Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Roy Chamdal with Councillor Eddie Lavery substituting.

Councillor Jazz Dhillon declared a pecuniary interest in item 6 as he lived opposite the application site. He left the meeting during the discussion and did not vote on this item.

Councillor Alan Chapman declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 13 as he had discussed the matter previously with local residents. He did not leave the meeting but remained on mute and turned off his camera during discussion of this item. Councillor Chapman did not vote on this application.

With regard to minute 68, Telecommunications Streetworks Mast, Lombardy Retail Park, Uxbridge Road, Members noted that, at the meeting, concerns had been raised in relation to the visual impact of the proposed mast and cabinets both on the amenity of nearby residential units and on the street scene. Officers confirmed that the reasons for refusal had included the impact on the street scene. It was agreed that the minutes be amended to include this.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 5 August 2020 be approved as an accurate record, subject to the above amendment.

None.

It was confirmed that the items of business marked Part I (items 1 – 20) would be considered in public and those marked Part II (items 21 – 23) would be considered in private.

Proposed 18m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wraparound cabinet at base and associated ancillary works (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: Refusal

RESOLVED: That this application be refused.

Proposed 18m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wraparound cabinet at base and associated ancillary works (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).

Councillor Dhillon had declared a pecuniary interest in this item therefore left the meeting and was not present for the discussion or the voting on this application.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the information in the addendum noting their concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposed monopole. Members were informed that the application site lay opposite residential units and the proposed 18m monopole would stand well above the trees and building line. It was suggested that operators had not fully explored alternative, more appropriate, sites.  Members were informed that a petition had been received from residents in relation to this item. The application was recommended for refusal. As an aside, Members were informed by the Head of Planning that the Council’s first appeal received regarding a 5G mast had been dismissed by inspectors who had felt the negative impact of the application in question outweighed the benefits.

Committee Members expressed concerns regarding the size and scale of the proposed mast and deemed it to be an obtrusive form of development which would not harmonise with the character of the area and would be detrimental to local visual amenities.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed by voting Members. Councillor Dhillon had declared an interest and therefore did not vote on this item.

RESOLVED: That this application be refused.

Fell one Indian Bean tree (T69 on TPO 78a)

Recommendation: Refusal

This application was withdrawn prior to commencement of the meeting to enable officers to carry out a thorough site visit.

This application was withdrawn prior to commencement of the meeting to enable officers to carry out a thorough site visit to ascertain the safety of the tree in question. It was confirmed that, when the application was brought back to Committee, the officer’s report would address more fully the safety concerns raised and an experienced tree officer would be in attendance to answer questions from Councillors.

Proposed 20m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wraparound cabinet at base, 3 cabinets and associated ancillary works (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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Proposed 20m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wraparound cabinet at base, 3 cabinets and associated ancillary works (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).

Officers introduced the report advising Members that the proposed site of the mast lay close to the junction of Clayton Road and Trevor Road. The mast would be located on the fringe of an industrial area and largely screened by landscaping. It was considered that the monopole would have limited impact on the adjacent residential properties. The application was recommended for approval.

Members raised no concerns commenting that the monopole would be located in an industrial area therefore would be in keeping with its surroundings.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Proposed 18m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wraparound Cabinet at base, 3 cabinets and associated ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused

Proposed 18m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wraparound cabinet at base, 3 cabinets and associated ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance).

Officers presented the report and highlighted the information in the addendum. Members were informed that the proposal was to locate the monopole in a predominantly residential area amongst two-storey buildings. The monopole would stand some 10m above the building line in a very prominent location. The application was recommended for refusal.

Committee Members commented that the proposal was unacceptable and the site inappropriate. Councillors suggested that it would be advisable for operators to liaise with planning officers prior to submitting such applications in order to identify appropriate locations.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused

Proposed 15m Phase 8 monopole C/W wraparound cabinet at base, 3 equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)    That authority be granted to the Head of Planning to strengthen the reasons for refusal to reference the fact that the mast would dominate in an open space.

Proposed 15m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wraparound cabinet at base, 3 equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works (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).

Officers presented the report and highlighted the information in the addendum, noting that the proposal was to locate a monopole in a very open position. The proposal was considered to be an obtrusive form of development which would add visual clutter to the street scene, would not harmonise with the character of the area and would be detrimental to local visual amenities. The application was recommended for refusal.

In response to Members’ requests for clarification, it was confirmed that the proposal monopole would be located within a green open space rather than on the footpath. Members commented that this was unacceptable and suggested that the reasons for refusal be expanded to include this. At the request of Members, it was agreed that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to strengthen the reasons for refusal accordingly.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved, subject to the agreed amendment to the reasons for refusal. 

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to strengthen the reasons for refusal to reference the fact that the mast would dominate in an open space.

Installation of 18m Phase 8 Monopole with a wraparound Cabinet at base, 4 equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to amend the reasons for refusal having consulted with the Highways Engineer.

Installation of 18m Phase 8 Monopole with a wraparound Cabinet at base, 4 equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works (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).

In relation to this item, Members were informed that a numbers of plans (those on pages 231, 234, 237, 238 and 241 of the pack) had been included in error. Members were requested to ignore these as they related to a different application and were not for consideration at the present meeting. It was noted, however, that all the relevant plans pertaining to agenda item 86 had been included in the pack thereby enabling Councillors to make an informed decision on this application.  

Officers introduced the report commenting that the proposed mast would be located in a residential area and would be highly visible and prominent. It was felt that the proposed development would not harmonise with the streetscene and would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area. The application was recommended for refusal.

Members commented that the proposed location was highly inappropriate. The Committee felt that the mast would not only be visually unacceptable, but would also have an impact on the use of the narrow pavement, impeding the passage of pedestrians. It was agreed that, having consulted with the Highways Engineer and Access Officer, delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to amend the reasons for refusal, if necessary, to incorporate this. 

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed, subject to the agreed amendment to the reasons for refusal. 

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to add an additional reason for refusal, if required, to include concern re. pavement width, following consultation with the Highways Engineer and Access Officer.

Installation of 20m monopole and 3 equipment cabinets, and associated ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance).

Recommendation: Refusal         

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Installation of 20m monopole and 3 equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works (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).

Officers introduced the report advising Members that the proposed mast would be located in an open area surrounded by Green Belt land. The monopole would be very visible, well above the treeline and the nearest building was listed.

Members commented that the application was unacceptable in such an open location.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

First floor rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to prepare the reasons for refusal in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

First floor rear extension

Councillor Alan Chapman declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 13 as he had discussed the matter previously with local residents. He remained muted with his camera off during the discussion and did not vote on this item.

Officers introduced the application which sought planning permission for the erection of a first floor rear extension which would be centrally located on the rear elevation. Members were informed that the proposed extension complied with planning policies. A loft and single-storey side extension had already been built under permitted development. The application was recommended for approval.

Members expressed considerable concern regarding the visual impact of the proposed extension which was thought to be badly designed and extremely unsightly. The Committee was concerned that, were the extension to be improved, this would set a precedent for the future. In response to Members’ requests for clarification, the Head of Planning confirmed that, although the report implied the extension was entirely to the rear of the property, it would in fact be visible from the street. The Committee was minded to refuse the application on the grounds of visual harm resulting from the addition of a third extension visible from public viewpoints.

The legal advisor confirmed that the grounds for refusal specified (cumulative impact and visibility from public viewpoints) would be arguable at appeal.  

Councillors requested that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to draft the reasons for refusal in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

Voting Members agreed to overturn the officer’s recommendation and voted unanimously to refuse the application. Councillor Alan Chapman had declared a non-pecuniary interest and did not vote on this item.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to prepare the reasons for refusal in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

Installation of a 20m monopole, 12 antenna apertures, 6 equipment cabinets and development ancillary thereto (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Installation of a 20m monopole, 12 antenna apertures, 6 equipment cabinets and development ancillary thereto (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the information in the addendum. Members were informed that the application site lay opposite residential properties and the mast would be positioned on a grass verge. It was considered that the development would have an unacceptable visual impact and a possible adverse impact on surrounding trees and their roots. It was felt that the operators had not fully explored other more suitable sites.

At the request of Members, it was agreed that reference to the “central reservation” on page 93 of the agenda pack be removed as this was irrelevant information. The Committee enquired whether the proposed siting of the mast on a grass verge could be an additional reason for refusal. It was confirmed that this would be difficult to justify since visibility at the site was good in both directions.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Single storey outbuilding for use as a gym/study/game room.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Single storey outbuilding for use as a gym / study / game room

Officers introduced the application advising Members that there was enforcement history at the site. Councillors were informed that the previous outbuilding had been demolished as it had been too high and had been used as a separate residential unit. The proposal was to build a new outbuilding at a reduced height of 2.5m. Restrictive conditions regarding its use would be applied. The application was recommended for approval.

Members noted that the conditions imposed would be sufficient to prevent it from being used as a separate residential unit. No further concerns were raised.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Conversion of two storey dwelling with habitable roof space into 2 x 1 bed flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be approved; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to draft additional Conditions in relation to cycle provision, allocated parking spaces and noise insulation.

Conversion of two storey dwelling with habitable roof space into 2 x 1 bed flats with associated parking and amenity space

Officers introduced the report advising Members that the application complied with planning policies and was recommended for approval.

At the request of Members, it was agreed that further conditions in relation to cycle provision and allocated parking be included – parking to the front would be allocated to the ground floor flat and parking to the rear would be for the use of the upstairs flat. Members requested the addition of a further condition in relation to noise between units; it was noted that such a condition was imposed as standard on Major applications and it was agreed that consistency was key.

Members agreed that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to draft additional conditions in relation to cycle provision, allocated parking and noise insulation between units.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed, subject to the additional conditions.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be approved; and

2)    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to draft additional Conditions in relation to cycle provision, allocated parking spaces and noise insulation.

Proposed 20m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wraparound Cabinet at base, 3 cabinets and associated ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Proposed 20m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wraparound Cabinet at base, 3 cabinets and associated ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance.

Officers introduced the application informing Members that the Council’s Trees / Landscape Officer had raised an objection due to the existence of a tree 1.2m from the proposed site. It was also noted that the proposed mast would restrict the footpath. Three reasons for refusal had been set out in the report.

Members were in agreement with the officer’s recommendation and raised no objections.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Removal of the existing 22m tower and the erection of a replacement 30m lattice tower with a total of 18 antenna, installed on headframes at a mean height of between 20.95m and 29.2m AGL, 4 dishes, 6 equipment cabinets, along with ancillary equipment, together with development ancillary thereto.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the inclusion of a Condition in relation to an agreed three-month timeframe for removal of redundant equipment.

Removal of the existing 22m tower and the erection of a replacement 30m lattice tower with a total of 18 antenna, installed on headframes at a mean height of between 20.95m and 29.2m AGL, 4 dishes, 6 equipment cabinets, along with ancillary equipment, together with development ancillary thereto

Officers introduced the report advising Members that the new tower would be larger than the existing one but would be set back from the road to the rear of a number of industrial buildings. The benefits of upgrading an existing site were considered to outweigh the limited visual harm and the application was recommended for approval.

Members enquired whether it would be possible to impose an additional condition in relation to a timeframe for removal of existing equipment. It was agreed that a three-month timeframe would be appropriate.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed, subject to the agreed additional condition.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the inclusion of a Condition in relation to an agreed three-month timeframe for removal of redundant equipment.

Proposed 18m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wraparound cabinet at base, 3 equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Proposed 18m Phase 8 Monopole C/W wraparound cabinet at base, 3 equipment cabinets and associated ancillary work (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance)

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. Members were informed that the proposal was considered to be an obtrusive form of development which would add visual clutter to the street scene, would not harmonise with the character of the area and would be detrimental to local visual amenities. It was noted that the nearest building to the proposed site was a school and the operators had failed to consult with the aerodrome.

Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting had submitted written submissions in objection to both agenda items 19 and 20 which were read out to the Committee. Councillor Sweeting raised the following concerns:

·         both proposed applications were sited within built up areas in the middle of dense housing (and very close to two primary schools in the case of agenda item 94);

·         local residents had voiced their objections to both the proposed installations;

·         the proposed masts would dominate the local areas and be out of keeping with the low height residential areas surrounding them;

·         the masts would create ugly and domineering structures and would not harmonise with local surroundings;

·         local residents feared that their health could be negatively impacted.

Members observed that this was the wrong location for such a development.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Installation of 18m monopole C/W wraparound cabinet at base, 3 equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance)

Recommendation: Refusal

Installation of 18m monopole C/W wraparound cabinet at base, 3 equipment cabinets and associated ancillary works (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance)

Officers introduced the report noting that the proposed mast would be sited in an open position. It was considered that it would have limited impact on the residential visible amenity but would impact negatively on the street scene. The application was recommended for refusal.

Councillor Jan Sweeting had submitted written representations in relation to both this and the previous application - these had been read out to Councillors under the previous agenda item.

Councillors noted that the proposed site was in an open area at the entrance to a park and deemed this to be unacceptable. Members had no further comments.

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

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 declared as exempt from publication as it involves the disclosure of information in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraphs 1, 2 & 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 breach 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 & 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 breach 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 & 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 breach 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 & 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 breach 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 & 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 breach 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 & 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.