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.

·         That the Chair’s announcement regarding the filming of the meeting for live or subsequent broadcast be noted.

Cllr Mallett identified that she would be making a representation as a local ward councillor to item 9, land to rear of 131-151 Boundary Road, and would therefore withdraw from Committee determination of that item.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the Planning Sub Committee held on 5 October.

RESOLVED

·         That the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 5 October be approved.

The Chair agreed to vary the order of the agenda, to take items 10, 12, 8 and then 9. Items 11,13, 14-16 were deferred.

Installation of a new entrance door to the south elevation of Marcus Garvey Library along with the associated external works

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the installation of a new entrance door to the south elevation of Marcus Garvey Library along with the associated external works. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. It was updated that a further representation had been received since publication of the agenda but which did not raise any additional points requiring response.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The new door would create a serious child safeguarding issue through providing a general access route through the children’s garden and adjacent to the children’s library leading to concerns over disruption and safety to families using the library.

·         The report was more concerned with safeguarding the tree onsite than children’s safety.

·         A large number of objections to the application had been made during the consultation period.

·         The plan was ill thought out and would only benefit Fusion as the applicant and not library users.

·         The scheme would remove a significant portion of the children’s garden and render the remainder unsafe as it would no longer be a safe, dedicated space for families to use accessed only via the children’s library. Proposed landscaping improvements to the garden would not make up for the space lost. 

·         The consultation undertaken had not been comprehensive, for example a lack of contact with the Bernie Grants Art Centre etc.

·         The application should be rejected on the grounds of impact on public amenity.

·         The new entrance would create an internal street within the library which would be problematic.

Cllr Carter addressed the Committee in his capacity as a ward councillor. At the prompt of the legal officer, he made a declaration that he was an active member of the Friends of Marcus Garvey Library group and as such would stand down from the Committee for the determination of this item. He then raised the following points:

·         A lack of consultation and engagement regarding the application had been carried out and no formal public consultation undertaken.

·         The new door was not a necessary part of the development and would become a ‘poor door’ for accessing the Customer Service Centre.

·         The scheme would cause disruption to library users during construction works and reduce library user space by half.

Cllr Diakides addressed the Committee as a local ward councillor and made the following objections:

·         The door was not justified, would create a disruptive thoroughfare and equated to unnecessary expenditure.

·         The scheme was unpopular with library users.

·         Multiple entrances to the library would make it difficult for security guards to patrol.

·         The impact on the children’s garden and library was unacceptable.

·         The tree to the rear was a very rare species and should be preserved.

Cllr Arthur addressed the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

Single storey extension to the High Road facade of Bruce Grove Station to create an additional 174sqm of A1/A3 space with associated landscaping and yard

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the single storey extension to the High Road facade of Bruce Grove Station to create an additional 174sqm of A1/A3 space with associated landscaping and yard. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

An objector addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The courtyard to the front of the station site was important open amenity space used by the community, with historic and memorial value.

·         The condition of the site should not be used to justify the development.

·         The trees currently onsite helped to improve the environment and had a positive impact on the town centre.

·         The scheme would cause harm to public amenity and to the Locally Listed station building.

·         Historic England appeared to have been consulted on the first draft but not subsequent and no details were provided within the report of the stakeholder consultation meeting held on 7 July.

Cllr Opoku addressed the Committee in her capacity as local ward councillor and raised the following points:

·         Residents had campaigned in the past for the courtyard area to be kept as open amenity space.

·         Mature trees onsite would be lost.

·         Safety concerns were raised relating to narrowing of the pavement near the bus stop outside the station.

·         The steel cladding would obscure the historic station building and was not an appropriate material. 

Representatives for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The scheme would create a high quality, contemporary, landmark building for the Bruce Grove town centre whilst optimising development of a key brown field site and aiding regeneration.

·         Planning policy identified that traditional designs were not the only acceptable option in conservation areas.

·         The current open space was not a suitable use and suffered from antisocial behaviour and littering.

·         Relocation of the bus stops was a long term aspiration.

·         The Quality Review Panel were supportive of the application.

·         The pavement to the front of the station would be widened and public realm and pedestrian movements improved within the station.

Cllrs McNamara and Strickland addressed the Committee in their respective capacities as Cabinet Members for Environment and Housing and Regeneration and raised the following points:

·         Businesses previously housed in the arches had been operating without planning permission

·         Significant improvements had already been made to the site due to Network Rail and TfL investment such as pavement improvements.

·         The reserved matters process needed strict oversight to ensure implementation of a high quality scheme tying in with the heritage aspects on the locally Listed Building.  

·         A high quality solution was required to increase footfall in this important prime town centre site.

·         Design plans had been developed by a renowned architect with considerable input from the Council’s conservation officer. 

·         The Council’s Quality Review  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Erection of building behind retained Archway Road facade and fronting Causton Road to provide 25 residential dwellings (Class C3) at basement, ground, first, second and third floor level, including retention side return wall on Causton Road.  Demolition of all existing buildings to the rear. Retention of retail floor space unit at ground floor level (Class A1). Change of use of part ground floor and part basement from retail (Class A1) to Class B1 use.  Provision of associated residential amenity space, landscaping and car parking.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the erection of building behind retained Archway Road facade and fronting Causton Road to provide 25 residential dwellings (Class C3) at basement, ground, first, second and third floor level, including retention side return wall on Causton Road. Demolition of all existing buildings to the rear. Retention of retail floor space unit at ground floor level (Class A1). Change of use of part ground floor and part basement from retail (Class A1) to Class B1 use. Provision of associated residential amenity space, landscaping and car parking. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee. In order to allow clarification to be sought on claims the daylight/sunlight report omitted reference to a number of windows to neighbouring properties on Causton Road, the Chair agreed in discussion with the Head of Development Management to defer the application to a future meeting.

RESOLVED

·         That the application be deferred.

Demolition of existing workshop/store and shed, construction of one detached, three bedroom, single storey dwelling with basement served by light wells, and 2no. semi-detached, two storey, three bedroom houses with basements served by light wells, and construction of two sets of entrance gates

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

[Cllr Mallett stood down from the Committee for the determination of this item in order to make a representation as a local ward councillor].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing workshop/store and shed, construction of one detached, three bedroom, single storey dwelling with basement served by light wells, and 2 no. semi-detached, two storey, three bedroom houses with basements served by light wells, and construction of two sets of entrance gates. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement. 

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         Owing to proposals for each bedroom to be supplied by an ensuite bathroom, there was concern that the dwellings would be run as HMOs (House of Multiple Occupation).

·         The site was not previously developed garden land and as such should be protected. No planning permission was in place for the shed onsite used for commercial purposes.

·         Local people had discovered a restrictive covenant in place on the land and would be pursuing enforcement with the beneficiary.

·         The scheme failed to meet emerging Council policy requirements for backland development in failing to relate appropriately and sensitively to its surroundings.

·         The detached house would be sited only 2m from the garden fences to the closest Sirdar Road properties.

·         The scheme would result in overlooking to 208 and 210 Sirdar Road, with tree planting not suitable all year screening.

·         Increased noise levels in the area arising from the new dwellings was not covered within the report.

·         Plans did not include the retention of mature trees onsite thereby exacerbating noise and overlooking concerns.

·         The report identified that there would be no impact on parking but did not explain why.

·         The scheme was inappropriate for the site and to the surrounding community.

Cllr Mallett addressed the Committee and reiterated the concern raised by the objectors over the provision of ensuite bathrooms to each bedroom in the proposed new units. This would be unusual for family accommodation leading to concerns over HMO conversion and associated increased noise and parking pressures.

A representative for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The site was not considered garden land as it did not relate to a specific dwelling.

·         The owner of the land had used the shed onsite for commercial purposes.

·         The scheme would provide 3 new family houses.

·         Ensuite bathrooms to each bedroom was a contemporary feature and affirmed that there was no expectation the scheme would be a HMO development.

·         Revisions had been made to the scheme design following objections received. The last application had been rejected on a single grounds and which had now been addressed under the current application.

·         The presence  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

Erection of a part single-storey, part two-storey rear extension

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting.

Retrospective application for change of position for new flue.  New roof mounted fence to screen flue and roof plant.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting.

To confirm the attached Tree Preservation Orders

This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting.

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.

This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting.

To advise the Planning Sub Committee of decisions on planning applications taken under delegated powers for the period from 21 September – 23 October 2015. 

This item was deferred to a subsequent meeting.

1 December.

1 December.