Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

There were no apologies.

None.

RESOLVED: That the minutes from the meeting on 16 July 2024 be approved.

None.

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

It was confirmed that item 7 had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Change of use from residential dwelling (Use Class C3) to children's care home (Use Class C2), to include a bike and bin store.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the item be deferred

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum, which referred to a submission made by a Ward Councillor.

Offices added a verbal amendment to Condition 4, which related to restricted permitted development rights. There was a reference in the condition to the third floor of the building being restricted but it was clarified that the restriction would cover the entirety of the building.

The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:

• The petitioner thanked the Committee for giving them the opportunity to explain their position
• The petition reflected the concerns of a large number of petitioners, many of whom had been living in the neighbourhood for decades
• The applicant had attempted to airbrush the use as comparative to a family dwelling, but this was not true
• The proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on noise both inside and outside of the property; parking; congestion; trip generation; CO2 emissions; and disturbance to neighbours due to comings and goings during the day and also during evenings and weekends
• The report stated that the property would cater for up to four children with emotional and behavioural difficulties with a staff ratio of two adults to one child. This implied up to eight carers plus managerial staff
• The report assumed there would be only three car users. This overlooked the 2:1 ratio
• There could be 14-16 people in the property at any one time
• Further footfall from social workers, support workers, parents and friends of the children had not been accounted for
• All of this would add to the noise, parking, traffic and CO2 emissions
• The report’s conclusions, that were based on three careers rather than eight, were hence flawed
• The application stated that there would be three parking spaces in front of the property and two additional spaces which were essentially a garage. However, once two cars were parked in the garage it would be difficult, if not impossible, to open a car door to get out of a vehicle. This was impractical
• One of the bays was blocked by another bay
• The report stated that the site can potentially accommodate in excess of half-a-dozen vehicles arranged in an informal fashion. The safety impact of jamming cars into the driveway had not been considered. There was no consideration for emergency vehicles to access the building. Displaced on street parking was therefore inevitable
• On noise, the application stated that the children would have behavioural and emotional difficulties, and acknowledged that despite meticulous planning and care, the children’s behaviour may occasionally fall below acceptable standards. Staff may need to use restraint techniques. This would cause noise and disturbance
• The noise control plan was merely words. It gave an email address to register a complaint which would aim to be resolved within three working days. The Council did not investigate domestic noises
• In addition to the noise, there would be disturbance from the comings and goings to the property by four children; up to 8 carers; social workers; health workers and four  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

ITEM WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA

This item was withdrawn from the agenda

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Variation of Condition 5 (approved plans) and removal of Condition 18 (resident parking permit restrictions) of planning permission ref. 65680/APP/2011/36 dated 04-04-2011 for 'Erection of 4 two-bedroom back to back two storey dwellings with associated parking and amenity space and installation of new vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing detached dwelling' for minor material amendments to the internal and external fabric of the building.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the item be approved

Officers introduced the application. It was important to note that the assessment of the proposal placed before Members for determination was restricted to the proposed amendments and not matters which had already been benefited from planning consent.

The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:

• The petitioner noted the 2011 application (65680/APP/2011/36)
• The current application reference was 65680/APP/2023/2256
• It was disappointing that only the two conditions were being considered and not the full application
• Residents had a lot of interest in this application given the history of the site
• The site was derelict and untouched
• One of the key points was that the parking management scheme should not be negatively affected

Councillor Steve Tuckwell addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and made the following points:

• It was fully understood that the current application was on the basis of determining the variation of Condition 5 and the removal of Condition 18 from the parent planning permission that was granted in April 2011
• The Committee can only determine what was presented to it
• However, points needed to be raised for public record and for clarification
• Residents believed that their opportunity to raise legitimate concerns using the petitions process about the overall application has been denied. For this reason, planning officers were asked to outline the following points:
  • What was the underpinning logic of granting the Certificate of Lawful Development on the 17 July 2024?
  • What weight was applied to the planning application document contained within today's application that expressly referenced that the development of the site did not commence until the 01 May 2014, one month after the 2011 planning consent expired?
  • Given that this petition was submitted by residents in September 2023 expressing concern over the overall development, why was the Certificate of Lawful Development granted before the matter was brought before this Committee this evening?
• Residents believed that the original planning application had expired and that the new application with the full adherence to updated planning policies, should have been submitted for full determination
• Whilst the Committee can only determine the variation and removal of conditions, not having the ability to determine the full application render this application devoid of the updated and refreshed planning policies, such as the provision of family homes and electric charging points, air quality and the excessive size of the dropped curb

Officers advised that they accepted an application for a certificate of lawfulness before determining the current application because the more robust way to address the extent of the original application was for the applicant to formalise and submit an application for officers to consider all the information. This was done and granted in July 2024.

In terms of the weight given to this current application documents, the application form did state that the dwelling had been demolished in May 2014. This was presumed to be an error and it was corrected to the date of 01 April 2014 and that was submitted on 01 July 2023. The applicant had submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Change of use of site containing 72 assisted living units (Use Class C2) with ancillary communal facilities, parking, and landscaped areas, to residential accommodation for primary occupiers aged over 55 (Use Class C3)

Recommendations: Approve + s106

RESOLVED: That the item be approved

Officers introduced the application.

Members highlighted the need for affordable housing.

Members asked about the legal definition of primary occupants, and whether the development would be restricted to over 55s only or just be primarily for over 55s. It was noted that the previous scheme had a similar arrangement whereby the primary occupier was restricted to being a person needing assisted living. The current arrangement would work in a similar way.

Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Conversion of roof space to habitable use, raising the roof ridge, 4 x side dormers, and 1 x side roof light

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the item be approved

Officers introduced the application.

Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved