Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

None.

None.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 16 December 2025 be agreed as an accurate record.

None.

It was confirmed that all items of business were marked Part I and would be considered in public.

Demolition of existing house and erection of a two storey, new build house consisting of 6no. bedrooms with a basement (Amended plans and description).

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Demolition of existing house and erection of a two storey, new build house consisting of 6no. bedrooms with a basement (Amended plans and description).

Officers introduced the item.

The lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee:

• There had been extensive interest over this application.
• Many issues remained unresolved in the officer's report.
• Bulk, scale, and massing were out of character with the area.
• The total footprint will be three times the current footprint.
• The new height will be 9.3m which was much higher than the existing property and higher than the property next door.
• There will only be a one metre gap between the two properties.
• This would go against the character of the area.
• Neighbouring properties will lose some privacy because of the height, bulk and large first floor windows.
• Number 45a was especially affected because it was a bungalow.
• Number 53 was a residential care home where the back garden is used as an amenity for the residents who will be overlooked.
• There were concerns about subsidence and flooding in the large basement – many houses in the area had been affected by subsidence. The basement impact assessment does not refer to this.
• Sweetcroft Lane was narrow with limited parking, and was a cut-through for Long Lane.
• The demolition and construction work will require continuous heavy vehicle movement which will result in traffic restricting access to residents.

Members asked and the petitioner confirmed that they lived adjacent to the application site.

Members asked and officers confirmed that the size of the access road was unchanged.

Members asked about the number of instances of subsidence, if these were recent instances, and if people who had experienced this had signed the petition. The petitioner noted that they were aware of at least seven instances of subsidence. This was the reason for concerns about the basement.

The agent was in attendance and addressed the Committee:

• The agent thanked planning officers for their cooperation.
• The proposal had been through a long and careful design process guided directly by the Council's pre-application advice and subsequent officer feedback.
• The scheme presented here was not the original proposal, but the outcome of meaningful revisions specifically made to address previous concerns and mitigate harm to the local context to try and uphold and improve upon the high standard of housing that was present in the community.
• The site was located within a developed area of the borough where the replacement of an existing dwelling was acceptable in principle. This was confirmed during pre-application discussions and feedback.
• Importantly, the proposal did not introduce additional units, did not subdivide the plot, and did not constitute inappropriate backland development.
• It remained a single family home on a large plot of approximately 1,800 square meters, consistent with the established residential character of Sweetcroft Lane.
• A key concern raised previously related to excessive footprint and roof form. These points have been directly addressed.
• The depth of the building had been reduced, improving relationships with the neighbouring properties. The overall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

Reconfiguration, alteration, and extension of existing hotel (providing additional hotel rooms) (Use Class C1), together with erection of a new apart-hotel building (Use Class C1) on car park land to the north (AMENDED PLANS)

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Reconfiguration, alteration, and extension of existing hotel (providing additional hotel rooms) (Use Class C1), together with erection of a new apart-hotel building (Use Class C1) on car park land to the north (AMENDED PLANS)

Officers introduced the application.

Members asked for clarify on a building at the back. Officers confirmed that this had been discussed at length with the applicant.

Condition 23 restricted the length of stay for the hotel. Officers had worked with the Planning Enforcement team to ensure this condition was robust and enforceable.

Reporting on length of stay was the responsibility of the applicant rather than the Council.

Members asked about controlled local parking. The site with within a close distance to a bus stop. Officers had asked for a car parking design and management plan. Including information on how the 55 parking spaces would be managed. Offices further advised that given that the development had limited car parking, they had secured an active travel zone healthy streets contribution of £112,000.

Members asked about a S106 agreements in relation to jobs and training. Officers confirmed that there was an employment strategy.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Creation of 5no. self-contained flats with associated cycle and bin storage, following the change of use of first floor from office (Class E) to residential (Class C3), the erection of a two storey rear extension and alterations to rear building at first floor level and the retention and reconfiguration of the Class E unit at ground floor level with alterations to fenestration.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Creation of 5no. self-contained flats with associated cycle and bin storage, following the change of use of first floor from office (Class E) to residential (Class C3), the erection of a two storey rear extension and alterations to rear building at first floor level and the retention and reconfiguration of the Class E unit at ground floor level with alterations to fenestration.

Officers introduced the application.

Members referenced the report which noted that while the Conservation Officer had objected to the proposed two storey rear extension, the Planning Inspector for the previous appeal had confirmed that the proposed extensions and alterations would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Members asked if there had been a written submission from the Member who called-in the application. The Chair confirmed that there had not.

Delegated approvals were possible and if called-in, Members expressed a preference for this to be accompanied with attendance or a written submission.

Officers confirmed that the call-in cited concerns about amenity, over-development and private amenity space.

Officers’ recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Facade alteration for the installation of On Demand Grocery Hatch (ODG) at ground floor level, with associated parking space for delivery vehicles (Description Amended)

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Facade alteration for the installation of On Demand Grocery Hatch (ODG) at ground floor level, with associated parking space for delivery vehicles (Description Amended)

Officers introduced the application, noting that it had been brought to Committee due to a Council interest in the car park.

Members asked if there would be any impact on disabled parking spaces. Officers noted that the disabled parking would be retained.

Members asked how confident officers were in the operational management plan, in relation to any potential ASB caused by delivery drivers in particular. Officers cited a detailed condition in the operational management plan which required details to be submitted prior to the operational of the use and also includes information on monitoring delivery drivers.

Officers’ recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved