Committee sympathised with the concerns of local residents, and while the need for a care facility was understandable, the location was unsuitable, particularly due to the proximity to a local school.

As such, the officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded, and upon being put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Two-storey building for use as Class B1 (Business) (Outline Application with all Matters reserved).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Two-storey building for use as Class B1 (Business) (Outline Application with all matters reserved).

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum, which included an additional condition. The Committee was informed that the Planning Inspector allowed an appeal in 2009 on a plan that was almost identical to the plan before the Committee.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, and noted that to date, all applications were refused by Committee and the Planning Inspector, except one that was allowed by the Inspector in 2009, but permission had lapsed on this application. Members heard that there were further refusals in both 2012 and 2017, and the current application was a similar height to that refused in 2012, as the applicant was unable to screen the second floor due to the height of the building, which led to a loss of local amenity. Furthermore, in 2005 the Planning Committee noted it was impossible to screen a dwelling of 5.5m in height. The Committee heard that the application would lead to overshadowing and overlooking, and was situated between car parks and drainage for the local homes.

The Committee conceded that it may be constrained by the Planning Inspectorate decision in 2009, but sought clarification on the differences between the application and the scheme that was refused by the Inspectorate in 2012. Officers confirmed that the 2012 plans did differ from the current application, but further information would be required to demonstrate this to the Committee.

As such, Members moved a motion to defer the application for further information on 2012 plans that were refused by the Planning Inspectorate. The Committee also noted that it would be helpful to receive further information on the application if possible, but accepted that this was at outline application with all matters reserved.

The motion to defer the application was seconded and unanimously agreed at a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Two-storey building with habitable roofspace to consist of five two-bed flats, with associated amenity space and parking, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Two-storey building with habitable roofspace to consist of five two-bed flats with associated amenity space and parking, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the report which sought to erect five two-bed flats.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, and noted there were 33 signatures on the petition. The Committee heard that application was an overdevelopment of a site which is not large, and would lead to the loss of privacy for Nos 2, 3 and 4 Manor House Drive. The petitioner explained that the road was a cul-de-sac with 17 homes and was not suitable for flats, which would also have a detrimental impact on local amenity and parking, as Manor House Drive already had parking issues which would be exacerbated by this application, and access for large vehicles such as refuse vehicles could be problematic.

The Head of Planning, Regeneration and Transportation noted that a previous refusal by the Planning Inspector focussed on the scale and bulk of the application, and not parking.

The Committee expressed concerns regarding the size and bulk of the application, and noted it was too large for the site. As such, the officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of three-storey building with habitable roofspace to include B1 office space and 2 x 2-bed and 1 x 1-bed self-contained flats, involving demolition of existing two-storey B1 offices.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Field End Road

Erection of three-storey building with habitable roof space to include B1 office space and two two-bed, one one-bed self-contained flats, involving demolition of existing two-storey B1 offices.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum, which clarified Reason for Refusal 3.

Councillors noted that the report was accurate and moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the recommendation at a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

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 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 1085 as amended).

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 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 1085 as amended).