Agenda and minutes

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 the nature of the interest.

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.

In relation to application 10/0245/FUL, Councillor Coombs declared that he had received a phone call from the applicant but he had not discussed the application nor formed a prior view.

In relation to application 12/2792/FUL, Councillor Coombs declared that as he was a governor at Heathfield Primary School, sat on the Sites and Buildings Sub-Committee, and had pre-determined his view, he would not participate in this item. He undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of this item.

In relation to applications 12/2896/FUL & 12/2897/LBC, Councillor Naylor declared that he had pre-determined his view and would be speaking as an Interested Councillor. He undertook to withdraw from the Committee for the duration of this item.

In relation to applications 12/3313/FUL & 12/3314/CAC, Councillor Jaeger declared that her husband had previously had an office at this site, but she had not formed a prior view on the application.

In relation to application 11/4186/FUL, Councillor Morris declared that she was acquainted with the applicant but she had not discussed the application with the applicant nor formed a prior view.

Councillor Head and Councillor Naylor declared that they had carried out site visits for applications 12/2896/FUL & 12/2897/LBC and 11/3448/FUL

Councillor Linnette declared that he had carried out site visits for applications 11/4125/FUL, 12/3313/FUL & 12/3314/FUL, 11/4186/FUL and 12/2792/FUL.

To consider the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 29 November 2012 - attached.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2012 were approved as a correct record of proceedings and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

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.

Re-development of the school site comprising the demolition of 3 no. existing single storey teaching blocks and construction of a new 2 storey building, retaining and incorporating the existing hall, with associated external works and landscaping. Provision of an additional 32 pupils phased over a 3 year period.

Officer’s recommendation: REFUSAL

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard representations against the application from Ms Edwards, Mr Rago and Mr Poot, who were adjoining neighbours.

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Matthews, the architect, and from Mr McKaughan, the Headteacher.

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

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

The Committee discussed the application and the reason for refusal which had been recommended in the officer’s report. Members welcomed the proposal to enhance educational facilities for existing pupils. Members debated whether the additional pupil numbers would cause harm to neighbouring amenity, particularly in relation to traffic congestion. Members also discussed the evidence in relation to the school’s effect on traffic and parking. The majority view was that although the initial additional numbers could be low, this was still likely to have a negative effect on traffic flow in the vicinity of the site, and that to grant permission would be to risk causing harm to neighbouring amenity. Members noted that the school’s travel plan was still in its infancy and was not yet fully effective, so could not be relied upon to reduce traffic at the site.

Members discussed the design and siting of the proposal: these were considered to be acceptable. Members considered the proposals in relation to the site’s designation as ‘Other Open Land of Townscape Importance’ (OOLTI). Some Members were concerned that the proposals (in particular the staff car park) had a negative impact on the open nature of the land; however, it was recognised that most of the land would remain as its current use: this being for recreational and sports use. It was therefore considered that the OOLTI designation was not compromised.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the reason set out in the officer’s report.

Part demolition and reconstruction and part conversion of the front part of the building to provide 8 residential units (Affordable Housing).

Officer’s recommendation: 12/3313/FUL – PERMISSION

subject to a Section 106 legal agreement

12/3314/CAC – PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard a representation in support of the applications from Ms Sterry, the applicant.

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

The Committee discussed the proposal and whether there would be an impact on the surrounding area. Members were concerned to ensure that the materials of the proposal were of sufficient quality and in keeping with those already in place in order to minimise impact on the streetscene. It was noted that when materials were submitted to the Planning Authority their suitability could be ensured at this point. Members were satisfied that the proposal did not represent a flood risk as this was in flood zone one. The Committee welcomed the addition of affordable housing units in the borough.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That application 12/3313/FUL be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum; subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement; and subject to the following additional informative:

NI02 - With regard to condition BD12, the applicant is requested to submit details of the full height horizontal hardwood cladding including the proposed treatment thereof and these shall as far as practicable match the colour of the existing brickwork.

2. That application 12/3314/CAC be APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of 2, two storey blocks comprising 1 block at front of the site with retail unit at ground floor level, offices at first floor and two 1- Bed flats located within the roof space and the erection of 1 block at the rear of the site comprising five 2 - bedroom flats together with ancillary car parking and access.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard a representation against the application from Ms Sporle, an adjoining neighbour.

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

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

Members considered the proposal and potential impact on the surrounding area. Some Members were concerned that the proposal had a detrimental impact on the adjoining property at 6 Heathside, in terms of the size, bulk and mass of the roof. However, the majority view was that the proposal would be a suitable addition to Hanworth Road, adding symmetry; and that if suitable conditions were imposed regarding the impact on Heathside then the proposal would be acceptable. It was noted that the streetscene at the Heathside was already reasonably mixed. Members felt that further detailing was required to the flank wall to make this more architecturally interesting and to minimise harm. In addition it was considered that details of safety and security measures should be provided to mitigate potential harm to 6 and 8 Heathside.

It was RESOLVED:

That the applicationbe APPROVED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum; subject to the completion of a section 106 legal agreement; and subject to an amendment to condition NS01:

NS01: The external surfaces of the buildings (including fenestration, refuse shutter

doors, green vertical living panels, detailing on the flank elevation of the frontage building and security /anti burglary measures to the boundary wall with 6 and 8 Heathside) and, where applicable, all areas of hard surfacing shall not be constructed 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 to provide an architecturally interesting flank to the frontage building.

Proposed ground and First Floor Extensions to extend existing business unit and create an additional 2 Business Units and new external staircase.

Officer’s recommendation:  PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Mrs Barleta, the applicant.

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

Members discussed the proposal in light of neighbours’ objections and the current site restrictions. It was felt that the proposal was acceptable in its location and would complement the street scene. It was recognised that an earlier approved scheme would have had the same impact on privacy as the scheme now proposed.  

It was RESOLVED:

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

Demolition, new build and alteration works to provide permanent accommodation for the expansion of both the existing infant and junior schools from 3 form of entry to 4 form of entry.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

Having declared that he had pre-determined his view, and was a governor of the school, Councillor Coombs withdrew from the Committee (and from the room) for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Hubbard, a consultant on behalf the applicant, Mr Hutchinson, the architect, and from Ms Butler, on behalf of the local authority (the applicant).

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

Members discussed the proposals including the design and potential impact on neighbour amenities. In relation to travel and parking issues, Members discussed the impact of the travel plan and the nature of the school expansion.  The Committee weighed the legal requirement of providing sufficient school places within the Borough and the improved environment against the highway congestion and parking issues and concluded that the positive aspects of the scheme outweighed any harm.

It was RESOLVED:

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

The erection of golden oak aluminium replacement roof to the rear of the building.

Officer’s recommendation: 12/2896/FUL & 12/2897/LBC – REFUSAL,

Enforcement Action and

(in the event of non-compliance) Court Action

Having declared that he had pre-determined his view, Councillor Naylor withdrew from the Committee for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Ms d’Errico, the applicant.

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

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

Members discussed the design and materials of the roof in comparison to that which was refused by the Committee previously. The character of the building and details of its listing were considered. Members were mindful of the requirements of the business located at this site and had sympathy with the applicant’s situation. However, the majority view was that the harm to the listed building caused by the application was too significant to grant permission. The Committee considered that enforcement action was necessary as set out in the officer’s report, but felt that 6 months was a more reasonable time for compliance given the nature and history of the site.

It was RESOLVED:

1. That application 12/2896/FUL be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

1. That application 12/2897/LBC be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

3. That Enforcement Action be agreed, in accordance with the recommendation set out in the officer’s report, subject to the following amendment:

·        Period of compliance is 6 months.

Change of use of second floor from vacant office to three 1bed flats, provision of balconies and alterations to fenestration.

Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and made amendments to the report as set out in the addendum [attached below].

No representations were heard.

The Committee considered information provided by officers in conjunction with the report. Members felt that there was sufficient evidence to justify the change of use and that the design of the building’s alterations was acceptable in the street scene.

It was RESOLVED:

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