Agenda and minutes

Please note this meeting may be filmed or recorded by the Council for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site or by anyone attending the meeting using any communication method.  Although we ask members of the public recording, filming or reporting on the meeting not to include the public seating areas, members of the public attending the meeting should be aware that we cannot guarantee that they will not be filmed or recorded by others attending the meeting.  Members of the public participating in the meeting (e.g. making deputations, asking questions, making oral protests) should be aware that they are likely to be filmed, recorded or reported on.  By entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings.

The Chair of the meeting has the discretion to terminate or suspend filming or recording, if in his or her opinion continuation of the filming, recording or reporting would disrupt or prejudice the proceedings, infringe the rights of any individual, or may lead to the breach of a legal obligation by the Council.

The Chair referred Members present to agenda Item 1 as shown on the agenda in respect of filming at this meeting, and Members noted the information contained therein’.

Apologies for absence were noted from Cllr Hinchcliffe. Cllr Chenot attended as a substitute.  

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with at item 13 below.

There was no such business.

The Chair advised that he was a member of the Twentieth Century Society, which had submitted an objection in relation to 65-67 North Road. The Chair advised that he did not have any personal involvement with the objection. 

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 20 March 2018.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 20 March 2018 be approved.

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement 2-storey (with basement level) dwellinghouse.

RECOMMENDATION: Members are recommended to advise PINS that the LPA considers PERMISSION should be GRANTED subject to conditions.

*Clerks note – The Chair agreed to amend the order of business for the meeting. Agenda item 10 would be considered first, followed by item 9 and then item 8. Please note, the minutes follow the order in which they were considered during the meeting, rather than the order stated on the agenda.*

The Committee considered an application for: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement 2-storey (with basement level) dwellinghouse.

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

a.    In response to a query around the relevant restrictions upon the committee in relation to the case, as set out in the national framework on planning and design; officers advised that the Committee was unable to impose their own design preferences when making a decision, but should be respectful to features that contribute the wider street scene.

b.    In response to a question, officers advised that a duplicate application had been submitted for this site which was due be heard before 5^th July. Officers advised that because the application had gone to an appeal for non-determination, which could take up to six months, the duplicate application was a contingency aimed at speeding up the process.

c.    In response to a question, officers acknowledged that as a semi-detached property, the proposed basement carried a higher degree of risk due to the party wall. However, the structural engineer had no objections at this stage and more detailed assessment would be required for building regulations.

d.    Officers also acknowledged that the report recommended that permitted development rights be restricted in order to maintain openness around the property. Officers added that although retention of the existing building was preferred by officers, it could not be mandated as the property already had  permitted development rights for demolition.

Farrol Goldblatt and David Godden spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Godden advised that he objected to the site due its poor design quality, characterising the design as a brick box with aluminium windows. It was asserted that the proposals did not meet a high standard of design, nor contribute to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area, as was required by the Council’s own planning policies.

The proposal related to a semi- detached property and the objectors were concerned that the design effectively grafted an unsuitable looking design onto an existing property. In further contrast to the Council’s own planning policies, this did not interact positively with existing structures.  It was suggested that design standards needed to be high in order to maintain the Edwardian character of the street. There had been no demolitions in the street and the street-scape had remained the same since it was built.

The objectors commented that the concerns of the community had been ignored and that there had been a total lack of consultation with neighbouring properties.

Mr Goldblatt advised the Committee that he owned the adjoining property with the site and opposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 200.

PROPOSAL: The demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a part single, part three storey building to provide 8 self-contained flats (Amended Plans).

RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and that the Head of         Development Management or Assistant Director of Planning is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a part single, part three storey building to provide 8 self-contained flats (Amended Plans).

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

a.    In response to a request for clarification on what less than substantial harm meant, the Committee was advised that substantial harm and less than substantial harm were categories set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. In the context of this application, less than substantial harm was characterised as having a minor adverse impact on the conservation area.

b.    Officers advised that fire brigade access was a building control issue. However, officers were satisfied that a fire truck could access the site in the eventuality that all of the parking bays were in use. Officers also confirmed that they were happy with the location of the disabled parking bay.

c.    In response to a question about location of a fire hydrant, officers advised that, again, this was an issue relevant to building regulations rather than planning permission. Officers also advised that the Fire Brigade usually request that a fire hydrant be no more than 45 metres from the furthest reach of a building, however this could be mitigated by the inclusion of sprinkler system, for example.

d.    In reference to a request for clarification, officers acknowledged that the distance to the existing fire hydrant was 100 metres. In order to meet building regulations, that distance could be offset by either installing a closer hydrant or installing a sprinkler system.

Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC and Nathalie Lieven QC spoke in objection to the application.

The Committee was informed that the objectors were concerned about the impact of a developer squeezing 8 luxury flats into a fairly confined space and suggested that such an application was not in the public interest. Furthermore, this application was opposed by local residents and the neighbouring school.  It was also suggested that the original planning permission granted for demolition and subsequent rebuilding of two houses on the site was a ‘stalking horse’, intended to make it easier to secure subsequent planning permission for 8 flats.

The footprint of the original site was considerably smaller than the subsequent proposal and the application would have a much greater impact on the site. It was felt, therefore, that there was a significant difference between the two proposals. The objectors felt that that the building was not a high quality design and did not add any aesthetic quality to the local area. The objectors also informed the Committee that, as 8 luxury flats, the application would not increase housing stock where it was needed i.e. genuinely affordable homes. The objectors emphasised that this was sensitive site, being a Grade 1 listed site within a conservation area and next to a primary school. The Committee were urged to reject this application.

Cllr Morris also spoke in objection to the application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 201.

PROPOSAL: Remodelling and extension to existing church. Demolition and replacement of existing hall on church site with new community facility / nursery. Proposed 22 new build residential units to church site and 10 new build residential units to Acacia Avenue site with a mix of 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedroom accommodation over 2 - 4 storeys.

RECOMMENDATION: That Members delegate authority to the Head of Development Management or Assistant Director for Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditionsand subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and the expiry of the publicity period.

The Committee considered an application for remodelling and extension to an existing church. Demolition and replacement of existing hall on church site with new community facility/nursery. Proposed 22 new build residential units to church site and 10 new build residential units to Acacia Avenue site with a mix of 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedroom accommodation over 2 - 4 storeys.

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report and the addendum report.

Cllr Bull spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Bull welcomed redevelopment of the site as it had been largely abandoned for 20 years. The Committee was advised that residents were concerned that development of the site had involved cutting back some of the overgrown land adjacent to neighbouring properties and that they felt exposed as a result. Concerns were raised that this could result in increased crime levels in an area with an existing high level of crime.

Cllr Bull informed the Committee that his primary concern was with Site B and a perception that the site was going to be over-developed. Cllr Bull advised that local residents were also concerned that; the proposal did not blend into the local architecture, loss of light to surround properties, the roof line did not match the neighbouring properties, and the prominence of the site within the local area.

Roger Molineux, the architect for the site spoke in support of the application. The site was being developed on behalf of Christian Action Housing.  The Committee were informed that in relation to Site B, the distances to other buildings and depth of gardens had been discussed with officers at the design development stage and was entirely compliant with regulations. Mr Molineux commented that the church had worked closely with officers throughout the process.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

a.    In response to a question around the recommendations of the quality Review Panel, officers advised that the surrounding gardens had been reinstated to 1 metre wide and the front of the development had been set back.

b.    Officers also advised that in regards to the parapet detailing, this had been raised in order to simplify the design by reducing the number of steps on the side profile to two.

c.    In response to a question, officers advised that given the 24m distance to neighbouring property and given the site’s orientation relevant to those houses and the sun, the loss of privacy and loss of light to surrounding houses was not considered to be significant.

d.    In response to concerns about the busy road and a neighbouring nursery, officers advised that as the 40 MPH limit was a pre-existing situation, there was not much that could be done through the planning permission. The Head of Development Management agreed to write the relevant person in TfL and raise concerns about the suitability of the local speed limit. (Action: Dean Hermitage).

The Chair MOVED that the application be GRANTED and following a vote, with 11  ...  view the full minutes text for item 202.

To advise of major proposals in the pipeline including those awaiting the issue of the decision notice following a committee resolution and subsequent signature of the section 106 agreement; applications submitted and awaiting determination; and proposals being discussed at the pre-application stage.

The Committee noted the update on major proposals.

To advise the Planning Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period 26 February 2018 – 25 May 2018.

The Committee noted the applications determined under delegated powers.

To consider any items admitted at item 4 above.

N/A

9 July 2018

The next meeting date was noted as 9^th July.