Agenda and minutes

None.

Councillor John Hensley declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 9 as he was an academic advisor to Brunel University. He left the room for the consideration of this item.

Were agreed as an accurate record.

None.

All items were considered in Part I, with the exception of items 14, 15 and 16 which were considered in Part 2.

Part change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Sui Generis to be used as a mini cab office and a repair shop involving installation of new shop fronts to principal and rear elevations.

Recommendation : Refusal

Part change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Sui Generis to be used as a mini cab office and a repair shop involving installation of new shop fronts to principal and rear elevations.

Officers introduced the report, highlighting the changes set out in the addendum and provided a brief summary of the application. The Committee were informed that as part of the Cross Rail development, Nos 119-123 Station Road had been compulsorily acquired and the existing occupiers had been required to vacate. Officers explained that the current planning application sought permission to relocate one of the businesses from 119-123 Station Road

In accordance with the Council's constitution, representatives of both petitions in objection to the application addressed the meeting.

The petitioners made the following points:

·         The proposal was inappropriate to the character and appearance of the area due to the creation two new shop fronts elevations to Station Road and Station Approach.

·         The business relocation would be harmful to local residents and would create both light and noise pollution.

·         The relocation of the business would create congestion locally and make parking more difficult for local residents.

·         There was no requirement for another taxi firm as one already existed.

·         The four car parking spaces proposed, would be insufficient to sustain a business consisting of 50 cars.

·         Residents already suffered from blocked drive ways and the proposal would make matters worse.

·         Additional congestion would hamper delivery, refuse and emergency vehicles.

·         Local residents would suffer from noise as cars picked up their fares.

·         The proposal should be relocated to an industrial site.

·         The proposal would create health and safety concerns on Station Approach and create an environment which was more dangerous for young children to cross the road.

·         The increased congestion would cause problems for existing businesses in the local area.

The petitioner in support and applicant were one and the same person and made the following points:

·         The business had been successfully established in 2006.

·         The only reason the business was moving was due to the compulsory purchase.

·         A change of use had already been granted in April 2014.

·         There had been no concerns raised by the Council's Highways Engineer to the proposal.

·         The business owner already had access and rights of way in place.

·         Most local residents were given the opportunity to purchase parking spaces when they purchased their properties but had opted not to. Therefore, local concerns about parking were erroneous.

·         30 local families depended on the business for their living.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The ward Councillor confirmed that he been to the site and supported the application.

In response to points mentioned by the petitioners, the Committee raised concerns about the noise created by road traffic and how this compared to the noise from the local railway station. The Committee also enquired whether the taxi business was in operation when the petitioner in objection purchased their property and duly noted both responses to these questions.

The Committee asked about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) including alterations to shop front and installation of extraction flue to rear.

Recommendation : Refusal

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) including alterations to shop front and installation of extraction flue to rear

The report was withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant prior to the meeting.

3-bed detached dwelling (Outline application for access and scale).

Recommendation : Refusal

3-bed detached dwelling (Outline application for access and scale)

Officers introduced the report and summarised the main points arising from the application. The Committee noted that the front wall of the new dwelling would be set forward of the established building line on the south side of Colnedale Road.

The Committee heard that the application site, which formed part of the garden to No 5 West Common Road was a much narrower plot width than a typical home in the vicinity. The Committee agreed with the Officer view that the proposal would not be in keeping with the street scene and would be contrary to BE5, BE13 and B19.

In discussing the application, the Committee agreed that the proposal would be over dominant and result in a loss of daylight and sunlight to the adjoining property to the west, No 18 Colnedale Road. As a result, the Committee requested Officer to add height and position to the reasons for refusal cited in the Officer report.

The recommendation was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officers report and for height and position to be added reasons for refusal

Installation of photovoltaic panels to southern roof faces and new roof tiles.

Recommendation : Approval

Installation of photovoltaic panels to southern roof faces and new roof tiles

Officers introduced the report and provided a brief summary of the main issues.

The recommendation was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be approved for the reasons set out in the officers report.

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) involving installation of extraction flue to rear.

Recommendation : Refusal

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) involving installation of extraction flue to rear

Officers introduced the report and provided a brief summary of the main issues.

Having discussed the considerations relating to access and scale, the Committee agreed that the position and proximity of the new two storey  dwelling proposal would result in an over dominant effect and also contribute to a loss of daylight and sunlight  to the adjoining property to the west.

The recommendation was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officers report. The reasons of height and position to be added to the refusal reasons

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Sui Generis for use as a Job Centre Plus involving single storey infill extension to rear, alterations to shop front within shopping centre, installation of extraction ducts, external staircase and alterations to windows to rear.

Recommendation : Approval

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Sui Generis for use as a Job Centre Plus involving single storey infill extension to rear, alterations to shop front within shopping centre, installation of extraction ducts, external staircase and alterations to windows to rear

Officers introduced the report and provided a brief summary of the main issues.

The recommendation was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be approved for the reasons set out in the officers report.

Alterations to existing building and proposed use as bed and breakfast accommodation - 10 rooms (part retrospective).

Recommendation : Approval

Alterations to existing building and proposed use as bed and breakfast accommodation - 10 rooms (part retrospective)

Officers introduced the report and explained that the application sought a change of use from 16 unauthorised self contained flats to a proposed bed and breakfast operation containing 10 bedrooms.

Officers explained that the application was part retrospective as it sought to regularise some extensions which had been added to the building in the past.

The Committee noted that the site had an extensive planning and enforcement history.

Discussing the application, the Committee raised concerns about the use of the outbuilding  and that this should only be used for ancillary storage space to the main dwelling as a bed and breakfast.

Condition 8 was amended about the use of the out building. In addition, Condition 10 was amended regarding cars and vehicles not to over hang the highway as follows:

'For the avoidance of doubt, no vehicle shall be permitted to overhang the footway'.

The recommendation was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved -

That the application be approved for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

S106 Quarterly Report

Officers introduced the report which provided financial information on s106 and s278 agreements in the Central and South Planning Committee area up to 31 March 2014 where the Council has or holds funds.

Resolved -

That the contents of the report be noted.

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

1. That the enforcement actions 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 this 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).

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

1. That the enforcement actions 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 this 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).

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

1. That the enforcement actions 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 this 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).