Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Keith Burrows with Councillor Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana substituting and from Councillor Roy Chamdal with Councillor Darran Davies substituting.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 15 January 2025 be agreed as an accurate record.

None.

It was confirmed that all items of business were marked Part 1 and would be considered in public.

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

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

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

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. The application was recommended for approval.

Three petitions in objection to the application had been received and two lead petitioners were in attendance to address the Committee Members. Members were presented with a Notes of Evidence document for reference. The following points were highlighted:

• The site had previously been the subject of a National Crime Agency raid for drug dealing.
• The applicant was the owner of the property, and First Chapter Homes was to care for the children despite having no track record in running a children's care home, as the company had been set up in March 2024.
• There was significant opposition to the proposal from local residents, with three petitions and over 360 signatures, as well as support from Ward Councillor Lewis, local MP David Simmonds, and the headmaster of nearby Saint Martin's School.
• The Committee was urged to refuse the application to protect the residents' right to quiet enjoyment of their homes.
• Noise concerns were raised, with the Council’s noise officer concluding that the noise would not be above the norm within a residential setting, which was contested by the residents.
• The number of people in the home was expected to exceed the norm, with four children, four carers, a cleaner, a cook, social workers, youth workers, family members, and friends visiting regularly.
• The use of restraining techniques was mentioned, with three pages dedicated to how they would be used.
• The planning officer had conceded that the procedures suggested by the applicant would not necessarily prevent potential noise and disturbance.
• Residents were expected to engage the police or local authority if there was antisocial behaviour, which was seen as impractical.
• The garden was deemed unsuitable, and it was anticipated that children would play at the front of the house.
• Valuable residential space would be lost to a commercial operation during a housing crisis. The Borough's housing buyback scheme had been announced by Councillor Eddie Lavery in 2024 and there was an acute need for housing in the Borough.

• The location of the proposed Children’s centre was unsuitable - Northwood had already lost its police station, and the nearest police presence some distance away.
• It was a strategic objective to ensure that development contributed to a reduction in crime and disorder which this application would fail to do.
• Officers claimed there was no evidence that criminal activity or antisocial activity was more prevalent or extreme in a children's care home, but this was inaccurate as evidenced by Ofsted.
• The proposal would lead to an increase in antisocial behaviour.
• The location was unsuitable for teenagers due to its lack of entertainment and amenities.
• Existing housing stock should be prioritised unless there were exceptional circumstances.
• The application was deemed speculative and incoherent, with no guarantee that the adolescents housed there would be from the Borough.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Erection of a two storey, 2-bed attached dwelling with associated cycle storage and amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the item be deferred to allow a site visit to take place.

Erection of a two storey, 2-bed attached dwelling with associated cycle storage and amenity space

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum.

A petition in objection to the application had been received. The lead petitioner had submitted a written representation which was read out for the attention of the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The report provided information that differed from the experiences of local residents.
• The current property had been extended significantly, increasing its capacity beyond the stated four bedrooms.
• The proposed new two-bedroom house would create overdevelopment and dominate the views of neighbouring homes.
• The new house had the potential to be converted into a four-bedroom property, leading to a large HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) with up to 20 persons.
• The description of the family home in the report was considered misleading as the current house accommodated many people.
• A large HMO would have serious consequences for residents, including parking issues, noise, litter, and disruption.
• The assessments made by officers in the report were based on an underestimate of the current and proposed building capacities.
• The Committee was requested to refuse the application or conduct a full site visit.

The agent for the application had also submitted a written statement which was read out for the consideration of the voting Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The importance of maintaining the integrity and character of the area was highlighted.?
• It was alleged that No.13 was not, and would not be, used as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) but as a C3 dwellinghouse by a single family. ?
• Evidence, including a Shorthold Assured Tenancy Agreement, photographs, and a visit by Enforcement Officers on 11th February 2025, confirmed that the property remained a C3 dwellinghouse. ?
• The applicant's brother planned to move into No.13, while the applicant and his family would occupy the new dwelling. ?
• No. 13's location at the end of a cul-de-sac allowed the new dwelling to be a discrete addition, maintaining visual harmony. ?
• The new dwelling's scale, design, materials, and detailing had been chosen to complement the surrounding architecture. ?
• The design aimed to enhance the area's character and integrate seamlessly with the surroundings. ?
• Paddington Planning requested that the application be approved, emphasising the development's positive contribution to the neighbourhood. ?

Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting was in attendance and addressed Members in support of petitioners. Key points raised included:

• The report claimed that the proposed attached 2-bedroom property would be relatively modest, with sufficient roadside capacity to accommodate vehicles from the existing property.
• It stated that the proposal would not result in a reduction in residential amenity, a significant increase in activity or people movement, and the existing property was a family 4-bed home rented to a single family.
• However, a visit by the Council's enforcement team had found significant discrepancies, revealing that the property was being used as a third generous HMO with the potential of having 8, not 4, bedrooms.
• The proposed new 2-bedroom property could easily move into a four-bedroom property  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Replacement of existing 2 x single storey toilet facilities at Willow Lawn and Woody Bay, provision of replacement single storey 2 x toilets and changing facility buildings, and associated works and landscaping.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Replacement of existing 2 x single storey toilet facilities at Willow Lawn and Woody Bay, provision of replacement single storey 2 x toilets and changing facility buildings, and associated works and landscaping.

Officers presented the report noting that the application was recommended for approval.

Ward Councillor Peter Smallwood was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Smallwood outlined the importance of the landscaping condition. He noted that the toilets at the Lido had often been closed which had been inconvenient and had led to antisocial behaviour.

Members enquired why changing facilities were needed given that swimming at the Lido was forbidden. It was explained that the proposed changing facilities would be for the use of families and those with disabilities.  

In response to further questions from Councillors, it was explained that a large tank would provide emergency overflow back up if needed.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.