Agenda and minutes

The report before members detailed a proposal for a two storey side and rear extension and a single storey front extension.

The application was reported to Regulatory Services on 29th November 2012. The sequence of voting at the previous committee, with a motion to refuse being defeated and the substantive motion to approve not being supported by a majority vote, meant no decision was made.

The application had previously been deferred from the Regulatory Services Committee meeting on 15 November 2012 to allow members to visit the application site. At the 15 November meeting, Staff updated the Committee about an additional letter of objection which had been received which gave the same objections as those listed in the report together with concerns about the impact upon highway safety and insufficient parking for a house of the size proposed. The report before members was the same as that previously presented to both the 15 November and 29 November committee meetings.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Michael Armstrong on the grounds of impact on the streetscene, size and mass.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response provided by the applicant.

With its agreement, Councillor Michael Armstrong addressed the Committee. Councillor Armstrong commented that he was disappointed that the report was back before the Committee again. Councillor Armstrong confirmed that his concerns for the proposal were the same as previously addressed to the Committee, namely excessive height, bulk, mass and the prominent corner location plot. Councillor Armstrong urged the Committee to refuse planning permission.

During the debate members sought clarification as to  whether the application met with the Council’s guidance on planning and whether the application could be deferred and resubmitted.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted; however, following a motion to refuse, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds that the excessive width, bulk and mass of the extension and resultant obstructive impact due to its corner location would be obtrusive and harmful to the character and appearance of the srtreetscene and would adversely affect neighbouring properties.

The vote for the resolution was carried by 6 votes to 4. Councillors Galpin, Misir, Pain, Hawthorn, Ower and Durant voted for the resolution to refuse planning permission. Councillors Oddy, Brace, Kelly and Tebbutt voted against the resolution to refuse planning permission.

The report before members detailed a proposal for the demolition of the existing building and garages and the erection of a single 2-storey building to provide 8 flats with two to the ground floor, four at first floor level and two in the roofspace. All the flats would be 1-bedroom.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector without a response from the applicant.

During the discussion members sought clarification as to whether the parking provided would be on an allocated basis and the access and egress arrangements for the site.

Members noted that a Mayoral CIL contribution of £8951 would be liable for the proposed development and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

• A financial contribution of £48,000 to be used towards infrastructure costs in accordance with the Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

• All contribution sums shall include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 Agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

• The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the preparation of the Agreement, prior to completion of the Agreement, irrespective of whether the Agreement is completed.

• The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the Agreement.

Staff were authorised to enter into such an agreement and that upon its completion planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report and an additional condition requiring submission, approval, implementation and maintenance of a scheme of on-site parking allocation and management.

The vote for the resolution was carried by 8 votes to 1 with 1 abstention. Councillor Durant voted against the resolution to grant planning permission. Councillor Brace abstained from voting.

The report before members detailed a proposalto demolish the existing dwelling and mobile home and construct a replacement detached two storey four bedroom dwelling on the site. The proposed dwelling would be aligned with the front building lines of the immediate neighbour at Nos 135 and 125 Crow Lane. The existing cross over was to be retained and a new hardstanding area and soft landscaping was proposed to the front of the dwelling.

Members noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Barry Tebbutt as he did not agree with officer’s recommendation for refusal based on the impact on the surrounding streetscene.

During the debate members considered whether the proposal would offer improvements to the streetscene and an opportunity to regularise the site. Members noted that a lawful development /use certificate had been granted for the mobile home to the rear of the site.

Members considered the possibility of securing the removal of the mobile home and the existing dwelling through a s106 Legal Agreement. Members were informed that this avenue and been explored but there had been difficulties securing the agreement of all parties with an interest in the land to enter into such an agreement.  Members were advised that it may be possible to secure the removal of the existing dwelling and mobile home through a suitably worded planning condition.

Members noted that the proposed development attracted a Mayoral CIL payment of £4720.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused; however following a motion to grant planning permission it was RESOLVED to delegate authority to the Head of Development & Building Control to grant planning permission, with the precise wording of conditions also delegated but which wouldinclude:

·         Materials

·         Landscaping

·         Boundary treatment

·         Application site only to be used for a single residential unit

·         Remove all permitted development including outbuildings and caravans

·         Remove the two small outbuildings not indicated on submitted 'current' plan

·         Contamination site investigation

·         Obscure glazing

·         Hours of construction

·         Remove the mobile home no later than a fixed 4 week period following occupation of the new house (prohibition on simultaneous occupation of two dwellings). 

The vote for the motion and the resolution was carried by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention. Councillor Tebbutt abstained from voting.

The Committee considered the report and noted that the proposed development was liable for a Mayoral CIL contribution and without debate RESOLVED to raise no objection to the request for prior approval for the exercise of permitted development rights having taken account of the environmental information included in the Environmental Statement, and subject to the conditions as set out in the report

The Committee considered the report, noting that the proposed development was liable for a Mayoral CIL of £140,140 and without debate RESOLVED that having taken account of the environmental information included in the Environmental Statement, that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to add an additional condition requiring the submission of a Travel Plan.