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.

No declarations were made.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 31 May 2012 TO FOLLOW

The minutes of the meeting were received and approved and the Chairman authorised to sign them subject to the following point of clarification:

·         The meeting closed at 9.20pm.

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.

Full planning application to demolish 891sqm of existing floorspace and construct a two-storey extension providing teaching accommodation to the West of the Park Building, an extension forming a new assembly hall to the East of the Park Building, a two-storey extension forming a new dining facility and teaching accommodation to the Hertford Building together with enhanced access arrangements for visitors and students, strategic landscaping works include the creation of a two distinct courtyards and the provision of 50 car parking spaces and 120 cycle parking spaces.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Councillor Naylor declared that he had carried out a site visit.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following:

·         A further petition with 26 signatories received objecting to loss of on site parking, additional noise & nuisance activity and recommending other access points are used by the students.

·         Amended drawings received  a) moving the proposed pedestrian visitor access close to the vehicular access off Park Avenue; b) relocating new cycle parking from in front of the Hertford building to one side

The following amendments were reported:

·         Amend condition U51326 by deleting ‘commencement’ & inserting ‘occupation’

·         Add condition LT09 – All landscaping; ‘details etc to be submitted prior to occupation notwithstanding detail of current drawings’.

·         Condition U51334 -  Decision Drawings amended to : Existing: 2470-JW-800/PO1, O12/PO1, 813/PO1, 803/PO1, 823/PO1, 833/PO1, 123/PO1, 840/PO1, 841/PO1, 842/PO1, 843/PO1, 844/PO1, 850/PO1, 851/PO1 received 12 April 2012; Proposed 091/PO1, 113/PO1, 208/PO1, 204/PO1, 205/PO1, 206/PO1, 207/PO1, 212/PO1, 213/PO1 received 12 April 2012 &003/PO2, 103/PO2, C462-DR-001/PO5, 002/PO£, 10/PO2, 101/PO4, 102/PO3, 200/PO1, 201/PO2, 202/PO2, received 3 July 2012’

The Committee heard representations against the application from Prof Michels, a neighbour adjoining the site; and from Mr Hughes and Mr Benneworth, local residents.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Ms Kirby, the Headteacher of the school; Dr Rinne, the Senior Vice Principle; and from Mr Pye, the architect.

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers. The Committee considered the concerns of local residents, in particular in relation to change in access points to the school and how these might affect noise, security and parking in the vicinity. It was felt that a degree of noise and movement should be accepted at the site owing to its operation as a school and sports centre for many years. Members considered that concerns about traffic management could be addressed via conditioning; and that it would be useful if the applicant, facility users and local residents could meet regularly to discuss concerns about parking, security and other issues. Members also considered the issue of design and there was a question over how the new build related to the donor buildings, but it was felt there was not sufficient harm to refuse the application.

Members welcomed the provision of new educational facilities and recognised that the proposed design would not create sufficient harm to invite refusal. It was felt that with the inclusion of landscaping and other conditions the application presented greater benefit than harm to the community as whole.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum; and the following additional and amended conditions and informatives:

Conditions:

i) condition U51311 – residents to be consulted on traffic management plan

ii) The new visitor pedestrian entrance from Sunbury Avenue shall not be constructed otherwise than in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Externally illuminated fascia and projecting signs.  Externally illuminated sign on side elevation.

              Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following correspondence:

·         One late letter objecting on the grounds of being garish, at odds with the rest of the area and out of keeping with the High Street with size and illumination unacceptable.

The Committee heard a representation from Councillor Cardy who spoke as an Interested Councillor.

The Committee considered the information provided and points raised by speakers.  Though recognising the need for the A5 premises to provide adequate advertisement and to comply with its own branding, Members were concerned about the use of bright red and white colours and illuminated lighting in the context of the conservation area; this being a Building of Townscape Merit; and the impact on neighbouring residential properties.  In relation to illumination, it was explained that the proposed levels of lighting were consistent with those used across the borough’s conservation areas. It was recognised that the previous occupiers of the premises had employed fascia signs; however, Members felt that these had been of a more muted appearance than the current proposals, owing to their dark colours. Members felt that imposing additional conditions relating to the materials and hooding to be used would allow for greater control of the appearance of the signs. This would mitigate the perceived harm caused by the brightness and illumination of the signs within the context of the streetscene.

It was RESOLVED that the applications be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report; and the following additional conditions and informative:

Conditions:

i) The proposed hood/cowl to the trough lighting shall not be implemented otherwise than in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, such details to specify the design and external finishes thereof.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development is in keeping with the existing building, does not prejudice the appearance of the locality and safeguards the amenities of adjacent occupants of residential properties.

ii) The external surfaces of the signs hereby approved shall not be implemented other than in materials details/samples of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality and building of townscape merit.

Informative:

i) The applicant/agent is advised that with respect to condition U52004, the materials of the signs shall be of a matt finish and designed in such a way to minimise the reflectance from the trough lighting and provide a mute appearance, to conform with the important character and appearance of the façade of this BTM.

Erection of single storey front extension, part single, part two storey side and rear extension with the roof of the two storey rear extension forming a second storey and extending into the roof of the original dwelling.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following:

·         One late letter received (from the occupant of no. 108) which ‘replaces all preceding comments’, objecting to the following:

-          Poor precedent set for infilling of gardens with this property transformed from one of the smallest to one of the largest semi detached houses on Fairfax Road.

-          The ground floor extension has significant scale and bulk and changes the symmetry and nature of the semi detached character.

-          Environmental and sustainability impact due to solar panel shading.

-          A balanced ground floor extension 1m from the boundary and extending only 3.5m from the rear of 106 would be supported.

-          An additional comment received stating that there would be an increase in CO2 consumption at 108 and if the council really want to be seen as allowing non-Green, anti-environmental proposals contrary to its stated aims.    Along with 12/0686/PS192 this plan reduces light to existing solar panels. ‘Costing’ c1400 kg of CO2 over the life of the panels.

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

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Scott, the applicant, and from Mr Bowen, the agent.

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and the information provided. Some Committee Members were concerned that the application may cause a visual imbalance in the streetscene due to the bulk of the proposed extension and the perceived loss of symmetry. Members heard that much of the proposed extension to the roof could be carried out under permitted development (although they were mindful of the need to reach a decision on the application before them). Though aware of the concerns of the neighbouring resident about loss of light to solar panels, the Committee noted the professional assessment on lighting provided by officers which advised that the impact would be very minimal. Concerns were raised about the visual impact of the proposed front ground floor extension but it was debated whether this was harmful enough to warrant refusal.

It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Variation of condition U190022 of planning permission 07/4050/FUL re boundary treatment to allow for raised 2m high fence with approximately 100 trees alongside the boundary.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Councillor Bouchier was not present for this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and reported the receipt of the following correspondence:

• Three letters received, summarised below:

• Cllr Arbour has raised the following concerns and that the application should be refused:

-          Recommendation based on opinion rather than substantial changes to justify reversing previous refusals.

-          Paragraph 24 gives more reason for enforcing the (original) condition.

-          A breach of condition can not result in the requirement to be removed.

-          Other breaches evident that have required demands for retrospective consent.

-          Ambiguity (within the application) and a history of watering down conditions.

-          Application designed to suit the applicant and not the site.

-          The site is important in the conservation area which has been subject to constant attrition.

-          Committee to have regard to their role in enhancing the conservation area and the effect of the proposal on the neighbours who have little confidence that any conditions imposed will be observed in their entirety.

• Cllr Mathias has raised the following concerns and that the application should be refused:

-          The original condition is the one that is acceptable to neighbours.

-          Reference to residents' correspondence objecting on " the impact on security, safety, privacy and noise and disturbance" as in the officers' report.

-          Site separation as mentioned in para 24 is important for neighbours in this Conservation Area.

• Cllr Evans has raised the following and requested that the committee reinforce the decisions previously made and reject the application:

-          The details of the application for a wooden fence and ‘a number of trees’ demonstrate no material change from previous applications, all of which have been rejected (see para 5-11).

-          It 'does not adequately protect neighbours from noise or disturbance'.

-          Attention is also drawn to fact that the applicant has disregarded and is currently in breach of previous conditions placed by the committee (see para 7).

The Development Control Officer made the following amendments to the report:

• Replace condition BD11 with the following: NS01 - Within 28 days of this planning decision notice details (design and external finishes) of the new fencing shall be submitted to and thereafter approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved details of the boundary fence shall then be implemented within 3 months of the approval of these details and fully completed within 5 months following the approval of these details and thereafter retained.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development is in keeping with the existing building(s), does not prejudice the appearance of the locality and to preserve the amenity of the occupants of adjacent properties.

• Replace condition LT08 with the following: NS02 – Within 28 days of this decision notice full details of soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and thereafter approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such details shall include planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) and shall specify the quantity, density, size,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Creation of new school assembly hall with associated storage areas and conversion of existing hall to create two new classrooms.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Councillor Bouchier was not present for this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and added the following information to the report via the addendum:

Additional, summarised, comments from objector-

-          Withdrawing objection to the perceived and possible lack of space for pedestrian access between the new build and the HORSA huts

-          The amended plan and planning officer’s report indicate removal of the gable end and the construction of a hip end roof facing the highway.

-          I am having difficulty envisaging such impact as no detailed plans or 3D images have been made available to the community to confirm this. I do hope such details are made available to the planning committee for Thursday

-          In my view does not conform to planning guidelines - even the planning officers recognise that the roof should have been set at the same or lower than the host building to make it subordinate

Additional and updated information has been received in respect of the BREEAM rating.

·         The new build element has a score of 55.23% (which is Very Good) and 56.26% for the refurb. element.

·         Mandatory points for BREEAM ‘Very Good’ in water consumption not targeted as there is no intention to include the existing sanitary accommodation as part of the works. If no credits achieved in ‘Wat 1’ the highest possible rating allowed is Pass even though the score depicts a higher rating.

·         Also mandatory to achieve ‘Very Good’, energy meters must be installed as part of the works on applicable areas.  The heating strategy for the refurbished areas is to connect to existing supply and it is technically unfeasible to provide heat meters for the existing refurbished areas.

·         As not able to achieve the mandatory points will only gain a Pass for both parts of the project

Additional and updated information has been received in respect of bats –

·         Two of three bat activity surveys undertaken.

·         First survey no bats observed emerging from the building. Foraging activity very low with only a single commuting bat observed passing over eastern site boundary to west (over grassland to northern side of site).

·         Second survey did not record any bats re-entering the building during the survey visit.  Furthermore, bat activity on site was very low, with only a single bat commuting over the building from north to south

·         One further survey to be carried out when weather permits

Amendments to existing conditions -

Condition DV48 –

·            Design and Access Statement; Initial Bat Survey (RT-MME-111769-02); Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey (RT-MME-111769-01); OS Map; Summary of Consultation; Sustainable Construction Checklist; Energy Statement; PL01; PL02; PL03 all received on 3rd May 2012; School Travel Plan 2011/2012 received 1st June 2012; BREEAM Assessment, PL02 A and PL04 Rev A received 21st June 2012.

Condition DV46 - BREEAM Insert ‘Pass’.

Additional Informative –

·            NSI 01      The applicant is reminded of the requirement to comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Installation of 1 X BT DSLAM telecommunications cabinet (PCP014).

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

Councillor Bouchier was not present for this item.

There were no late amendments to the report and no representations were heard.

The Development Control Officer explained to the Committee that the location for this telecommunications box had been identified after previous locations nearby were seen as being unsuitable. The current location did not cause concern to the Council’s Highways department nor to the Arboricultural department. No residents had raised concern.

It was RESOLVED that NO OBJECTION be raised to the application, subject to the condition and informatives set out in the officer’s report.