Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Marsie Skeete and David Dean.

Councillors Dennis Pearce and Daniel Holden attended as substitutes

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 December were agreed as an accurate record.

The Chair will announce the order of Items at the beginning of the Meeting.

A Supplementary Agenda with any modifications will be published on the day of the meeting.

Note: there is no written report for this item

Supplementary Agenda: Amendments and modifications to the Officer’s report were published in a Supplementary Agenda. This applied to items 5 and 6.

Order of the meeting – The Chair announced that the items would be taken in the following order 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Application Number:18/P3617     Ward:Ravensbury

Officer Recommendation:Grant planning permission subject to relevant conditions

Refused Planning Permission. The reasons for refusal will be detailed in the Minutes of the Meeting

Proposal: Conversion of Wyvern Youth Centre into 6 x residential units (comprising 2 x 1 bed, 1 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed flats) involving re-roofing, installation of skylights, new door and window openings, with associated parking, refuse, landscaping and cycle storage.

The Committee noted the officers report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda. The Committee received verbal representations from two objectors, the Applicant/Agent and Ward Councillor Natasha Irons

The Objectors made points including:

·         Residents have accepted that the application agreed in February 2018 was as good as they could get, particularly as the doors on this application were spaced evenly around the building

·         This new application introduces six doors, some of which are only 5m from the existing properties. This will give rise to increased noise disturbance to neighbours

·         Neighbours disagree that this new amendment won’t cause any harm, and believe it is a step too far

·         Objectors believe that the applicant did not tell the truth about their dealings with the Scout Group

·         The Scout group have not given their permission and so the permission cannot be enacted, and believe that legally a permission cannot be granted if it cannot be enacted

·         The Designing Out Crime Officer’s advice has been ignored by the Planning Officer. This new design creates 6 new back doors which will result in an increase in burglaries and reduce security for the Scout Hut

·         The proposed replacement roof should be of red clay tiles to match the surrounding buildings on the road.

The Applicant/Agent made points including:

·         This amendment represents the best design solution for the site

·         This is much better scheme than the scheme allowed in 2018

·         The use of this building is established as community use, and so it has always created some noise

·         2 additional doors is a non-material change

Ward Councillor Natasha Irons made points including:

·         Very aware of need for housing in the Borough, but developments should not negatively impact on their neighbours

·         Was happy to accept the February 2018 application with its evenly spaced doors

·         This application will cause overlooking on neighbouring properties,

·         The Scouts require disabled access, by law, and this will reduce their access path from 2.6m to 1m

·         The plans show space for two euro-bins, but Veolia will only collect wheelie bins from this size development. The neighbours at number 20 will have a refuse store next door.

In reply to Members’ questions, the Planning Team Leader made points including:

·         The earlier applications for this site proposed demolishing the original building. The previously allowed application in February 2018 kept and converted the original building.

·         The Scout Hut still has its main access on Connaught Gardens. The planning officer had considered objections raised at the consultation stage and was able to advise members that while some of the access across this site will reduce in width the wider of the two paths would be 1.5m wide, as previously approved and will still be wide enough for wheelchair access according to published  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application Number:18/P3736   Ward: Pollards Hill

Officer Recommendation: Grant Permission

Planning Permission Granted

Proposal: Retention of rear roof extension and the raising of the chimney stack

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and the additional representation in the Supplementary Agenda – Modifications.

In reply to Members questions, the Planning Officer made points:

·         There are ongoing formal complaints made by a neighbour, both letters of complaint have been written by this same neighbour. The formal complaints are against the Council’s Building Control department. In these circumstances it was considered prudent to bring the application before Planning Committee for determination so as to enable a full and proper examination in public of the application.

·         The application is retrospective, the submitted plans adequately reflect what has been built. There is a 4-6cm difference (as measured by the set back of the roof extension from the eaves) between what was built and what could have been built, under permitted development, without a planning application being necessary.

·         Many matters raised, including fire safety are covered by Building Control legislation and are not Planning matters. However, the Building Completion Certificate has been issued which meaning that the development meets Building Control Regulations.

·         The planning officer read from the Certificate which indicated that the development as far as the Council can ascertain meets the Building Regulations.

·         The planning Officer can neither say nor comment on whether the  cracks in the home of the complainant are due to the application works.

·         While other neighbouring properties could apply to build similar extensions, each application is judged on its own merits, and the planning officer advised members that roof extensions on similar properties tended to be designed so as to fall within permitted development.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted unanimously to GRANT Planning Permission.

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

RESOLVED: Members noted the report on Planning Appeal Decisions

Officer Recommendation:

That Members note the contents of the report.

RESOLVED: Members noted the report on Planning Enforcement