Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillors Ahmad-Wallana, Chapman and Yarrow, with Councillors Davis, Lavery and Graham substituting.

None.

Minutes to the Central & South Planning Committee Meetings taking place on 14 October 2015, 3 November 2015 and 26 November 2015 were agreed.

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

First floor extension to side and alterations to elevations.

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the report, and provided an overview of the application.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, and raised the following point:

·         The application featured a single-story outbuilding that was not included in the original plan which had previously been approved.

In response, officers explained that the outbuilding was determined not to require planning permission, and instead received a certificate for lawful development.

A Ward Councillor for Brunel spoke in objection to the application, and raised the following points:

·         The applicant had submitted a large number of applications, making it difficult for residents to know what had been proposed and what had been approved. Residents had found the continuing process very unsettling.

·         The developers continued to add more to the building without an apparent plan.

·         The design was of poor quality for the street scene.

·         The development was being undertaken on a flood plain.

·         No site visit had been undertaken by officers.

·         The building was only 80cm from the neighbouring property.

In clarification, officers responded that a site visit had in fact been undertaken by officers, reflected in the photos in the presentation. Though the ground floor of the property was 0.8m from the neighbouring property, this had already been approved and was not a part of the current decision. The first floor, which was a part of the application under consideration, was set back 1.6m from the neighbouring property.

A Member commented that the development was listed as a single unit, and asked how this would be monitored. Officers responded that this would be conditioned as a term of approval, and monitoring took the form of a site visit following a report.

Officers clarified that in the report it mentioned that a ground floor extension had been removed, but this had only been removed from the application following consultation with planning officers, and had not been physically built and demolished. For this reason, there could be no consideration of flood risk as the ground floor had already been deemed acceptable and approved.

Members questioned whether the proposed development was in-keeping with the street scene or whether it represented over-development. Officers responded that the urban grain, the proportion of land in the area built upon, indicated an area of high development. This application would actually cover comparatively little of the overall plot compared to neighbouring properties, and not be out of keeping with the area.

The officer recommendation for approval was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was agreed by 7 Members with 1 abstention.

Resolved -

That the application be approved as per the officers' report.

Two storey side extension, 2 x dormer windows, 5 x new rooflights and installation of vehicular crossover.

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report, and provided an overview of the application.

Though a petition had been received, the petitioner did not attend the meeting.

The agent for the applicant attended, circulated images of houses in the surrounding area with the agreement of the Chairman, and raised the following points:

·         The sole reason for refusal given was the roof form. However, a front dormer exists at 124 West End Lane.

·         Though the front dormer of this application is prominent, it was an attempt to make the design architecturally interesting.

·         The application is an attempt to expand the house in a large plot.

Members stated their belief that the dormer proposed for 203 West End Lane was too prominent, and that the example given of 124 West End Lane did not look like an extension, but that the dormer was part of the original construction. In the case of 203 West End Lane, members were not encouraged to think the dormer was in-keeping or subservient to the original property.

The officer recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be refused as per the officers' report.

Retrospective application for the retention of 2 semi detached dwelling houses at 27a & 27b Daleham Drive.

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report, and provided an overview of the application.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, and raised the following points:

·         The development had a larger footprint than the previously approved applications, and was oversized and unsightly.

·         The privacy of neighbours was compromised by the deviations from the original plans. Lights to the rear of the development caused a disruption to the amenity of neighbouring properties.

·         The 2 front entrances to the development are positioned in the middle of the building, and not in the middle of each unit as situated in the original application.

·         The front of the plot has been fully concreted, with no landscaping.

·         The development is 3 stories, and not 2 as set out in the original application.

·         The development is 4 bedrooms, and not 2 as set out in the original application.

·         The roof was oversized and included an end gable containing the Master bedroom and a skylight in contrast to the original plans.

·         The development had been constructed with the wrong colour of bricks.

·         The original application had been limited to 2 bedrooms per unit due to safety concerns, which the new construction compromised.

·         The petitioner requested that the property be demolished, as the bricks themselves were unacceptable and could not be changed.

·         Further, the petitioner questioned why the property had not been inspected early in the building process to notice problems and deviations from the approved application.

The agent for the application attended and raised the following points:

·         The property did in fact not have a larger footprint.

·         Each unit had 3 bedrooms with a study, and not 4 bedrooms as claimed by the petitioner.

·         The officer report stated that the height of the eaves had been raised, but this was incorrect - the gabled roof changed the shape of the roof.

·         The agent disputed the statement in the officer's report that the roof was out of keeping, and circulated photos of nearby houses with the permission of the chairman, which indicated varying styles of roofs in the vicinity.  Properties in nearby roads had gabled roofs, and in some roads all properties had gabled roofs.

·         The entrance doors to each unit are in the wrong place. The builder decided that this would reduce the impact of noise between adjoining walls.

·         The brick is a different colour to that approved in the application, but there are a number of red brick properties on Daleham Drive and in surrounding streets.

·         The lack of front landscaping could be rectified by a condition.

Prior to discussion, officers clarified that all the changes from the original approved application were listed in the report. A change was not in itself reason for rejection of the application, and that Members should assess the building as it now was.

Members enquired as to whether permitted development rights were conditioned in the original application, and whether other properties in Daleham Drive with hipped roofs could that change this to gabled under permitted development. Officers clarified that permitted development rights  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

2 storey side extension and loft extension incorporating rear dormer window to dwellinghouse.

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the report, and, noting the addendum supplied, provided an overview of the application. An addendum had been included as it was deemed unrealistic to ask for completion of the development within a set timescale, and had been amended to state that works must commence within a set time, and alteration to aspects deemed harmful be completed within a set time, unless prior agreement was made with officers of the planning department.

Members requested clarification of how the development matched the design of the house constructed opposite the junction. Officers responded that the roof shape was the same, which had been agreed on appeal.

The officer recommendation for approval was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be approved as per the officers' report.

First and second floor side extensions to create 2 x 2 and 3 x 1 person studio flats and creation of roof terrace to first floor involving internal alterations to ground floor.

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the report, and, noting the addendum supplied, provided an overview of the application. Due to set back from the road, officers proposed the condition that prior to construction commencing, officers of the planning department could approve the arrangement for cars crossing highway land to access the property. The Legal Advisor had agreed that in this instance a Grampian condition was the best way to proceed.

Members enquired about whether there was an expectation that current informal parking would be displaced elsewhere. Officers clarified that the area was not a controlled parking zone, and that the current footway parking would be displaced to nearby roads. The ground floor of the development would remain class A2. Parking was not officially in use by the bank on the ground floor of the development, but many retail units on Uxbridge Road do not have parking and are instead served by buses.

The officer recommendation for approval was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved - That the application be approved as per the officers' report, subject to:

1. the removal of condition 3 as set out in the published agenda report
2. the addition of the following new condition (listed in the tabled addendum)

Installation of a 12.5m high telecommunications column (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance).

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the report, and provided an overview of the application.

The officer recommendation for approval was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be approved as per the officers' report.

Change of use from storage (Use Class B8) to car sales (Sui Generis) (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report, and, noting the addendum supplied, provided an overview of the application.

The officer recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be refused as per the officers' report.

Change of use from storage (Use Class B8) to recycling centre (Sui Generis) (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report, and, noting the addendum supplied, provided an overview of the application.

The officer recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be refused as per the officers' report.

Change of use from storage (Use Class B8) to car sales (Sui Generis)  (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report, and, noting the addendum supplied, provided an overview of the application.

The officer recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be refused as per the officers' report.

Resolved -

That the decision on enforcement action be deferred.