Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Roy Chamdal, with Councillor Ray Graham substituting.

Councillor Ray Graham declared a non pecuniary interest in Item 12 - Enforcement Report and left the room whilst the item was discussed.

Councillor Jazz Dhillon declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 13 - Enforcement Report and left the room whilst the item was discussed.

There had been 2 reports notified as urgent.

It was confirmed that all items in Part 1 would be heard in public and those items in Part 2 would be heard in private.

2 x two storey, 3-bed semi detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space to include the installation of bin stores to sides involving demolition of existing bungalow.

Recommendation:  Refusal

2 x two storey, 3-bed semi detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space to include the installation of bin stores to sides involving demolition of existing bungalow.

Officers introduced the report providing a brief summary of the application.

In accordance with the Council's constitution the applicant addressed the meeting.  The petitioners were not present at the meeting.

The applicant made the following points:

·         There were already 2 applications that had been approved to extend the property.

·         The floor area for the current proposal was 119 sq metres, with the extensions already approved being 177 sq metres. The committee may wish to consider this.

·         2 parking spaces had been provided and as minimal amenity space would be needed at the front there would be space for a disabled ramp to be installed.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting making the following points:-

·         Over the past 2 years there had been 12 applications made on this site.

·         The current application was for 2, 3 bed semi detached houses.

·         The key area for concern was the flooding, which had been covered in reason for refusal 4.

·         The applicant was not proposing to occupy one of the proposed dwellings once built.

·         The proposal was a cramped form of development, which was too big for the site that would cause a loss of outlook, be visually intrusive and needed to be scaled back.

·         The proposed development despite the Environment Agency's concerns about flooding, does not comply with Lifetime Home Standards.

·         Tandem parking was being proposed, which was felt to be impractical.

·         Felt that the officer's recommendation for refusal was correct.

In answer to a question raised in relation to the floor area officers advised the Committee that the 2013 prior approval process allowed an extension to be built up to 6 metres deep for a semi-detached property or 8 metres for a detached property.  The only issue that could be taken into consideration for these applications was whether there were any objections received from adjoining occupiers.  A prior approval application did not consider the same aspects and would only be reduced down to 4.15 metres, if there was an impact on neighbouring occupiers.  If a prior approval application was refused it would not have been sustainable at appeal.

The Legal Advisor explained that while PD rights could be a material consideration, Members would have to judge what weight to give to them in this instance in light of the large differences between the current application and the prior approval applications.

The recommendation for refusal with the additional reason on the addendum sheet 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 officer's report and the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting. 

Two storey rear extension (Part Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

Two storey rear extension (Part Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report providing a brief summary of the application.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting and the agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

·         The report glazed over a couple of issues.

·         There was a loss of privacy to No. 18 Orchard Waye as the windows in the rear of the extension looked directly into the rear garden.

·         The extension had led to the loss of light to neighbouring occupiers.

·         The extension had already been finished creating overshadowing to the rear garden of No 18.

·         The extension was out of keeping as there were no other double storey extensions in Orchard Waye.

·         The applicant does not live in the property so felt the extension was for financial gain.

·         The occupiers of No. 18 Orchard Waye had not been consulted under the Party Wall Act.

·         There were two semi-detached houses being built next door to No 17, which would further decrease the on street parking in the road.

·         The applicant had no regard for the neighbours.

·         The extension had been built without planning permission.

The agent made the following points:-

·         The applicant regretted that work on the extension had commenced.

·         The erection of two semi-detached dwellings had made a difference to the rear access to 17 Orchard Waye.

·         The foundations for the extension had been dug and work continued, which the applicant regretted had happened.

·         The report acknowledged that all the Council's policies and supplementary planning guidance required had been followed.

·         Amended plans had been submitted providing a change to the first floor layout to eliminate potential overlooking.

·         Evergreen semi mature trees could be planted to minimise overlooking.

·         Would welcome members making a site visit before making their decision.

·         Existing rear windows of nos. 17 & 18 do not meet the overlooking distance as they were both within the required 21 metre distance.

The Ward Councillor made the following points:-

·         Highlighted the point already made that the extension had been commenced, without planning permission.

·         The neighbours had not had any communication from the applicant about the extension.

·         A similar application to that being considered had already been refused.

·         The extension was visually intrusive and impacted on the residents in Whitehall Road and Orchard Waye.

·         The extension would impact on the area as a whole as what has been built does not fit in with the character of the area.

·         The first floor bedroom impacts on the residential amenity of the adjoining occupier due to overlooking.

·         It was disappointing that the works had already commenced and looked forward to enforcement action being instigated.

In answer to the amended plans referred to by the agent officers advised that revised drawings had been received last week, but the application was already on the agenda for the meeting.  The plans would have required a re-consultation with neighbours and a new report, on that basis it was felt that the amended plans had been received too late in the process  ...  view the full minutes text for item 191.

3 x two storey, 3-bed terraced dwellings with associated parking and amenity space involving installation of vehicular access to front and demolition of existing garage to the side of No.17.

Recommendation: Refusal

3 x two storey, 3-bed terraced dwellings with associated parking and amenity space involving installation of vehicular access to front and demolition of existing  garage to the side of No.17.

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application and  concerns.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting. The agent/applicant was not present at the meeting.

The petitioner objecting made the following points:-

·         Was speaking on behalf of the 48 residents who had signed the petition.

·         The development plot was small and cramped.

·         The report was comprehensive with 2 reasons for refusal and felt that a third reason could be added in relation to over dominance.

·         Previous applications that had been refused were very similar to the current application, with just small amendments.

·         The footprint and position of the development was still the same.

·         The living wall proposed was north facing so would not get any sunlight.

·         The Conservation Officer raised concerns about the scale of the development as it was detrimental to the Area of Special Local Character.

·         Asked the committee to add a third reason for refusal on over dominance or if not to agree the officer's recommendation.

The Chairman asked officers whether a third reason for refusal could be added as suggested by the petitioner.

Officers advised that the proposal complied with the Residential Layout Design Guidance and it was felt that with effective screening a reason for refusal on over dominance would not be sustainable.

A member asked officers about the access to the proposed development as it was felt that this would affect the amenity of 16 & 17 North Common Road.

Officers explained that this situation had been looked at previously so the impact on the properties had not changed.  There had been no reason for refusal included on this issue on previous applications.

A member suggested that as there had been a policy change the loss of amenity to existing residents could be considered as a reason for refusal.  The access arrangement between the two properties was not felt to be acceptable.

Officers advised that in relation to noise and disturbance the Environmental Protection Unit had not raised any concerns.  The concerns raised in relation to noise and disturbance could be dealt with by condition, officers felt that the two reasons for refusal in the report were robust.

A member stated that the application before Committee was over dominant and an un-neighbourly development.  The existing properties in this area had large gardens and this development would be out of character in an Area of Special Character. 

In answer to a question raised about the footprint of the proposed development officers advised the Committee that there was little difference between the footprint of this proposal and previous applications.

The Committee felt that there should be two additional reasons for refusal in regards to the impact on nos. 16 & 17 North Common Road and the loss of amenity and overbearing nature of the development on 170A North  ...  view the full minutes text for item 192.

Alterations to existing storage room in the Bannerman Building to include creation of office space involving installation of a vertical double paned window and brickwork plinth following removal of existing roller shutter door.

Recommendation: Approval

Alterations to existing storage room in the Bannerman Building to include creation of office space involving installation of a vertical double paned window and brickwork plinth following removal of existing roller shutter door.

Officers introduced the report providing a summary of the application being considered.

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

Resolved - That the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

Details pursuant to conditions 3 (Materials), 4 (Boundary Treatment), 5 (Refuse Storage), 6 (Existing and Proposed Ground Levels), 7 (Crime Prevention), 9 (Educational Facilities), 12 (Sight Lines), 14 (Secure Cycle Storage), 15 (Hard and Soft Landscaping), 17 (Landscape Period), 20 (Building Entrances), 21 (Parking Provisions), 23 (Sustainable Urban Drainage) and 24 (Sound Insulation Scheme) of planning permission ref: 36892/APP/2010/749 dated 13/04/2011 (Two storey detached building with habitable roof space comprising 6 one-bedroom and 2 two- bedroom flats with associated parking, amenity space and installation of new vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing detached dwelling and outbuilding).

Recommendation: Refusal

Details pursuant to conditions 3 (Materials), 4 (Boundary Treatment), 5 (Refuse Storage), 6 (Existing and Proposed Ground Levels), 7 (Crime Prevention), 9 (Educational Facilities), 12 (Sight Lines), 14 (Secure Cycle Storage), 15 (Hard and Soft Landscaping), 17 (Landscape Period), 20 (Building Entrances), 21 (Parking Provisions), 23 (Sustainable Urban Drainage) and 24 (Sound Insulation Scheme) of planning permission ref: 36892/APP/2010/749 dated 13/04/2011 (Two storey detached building with habitable roof space comprising 6 one-bedroom and 2 two- bedroom flats with associated parking, amenity space and installation of new vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing detached dwelling and outbuilding).

Officers introduced the report providing a summary of the application being considered.

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

Resolved - That the application was refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

Retention of single storey outbuilding (Retrospective Application).

Recommendation:  Approval

Retention of single storey outbuilding (Retrospective Application).

Officers introduced the report providing a summary of the application being considered.

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

Resolved - That the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

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 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).

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 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).

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 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).

Demolition of existing building and construction of a new single storey building for use within Class A1 or A2 with associated parking and landscaping.

Recommendation:  Approval

Officer's introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application.  The applicant had requested the deletion of condition 8 but this was not considered acceptable as if the site was to be occupied by a retail use there were concerns regarding delivery vehicles blocking car parking spaces.

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

Resolved - That the application was approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

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 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).