To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies were received.

In accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the Planning Protocol, Members are requested to declare any interests orally at the start of the meeting and again immediately before consideration of the matter. Members are reminded to specify the agenda item number to which it refers and whether the interest is of a personal or prejudicial nature.

Members are also asked to declare whether they have been subject to lobbying from interested parties, if they have carried out any site visits and whether they have predetermined their view on any item to be considered.

Members are also reminded of the requirements of Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 that they should declare and not vote on specified matters if they are two months or more in arrears with their Council Tax payments.

Councillor Naylor and Councillor Linnette declared that they had carried out site visits for applications 10/1865/FUL; 10/1864/FUL; 12/0918/FUL and 12/0822/HOT.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 5 July 2012 ATTACHED.

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 July 2012 were received and approved as a correct record of proceedings.

Reports of the Development Control Manager attached – see list below.

The recommendations contained in the attached reports are those of the officers and are not binding upon the Committee.

The Chairman will confirm the order in which the attached reports are to be heard at the start of the meeting. Members are asked to note that there may be an adjournment of the meeting for a period of approximately 10 minutes starting at a convenient time from 8.30pm.

Erection of 9 affordable housing units (5 x 3-bed houses, 3 x 4-bed houses and 1 x 5-bed house).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION subject to S106

legal agreement or a financial contribution

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no amendments to the report.

The Committee heard representations against the application from local residents Mr Keegan and Mr Carr.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Hinsley, the agent.

Councillor Coombs spoke as an Interested Councillor.

The Committee considered the points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members discussed the application in relation to development management policy DM HO3 (Backland Development). It was recognised that the proposal would entail the loss of garden space for properties at Harvey Road and this was generally seen as regrettable. However, Members weighed this up against the provision of family sized affordable housing units which was seen as beneficial to the borough. Members considered how the proposal fitted into the surrounding streetscene. It was noted that many other developments in the vicinity could be classed as ‘backland’.

Resident access via Daniel Close and road safety was also considered. It was recognised that there was no pavement to Daniel Close but it was viewed that this did not currently appear to cause problems for existing residents of the close, and the proposed development was not seen to unduly exacerbate safety issues; nor was parking seen to be of particular concern in the vicinity. Members were mindful of local residents’ concerns about the landscaping of the proposed development, but felt that this issue could be addressed by amending the landscaping condition. 

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to:

a)      a Section 106 legal agreement securing 9 affordable housing units for affordable rent;

b)      a financial contribution towards education, health, transport and the public realm;

c)      the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and the following amendment to a condition:

·        Neighbouring residents to be consulted on details of soft landscaping

Erection of 9 houses.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION subject to

S106 legal agreement

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported late amendments as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Bird, an adjoining neighbour.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Hinsley, the agent.

The Committee considered the points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members considered policy DM HO 3 in relation to this application. It was recognised that a large part of the development land was not in use as gardens; however, Members debated whether or not the loss of this open space was harmful to the character of the area. Some Members were also concerned about the impact of the development on the privacy of nearby neighbours and about light spillage from the development. Members also discussed whether the applicant could be encouraged to introduce elements of affordable housing on this site. In relation to the above concerns it was noted that the ecology of the site and privacy of neighbours could be addressed by the proposed conditions; and that a section 106 legal agreement would ensure the provision of affordable housing in the borough.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to:

a) a Section 106 legal agreement securing financial contributions towards education, health, transport and the public realm; the sale of development to the rear of 42-48 Harvey Road, Whitton (10/1865/FUL) to a housing association and the substantial completion of 9 affordable housing units for affordable rent; and the restriction of parking permits within the Community Parking Zone;

b) the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Demolition of garages to rear of Warfield Court and construction of two 3 Bedroom Dwellings with double garage block and parking.Minor re planning of existing open car park to site frontage of existing apartments.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION subject to

S106 legal agreement

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no amendments to the report.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Ms Abrey, a current occupier of Warfield Court, and from Mr Gee, a former occupier.

Councillor Nicholson spoke as an Interested Councillor. 

The Committee considered the points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members considered the current application in light of the Planning Inspector’s comments on the previous application for the same site. Though mindful of the need to reach a decision on the application before them, Members noted that the Inspector had not found the previous proposed development at the rear of Warfield Court to be harmful and that the current proposal at the rear of the property was very similar. It was noted that the garages at the rear of the property were generally not fit for purpose and that little garden space would be lost as part of the proposed development. Members were mindful of the concerns of nearby neighbours but the design and bulk of the proposal was viewed as being acceptable and not of such an overbearing nature as to warrant refusal. The improved landscaping of the site was welcomed and Members hoped that the trees at the front of the Warfield Court site could be retained in order to ensure that the streetscene was not harmed.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to a Section 106 legal agreement requiring a contribution towards affordable housing; the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report; and the following additional informative:

·        The applicant is encouraged to retain the existing trees at the front of the property if feasible.

Demolition of existing single storey garage and replacement two storey front extension; a part single storey/part two storey side and rear extension; an extension to the existing dormer on the southwest elevation and dormer on the northeast elevation.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no amendments to the report.

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Hall, a neighbour adjoining the site.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr See, the agent.

The Committee considered the points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members were aware of a concern about the safety of the residential properties in relation to the nearby hockey pitch, but were advised that this could be addressed by a separate application for a high fence if necessary (such an application would be judged on its own merits if received). It was noted that the bulk of the property would be significantly increased with the proposal, but the design of the application was not seen to be in discord with the streetscene; Members did not perceive significant harm in the application to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Change of use from A2 (professional services) to A3 (restaurant), alterations to shopfront, erection of single storey extension to the rear and erection of associated plant.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported late amendments as set out in the addendum [attached below]. The officer also inserted ‘through one door only’ at the end of the first sentence of  condition NS07

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Ms Gleeson, the agent.

The Committee considered the points raised by the speaker and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members discussed the proposed physical alterations to the building and whether the design was acceptable for a Building of Townscape Merit. It was noted that the majority of alterations were being carried out at the rear of the property and would not have a significant impact on the streetscene. The alterations were seen as discreet enough to be acceptable. It was also noted that waste disposal would be managed via the refuse management plan as secured by condition. The change of use to A3 was seen to be appropriate for the setting and it was not perceived that an unacceptable loss of employment would occur as a result.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Demolition of existing garage, change of use and replacement with music rooms.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION and

Listed Building Consent

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported late amendments as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Taylor, an adjoining neighbour.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mrs Linthwaite, the school’s Headteacher.

The Committee considered the points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members discussed whether the application represented harm to the nearby neighbours and to the existing building which was listed. It was noted that possible overlooking from the music room and light spillage would be addressed by the obscure glazing to be used and by limiting the hours of operation. The limited hours of operation were also seen to address concerns about noise; the majority view was that it was not necessary to limit the hours of operation to weekdays only and that it would be acceptable for the room to be used in the daytime on Saturdays. The design of the proposed music room was deemed to be acceptable and fitting with the existing listed building. Members encouraged the use of a green roof to increase levels of sustainability.

It was RESOLVED:

1)      That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum; and the following amendment to a condition and additional informative:

Condition on the hours of use: The premises hereby permitted shall not be used for noise generating activities on any Sunday or Bank Holiday nor before 8am or after 6pm on Monday - Saturday.  REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of nearby occupiers.

‘Informative: The applicant is encouraged to consider the use of a green roof (for the music room)

2)      That Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Planning permission and listed building consent for change of use of basement and ground floor of premises from A1 (retail) to use class A3 (restaurant) incorporating internal and external alterations.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION and

Listed Building Consent

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported late amendments as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Mr Hallett, an adjoining neighbour.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mr Beamish, the agent.

The Committee considered the points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report.

Members discussed the physical alterations to the listed building and considered whether the change of use was acceptable. Members discussed whether the location of the extract ducting was acceptable. It was noted that the Environmental Health Officer had not raised concern about the location in relation to odour or noise, subject to conditions. The design of the alterations was deemed acceptable.

Members debated whether the change of use was acceptable for this site. The length and nature of the property’s advertisement as an A1 unit was discussed. Members also considered the character of the surrounding area and noted that most other buildings in the street were already A3 use. Whilst some Members felt that the building should be advertised as A1 use for a longer period of time following internal refurbishment, the consensus was that the A1 use of this site was no longer feasible and that A3 use would be an acceptable alternative.

It was RESOLVED:

1) That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

2) That Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Installation of one BT DSLAM telecommunications cabinet.

Officer’s recommendation:  NO OBJECTION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no amendments to the report.

No speakers were heard.

The Committee considered the information provided. This siting of the telecommunications box was deemed as being acceptable in the conservation area.

It was RESOLVED:

That NO OBJECTION be raised to the application, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Siting of a 1.3m (h) x 0.45m (w) x 0.8m (l) green telecommunications cabinet – PCP022.

Officer’s recommendation:  NO OBJECTION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no amendments to the report.

No speakers were heard.

The Committee considered the information provided. This siting of the telecommunications box was deemed as being acceptable in the conservation area.

It was RESOLVED:

That NO OBJECTION be raised to the application, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Installation of 1 X BT DSLAM telecommunication cabinet – PCP 008.

Officer’s recommendation: NO OBJECTION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item. There were no amendments to the report.

No speakers were heard.

The Committee considered the information provided. This siting of the telecommunications box was deemed as being acceptable in the conservation area.

It was RESOLVED:

That NO OBJECTION be raised to the application, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported a late amendment as set out in the addendum [attached below].

No speakers were heard.

The Committee considered the information provided. Members discussed the late letter of representation on the application. The colour of the box was discussed but this was deemed to be acceptable; it was not deemed reasonable to impose a condition to match the box to the nearby wall as this wall could be changed in colour without planning permission. The siting of the telecommunications box was seen to be acceptable. 

It was RESOLVED:

That NO OBJECTION be raised to the application, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.