Apologies for absence were received from Councillor P Crowder with Councillor O’Sullivan attended as substitute.

There were 7 members of the public present, of whom 2 spoke on Item 7. Councillors N Patel and D Taylor also addressed the Committee on that item.

Members are invited to disclose any interest in any of the items on the agenda at this point of the meeting.

Members may still disclose any interest in an item at any time prior to the consideration of the matter.

There were no disclosures of interest.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12^th February 2026 and to authorise the Chairman to sign them.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 12^th February 2026 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Committee.

See attached document

The Committee noted the report.

Report attached

The Committee considered an officer recommendation to defer the item to a later meeting. Following a brief discussion, the recommendation was unanimously agreed.

Report attached

The Committee considered an application for a two?storey extension to an existing semi?detached dwelling, which would facilitate the use of the property as a 10?bedroom HMO. The proposals included an 18?metre rear extension, cycle storage at the rear of the garden and internal alterations as shown in the submitted plans.

The Committee noted that the site adjoins a children’s centre to the south and forms part of a residential area characterised by similar dwellings.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector. Concerns were raised regarding highway safety, with particular reference to poor visibility from the driveway and risks to road users. It was further stated that the development would adversely affect the safety of neighbouring properties and users of the adjacent children’s centre. The speaker also alleged existing issues of anti?social behaviour at the property.

Councillor Patel addressed the Committee and expressed concern that the proposal would not be in keeping with the character of the area and conflicted with the Local Plan. It was suggested that the application represented an overdevelopment of the site and prioritised maximum occupancy rather than appropriate housing provision. Reference was made to increasing numbers of HMOs in the borough and the potential cumulative impact.

Councillor Taylor also spoke and noted that a previous application had been refused due to harm to residential amenity and that the revised submission did not sufficiently address those concerns. It was further stated that the proposal offered a poor standard of accommodation with limited parking provision, constrained layout and inadequate design. Concern was raised regarding the concentration of HMOs within the vicinity.

The Committee then received a second presentation outlining amendments made since the previous refusal. These included a reduction in parking spaces from ten to five, relocation of those spaces, an increase in communal space and the separation and relocation of bin and cycle storage. Officers advised that there were no in?principle objections and that, in their view, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to residential amenity or highway safety.

During debate, Members raised concerns regarding traffic generation, safety and disturbance, particularly given the proximity to a children’s centre and pedestrian crossing. It was noted that the reduction in on?site parking could displace vehicles onto surrounding streets. Members also expressed concern regarding the scale and design of the extension, including its depth, which exceeded typical limits, and the adequacy of internal and external amenity space.

Additional concerns were raised regarding the quality of accommodation, the limited information provided and the potential safeguarding implications arising from the location adjacent to a children’s centre. It was recognised that it may not constitute a material planning consideration.

In response, officers advised that a Planning Inspector had previously raised no objections in principle to the depth of the extension or parking arrangements. It was stated that the amended scheme sought to address earlier concerns and that appropriate conditions could be applied. Officers further advised that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.