Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Janet Duncan, with Cllr Jazz Dhillon substituting.

Cllr Alan Chapman declared a non pecuniary interest in relation to the Former Tommy Flynns PH and left the room during the consideration of the item.

A declaration of interest was declared by Cllr John Oswell in relation to agenda item 6 as he was the local Ward Councillor.

RESOLVED – That the minutes from the 22 August 2018 were approved as an accurate record.

Agenda item 10 was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

It was confirmed that all items would be heard in Part I.

Demolition of 3 dwellinghouses and redevelopment of site to provide 21 (3 x studio, 4 x 1 bed, 10 x 2 bed and 4 x 3 bed) units within 2 new buildings with associated access, parking, landscaping and amenity space

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED – That the application be approved subject to the changes in the addendum, s106, deletion of condition 10 and the additional conditions agreed at the meeting.  

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of three dwelling houses and redevelopment of site to provide 21 units within two new buildings with associated access, parking, landscaping and amenity space. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval and section 106.

There were no petitioners present for this application.

The agent addressed the Committee and submitted that the proposal provided much needed housing in a sustainable location. The application had been amended to address concerns raised by officers and residents.  It now comprised of two new residential blocks, providing a mixture of unit sizes, associated access parking, landscaping and amenity space with various revisions to the scheme. There was also an agreement to make an affordable housing contribution of £151,000. The current proposal followed a very similar format adopted on the adjacent site at Kingswood Place, but had been scaled down. Following concerns raised, the front block had been lowered, the height of the eaves had been amended and brick was being used as the only facing material. The revised external design met necessary requirements. Overall, the agent submitted that the pedestrian layout, road, bin and bike store, parking and  amenity space had been improved following concerns raised. Four large three bedroom units at ground floor level had also been included. The reduced scale had been carefully considered, and every point raised had been responded to and adjusted. The amended scheme accorded with policy and made the most efficient and effective use of the site, providing much needed housing and, overall, was a positive addition.

Members discussed the application and noted the increased housing contribution. Members questioned whether this application breached the 10% rule. The Head of Planning explained that there were no precise figures, however based on recent appeal decision, a refusal could not be made solely on this reason. The 10 % rule was mainly there to protect street scenes from excessive cluttered development proposals.

Members welcomed that the development’s architectural style was in keeping with the Kingswood Place and that the plans had been revised following consultation. Members questioned whether the fact that the access point would be shared with Kingswood Place, would mean that additional traffic control measures were needed. Officers confirmed that that no additional traffic control measures were needed.

It was suggested that an additional condition be included in relation to enhanced noise. Given that the development had living rooms with bedrooms above, this would be relevant to certain blocks. Officers confirmed that this would not be an issue.

In light of the points raised in relation to air quality, it was confirmed that condition 11 was robust.

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

RESOLVED – That the application and s 106 be approved, subject to the changes in the addendum and conditions agreed at the meeting relating to noise.

Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref. 8396/APP/2016/777 dated 04-11-2016 (Redevelopment of the site to provide a new three storey building containing 26 flats (Class C3) with associated parking, balconies, landscaping and rear communal amenity space) to relocate the bin storage area and to introduce an additional studio unit with associated elevation, parking and landscaping alterations.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation and subject to the changes in the addendum.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref: 8396/APP/2016/777 dated 04-11-2016 (Redevelopment of the site to provide a new three storey building containing 26 flats (Class C3) with associated parking, balconies, landscaping and rear communal amenity space) to relocate the bin storage area and to introduce an additional studio unit with associated elevation, parking and landscaping alterations). Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for refusal.

Three petitioners spoke in objection to the application for a total of five minutes, and in summary, submitted that the residents at Snowdon Avenue would be adversely affected by noise and odour if this development were to go ahead. Car exhausts fumes and odour towards the kitchen existed. One of the properties had a kitchen air vent which faced the proposed bin area which was less than six metres away. This was wholly inappropriate and living space would be ruined if the application was approved. Petitioners were disappointed with the 30 m limit for rubbish in transit and considered that the scheme represented a massive hurdle for disabled residents. There was also an issue with foxes in the area which could affect waste bins. Petitioners were encouraged by the fact that officers made a recommendation for refusal. The relocation of cycle store, expansion of the car park and loss of the soft space would bring unacceptable noise and disturbance. It would endanger what remained of the trees on the site and, if approved, would revert back to the cramped overdeveloped area. The layout of the car park seemed to differ to the approved land. The process had been stressful for petitioners. Petitioners asked for the application to be refused.

The agent addressed the Committee and made the following points. The agent referred to a briefing note that had been circulated earlier to all Members, the petitioners and officers. The agent asked Members to consider the facts, have regard to the suggested planning conditions and asked for them to support this application. This application was a minor amendment to an approved scheme which was now under construction and substantially complete. It was submitted that the officer’s report raised no objection to the additional housing unit, waste officers confirmed the acceptability of the bins location, highways officers supported the application for additional car and cycle spaces and the design and the window, door and size were all supported. The agent referred to national planning policy guidance where it was stated that in cases where conditions could be suitably imposed, planning permission should not be refused. The agent noted the refusal reasons and commented on them each individually. The agent submitted that, in light of the need for more housing in urban areas and the suggested planning conditions, this application should be approved.

Members questioned whether the refusal reason on the trees and whether the suggested conditions could overcome the refusal reasons. Officers explained that the purpose of lodging  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

The erection of a three storey building comprising 3x1 bed, 6x2 bed and 3x3 bed flats with associated parking, cycle and amenity space.

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED – That the application and s106 be approved subject to the changes in the addendum.  

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the erection of a three storey building comprising 3x1 bed, 6x2 bed and 3x3 bed flats with associated parking, cycle and amenity space. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval and sec 106.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. The petitioner asked for this site to be developed as it had been derelict for the past 14 years. However, the petitioner submitted that this high density application should not be approved. The petitioner gave a history of previous applications on the site and refusal reasons. The petitioner raised significant concerns about the pedestrian footpath and the position of the curb for the access road and how it impacted residents in particular children. The density of the development was also a concern as there were 12 flats which counted as 24 bedrooms. Some of the bedrooms would be three bedroom accommodation with no access to amenity space. The car parking space had no turning area. The petitioner explained that this application had not grown much. There was no visitor parking space and the petitioner questioned whether a proper consultation had been carried out. In summary, the petitioner submitted that the pedestrian layout made it unsafe for children to travel. The petitioner asked for the application to be refused.

The agent addressed the Committee and submitted that many of the arguments put forward by the petitioner related to previous applications. Those applications were independent from today’s application and the client acquired the site in 2016. Extensive discussions took place with officers about the cottages (which were derelict for approximately 18 years) and a full assessment was undertaken. There was an aim to retain the cottages, however they could not be retained. A consultation period had been carried out. Parking standards, amenity and flats complied with standards and this was a reasonable scheme maximising the ability to provide housing on this site. The applicant was offering the Council £115k in affordable housing contributions and £20k due to off site sustainable measures. The applicant had been generous with affordable housing. The scheme was a reasonable proposal, meeting all standards and the agent asked for approval.

At the outset, the Chairman reminded the Committee would only be able to consider comments and changes in relation to the consented nine unit scheme. This application had to be determined in on its own merits. The Head of Planning commented the 2004 application related to 12 units however it had many different aspects to its application, which he highlighted to the Committee.

Members noted that planning permission existed for this block of nine flats and also that the street appearance appeared relatively the same. The changes were all policy complaint in terms of amenity space and size and use.

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

RESOLVED – That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation and subject to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Demolition of the existing sports hall and construction of a replacement sports hall to provide indoor PE and sports facilities (Amended plan to include provision of external platform lift, amended Energy Statement, amended Flood Risk Assessment & Clarification Statement received).

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED – That the application and s106 be approved, subject to the changes in the addendum and additional condition agreed at the meeting.

ST JOHNS SCHOOL, POTTER STREET HILL, NORTHWOOD - 10795/APP/2018/149  (Agenda Item 9)

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing sports hall and construction of a replacement sports hall to provide indoor PE and sports facilities. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval and sec 106.

A petition was submitted in objection of the application. A petitioner and nominated representative spoke in objection of the application. The petitioner explained that this development concerned an application in a green belt for which there was clear judicial authority and case law. Need meant required for the public and community as a whole, it did not mean need or desire for a private interests. Unmet need alone was unlikely to constitute very special circumstances, and the hurdle to prove this was very high. Even in cases involving children’s education, family housing and human rights, applications were denied given the substantial weight given to greenbelts. Openness and visual impacts were two distinct concepts. Loss of openness added further substantial harm and could not be mitigated against. Other factors also needed to be considered, there was no legal indoor requirement for physical education and the petitioner explained what the legal requirements were. The petitioner submitted that Sports England was only a statutory consultee, they were unable to dictate the size and design of the sports hall. A robust and up to date assessment of the need in the area had not been done. The correct height of the hall was 9.6 metres. The PE timetable was a total of eight  hours divided into 14 lessons which was less then 50% of the sports hall capacity. A real requirement had not been demonstrated for the replacement of the school gym.

School, parents and even Ofsted had said that the provision for a sporting performance was already excellent in the school.  Current sports resources were under utilised and it did not make sense to develop this building when the area already had accessibility difficulties. The petitioner made reference to paragraph 73 of the NPPF, the fact that legally changing and shower facilities were only required for children over 11 years old and there were better options for Community Use Agreement in local schools outside the Green Belt.  The real question to be answered was whether there were any very special circumstances to justify this development. The nominated representative submitted that in this case there was no requirement in the greenbelt area, the need was questionable and the case was fatally flawed. The mitigation offered did not compensate anything. It was submitted that there was a need to be guardians of the greenbelt as when it is gone it is gone, and hence this application needed to be rejected.

The Headmaster for the school was nominated to speak on behalf of the applicant/ agent. He submitted that the school had worked with the LBH for the past three years and provided the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Variation of S106 Agreement associated with planning permission ref. 8218/APP/2011/1853 dated 12/6/13: Redevelopment of Norwich Union House to erect a 9 storey building comprising retail floorspace at ground floor level and 8 storeys of residential units (37 units) with associated gym, access and parking arrangements, in order to refund the £161,729.60 affordable housing contribution as the scheme is now providing 100% affordable housing.

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

This application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

This application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.