Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Brightman, with Councillor Stead substituting.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meetings, held on 10 April 2018 and 10 May 2018, were approved as a correct record.

None.

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

Seven three-bed dwellings with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Seven three-bed dwellings with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the proposed application, which sought a development of seven three-bedroom dwellings on a backland site which is currently used for light industrial purposes.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application and noted the narrow access road to the site as a strong reason for refusal. The Committee heard that the turn into the access was tight, and vehicles larger than a transit van could not fit down the road and would have to park on Sandow Crescent, thus blocking the road. The petitioner stated that, should the application be approved, the narrow access road would become unsafe for pedestrians as it would also have cars using it. Furthermore, large vehicles such as emergency services and refuse collection would not be able to use the access, and refuse is already collected from the corner of the road as they cannot access Sandow Crescent. Members heard that residents would be happy with a smaller development with further trees and screening, but were opposed to the application in its current form.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee, and stated that discussions had taken place with the petitioner and they had hoped for extra time to address the concerns, but the Council did not grant this. The agent confirmed that the application could be reduced in size and landscaping added, but there was no further time for these discussions. Members heard that the access was a longstanding access road, with a sufficient turning circle, and both the fire service and refuse collection services were satisfied with the access. The agent noted that the reasons for refusal were a matter of opinion, and stated that he did not believe the application was contrary to any policies.

The Committee sought clarification on the width of the access road, and officers confirmed that it was between 3-3.2m in width, and as such, it would not accommodate vehicles and pedestrians at the same time. Members heard that the concerns regarding access for emergency services were valid, and revisions made to parking restrictions at Sandow Crescent meant that all cars must park with four wheels on the carriageway, which would lead to more congestion in the area if the application were approved.

Councillors noted that the application sought the development of seven dwellings, and these could be inhabited by families. The Committee agreed that it was a worry to have vehicles travelling up a narrow access road that could also be used by pedestrians, families and young people, and agreed with the concerns of the petitioners.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Two-storey, three-bed detached dwelling with habitable roof space, installation of vehicular crossover to front and parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Two-storey, three-bed detached dwelling with habitable roof space, installation of vehicular crossover to front and parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the proposed application, which sought the erection of a two-storey dwelling within the back garden of 23 Cowley Crescent.

A petition spoke in objection to the Committee, and informed Members that Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Cowley Crescent would suffer a loss of amenity if the dwelling was build, by virtue of being in line with the front window. Councillors also heard that the concerns surrounding parking did not take into account the number of parked cars on Cowley Crescent that were not residents, as the road was used by commuters, students from Brunel University who did not have parking on campus, holiday-goers who were going to Heathrow Airport or residents from neighbouring roads who could not park on their road due to a lack of parking. The Committee was also informed that the horsechestnut trees were vital to the visual amenity of the area and should not be removed.

Officers clarified that the overlooking of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Cowley Crescent was not a planning consideration as the proposed application faced those properties and there was no “front-to-front” standard, and the Highways Officer confirmed that the site required two parking spaces, which were provided in the application.

Members confirmed that they proposed tree loss was worrying, and expressed concerns regarding the loss of amenity for neighbouring properties, due to the overlooking of gardens, and officers confirmed that this was considered unacceptable. The Head of Planning and Enforcement noted that the low density of properties at the moment made the effect of the proposed development more harmful to neighbouring properties.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed at a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to café and shisha bar (sui generis) to include a single-storey rear extension.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to café and shisha bar (sui generis) to include a single-storey rear extension.

Officers introduced the proposal, which sought to change the use of the existing unit to a sui generis (shisha bar) use and to construct a rear extension to be used as a shisha smoking area.

Members noted their agreement with the officer’s report and moved and seconded the recommendation contained therein. The officer’s recommendation was then unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Part two-storey, part single-storey side / rear extension, involving demolition of existing stores and conservatory.

Recommendation: Refusal

The item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the Committee.

The item was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the Committee.

Two-storey, one-bed detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space and installation / relocation of vehicular crossover to front.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Two-storey, one-bed detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space and installation / relocation of vehicular crossover to front.

Officers introduced the application, which sought to erect a two-storey, one bed dwelling with associated parking and amenity space.

The Committee moved and seconded the officer’s recommendation, which, upon being put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Change of use of ground floor from retail (Use Class A1) to provide one one-bed flat (Use Class C3) to include alterations to front elevation (Part-Retrospective).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused, subject to an additional refusal reason.

Change of use of ground floor from retail (Use Class A1) to provide one one-bed flat (Use Class C3) to include alterations to front elevation (Part-Retrospective).

Officers introduced the proposed application, which sought part-retrospective planning permission for the change of use of the ground floor from retail, to provide one one-bed flat, including alterations to the front elevation.

Councillors expressed concerns that a takeaway was situated next door, and noted that people would congregate outside or around the takeaway which would impact on the privacy of those who lived at the site. Members agreed that this loss of amenity could be added as a further reason for refusal.

Members sought clarification regarding the loss of retail, but officers confirmed that the parade of shops was not protected, as it was close to other retail stores.

The officer’s recommendation, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to confirm the final wording of an additional reason for refusal regarding the loss of amenity, was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed when put to a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to confirm an additional reason for refusal regarding the loss of amenity.

Demolition of existing property and erection of new two-storey property to provide two two-bed self-contained flats, with associated parking and amenity space to include new vehicular crossover to front.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to an amendment to the conditions and delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Enforcement.

Demolition of existing property and erection of new two-storey property to provide two two-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and amenity space, to include new vehicular crossover to front.

Officers introduced the application, which sought the demolition of the existing property and re-building of a two-storey property to create two flats with associated parking and amenity, and highlighted the addendum, which included an amendment to condition 7.

Members noted that the proposed windows on the front of the building did not add to the cohesiveness of the street scene, and suggested that the plans from the windows be reverted to the previous scheme. The Committee agreed to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to agree the application once the plans included windows that were in keeping with the street scene, and noted that if the plans were not changed, the application would return to the Committee.

Councillors confirmed that, with the exception of the windows, they were happy with the application, and moved and seconded the officer’s recommendation, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Enforcement and the amendment to Condition 7 detailed in the addendum. Upon being put to a vote, the motion was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be agreed, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to ensure the windows were in keeping with the street scene, and the amendment to Condition 7, as detailed in the addendum.

Single-storey detached outbuilding to rear, for use as a hair salon (Retrospective).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused, subject to the removal of reason for refusal 3.

Single-storey, detached outbuilding to rear, for use as a hair salon (Retrospective).

The application was introduced by officers, and sought retrospective permission for use of the rear outbuilding as a hair salon. Officers also noted that non-standard reason for refusal 3 be removed, should the Committee be minded to refuse the application.

Councillors noted their agreement with the officer’s report and comments, and moved and seconded the officer’s recommendation, subject to the removal of reason for refusal 3. The recommendation was unanimously agreed when put to a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused, subject to the removal of non-standard reason for refusal 3.

Part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension and conversion of dwelling to two one-bed self-contained flats, with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to a change in conditions.

Part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension and conversion of dwelling to two, one-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the report, which proposed the conversion of the existing dwelling into two, one-bed flats with associated amenity space, involving the erection of a part two-storey, part single-storey, rear extension, and highlighted the addendum, which included the deletion of Condition 4.

Members supported the officer’s report, and moved and seconded the officer’s recommendation. Upon being put to a vote, the recommendation was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the removal of Condition 4.

Part change of use from restaurant (Use Class A3) to create two one-bed and one two-bed self-contained flats (Use Class C3).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to an amendment to the Head of Terms.

Part change of use from restaurant (Use Class A3) to create two one-bed, and one two-bed self-contained flats (Use Class C3).

Officers introduced the application, which sought planning permission for a part change of use from restaurant to create three self-contained flats, and is identical to that previously considered under an appeal against non-determination of application reference 34940/APP/2017/593, and highlighted the addendum which amended the head of terms.

The Head of Planning and Enforcement informed the Committee that a further amendment to the head of terms be made to exclude blue badge holders, and restricted future residents from parking in Council car parks or Parking Management Schemes, as it was a car-free development.

Councillors moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation at a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to amendments to the head of terms, as detailed in the addendum, and to include reference to exclude blue badge holders and restricted residents from parking in Council-owned car parks or Parking Management Schemes.

Raising and enlargement of roof space to create habitable accommodation, including the erection of a single-storey front extension and installation of a porch.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Raising and enlargement of roofspace to create habitable accommodation, including the erection of a single-storey front extension and installation of a porch.

Officers introduced the application, which sought planning permission to raise and enlarge the roofspace to create habitable accommodation, including the erection of a single-storey front extension and installation of a porch.

Responding to questioning from the Committee, the Head of Planning and Enforcement confirmed that the roof plane does not have a further impact on light to neighbouring properties, as it is just the middle of the roof that is proposed to be higher.

Members agreed with the officer’s report, and moved and seconded the recommendation contained therein. Upon being put to a vote, the officer’s recommendation was unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

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).

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).

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).