Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies:  Cllr Bob Evans

Substitute:  Cllr Nicholas Bennett JP

Apologies:  Cllr Nicky Dykes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Bob Evans and Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP attended as his substitute.  An apology for absence was received from Councillor Nicky Dykes.

Item 8.1 Cllr Douglas Auld – Personal Interest

Councillor Douglas Auld declared a Personal Interest in Item 8.1. He remained in the Chamber for the debate and vote.

CONFIRMED

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 January 2016 be confirmed.

WITHDRAWN BY CHIEF PLANNER

Description of application – Installation of non-illuminated signage to school access gates fronting Park Avenue.

THIS REPORT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE CHIEF PLANNER.

WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT

Description of application – Detached single storey building for parking and storage ancillary to the main dwelling.  CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THIS REPORT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.

PERMISSION

Description of application amended to read, ‘Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a 5 bed detached house with attached garage.’

This application was considered by Members of Plans Sub-Committee 3 on 4^th February 2016, which resolved to approve the proposal subject to conditions.  On the day of the meeting a loss of power had affected the Civic Centre’s information and communication systems and it had been agreed that on restoration of the systems any late representations (although outside of the statutory consultation period) received that materially affected an application would be taken into consideration before a decision on that application was issued. It became apparent after the Sub-Committee that a local resident had attempted to send an email on the day of the meeting that had not been received.  Accordingly the decision was not issued and the application reported back to this Sub-Committee.  The Chief Planner’s report and recommendation remained the same as that contained in the agenda for Plans Sub-Committee 3 on 4 February 2016 but with the additional late email objection summarised in the report.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting.  Comments from Ward Member, Councillor Mary Cooke, in objection to the application were reported. 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application - Single storey detached outbuilding at land r/o 202 Langley Way for use as a dance practice studio for occupants of main house only.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that on page 33 of the Chief Planner’s report, paragraph 4, should be amended to read:-

‘It is also noted that a further application for a lawful development certificate for an 'outbuilding for use as a dance practice studio for occupants of main house only' was refused as the proposal did not constitute permitted development as it would not fall within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse and the use was not considered as a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse in relation to Class E of the GPDO.’

It was also reported that on page 34 of the Chief Planner’s report, paragraph 4, should be amended to read:-

‘A recent application for a lawful development certificate for an 'outbuilding for use as a dance practice studio for occupants of main house only' (ref: 15/02887/PLUD) was refused as the proposal did not constitute permitted development. This was due to two reasons; it would not fall within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse and the use was not considered as a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse in relation to Class E of the GPDO. This current application requires the Council to determine the application in relation to planning policy rather than a matter of whether it is "Permitted Development".’

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

REFUSED

Description of application – Construction of a single storey building for use as a day nursery (Use Class D1) and associated access, parking, refuse storage and landscaping.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.

Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP had concerns that there was no arrangement in place with regard to potential noise disturbance to adjacent residents at play times. In Councillor Charles Joel’s opinion there was insufficient parking provision.  The Chief Planner’s Representative advised Members that a previous application had been refused that was subject to an appeal.  The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeal but his concerns were narrow and a partial aware of costs was made.  The Chief Planner’s Representative further reminded Members to consider the guidance regarding the award of costs if the application was to be refused.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.  The proposed development, by reason of its design and in particular the proposed fencing will unduly impair the open nature of designated Urban Open Space contrary to Policy G8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2.  The proposal, by reason of the additional noise and disturbance associated with activities relating to the proposed use as a day nursery, will have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of occupants of nearby properties contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3.  The proposal does not provide a suitable arrangement for the parking and turning of cars within the site resulting in unsatisfactory parking arrangements contrary to Policy T3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

REFUSED

Description of application – Two storey side/rear extension, partial hip to gable extension, rear dormer with juliet balcony and front rooflights.

Councillor Katy Boughey disagreed with the Chief Planner’s recommendation  and, in her opinion, the proposed development would impact residential amenity and be contrary to the Unitary Development Plan Policies BE1 and H8.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.  The proposed alterations to the roof are considered to result in a bulky and overdominant addition that would be detrimental to the streetscene and the visual amenities of the area; thereby contrary to policies H8 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 

2.  The proposed two storey extension, by reason of its design, bulk and rearward projection, would have an adverse impact on the residential amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining property, No.47 Sandy Ridge, contrary to Policies BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.

PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIRED AND REFUSED

Description of application - Installation of 10m telecommunications mast and one ancillary equipment cabinet. Consultation by Vodafone and O2 regarding the need for prior approval for siting and appearance.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that further objections to the application had been received together with objections from St Philomena’s C.P. School.

Councillors Angela Page and Douglas Auld had concerns that the site was in close proximity to the School.  The proposed site was an attractive green area with bungalows predominately nearby and additional street furniture would be detrimental to the local amenity. She understood that the Council had undertaken to look at its Asset Register with a view to assist companies with the siting of telecommunication masts and equipment cabinets.  Councillor Nicholas Bennett pointed out that residents wanted and needed good mobile reception and considered the site to be acceptable.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PRIOR APPROVAL BE REQUIRED AND REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.  The proposed mast, by reason of its height, siting and design, would represent an obtrusive and over-prominent feature in the street scene, out of character and detrimental to the visual and residential amenities of the area, contrary to Policy BE1 and BE22 of the Unitary Development.

PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIRED AND REFUSED

Description of application – 12.5 replica telegraph pole telecommunications mast with equipment cabinet sited on the pavement of Hayes Lane.

Consultation by Vodafone Ltd and Telefonica UK Ltd regarding the need for

approval of siting and appearance of telecommunications apparatus.

AMENDED SITE LOCATION - LAND REAR OF 109 HAYES WAY.

It was reported that further objections to the application had been received.

Comments from Ward Member, Councillor Mary Cooke, in support of the application were reported.  Councillor Charles Joel referred to technical information with regard to the siting of masts and equipment.  His preference was for companies to site them in tree/wooded areas or back gardens. Councillor Nicholas Bennett supported the application.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PRIOR APPROVAL BE REQUIRED AND REFUSED for the following reason set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Detached two storey 4 bedroom dwelling with integral garage on land adjacent to Trowmers with vehicular access from Cudham Road.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that a further objections to the application had been received from Downe Residents’ Association.  Comments from Ward Member, Councillor Richard Scoates, in objection to the application were reported together with comments from Highways Division.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – First floor side extension.

Members having considered the report, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Second floor side extension, roof and rear dormer extensions and conversion of attic to self-contained studio flat.

It was reported that the ordnance survey site map attached to the Chief Planner’s report was incorrect and the site was the next door site.  Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Demolition of existing dwellinghouse and construction of a replacement two storey five bedroom dwellinghouse (PART RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that the application site was adjacent to the Green Belt and not sited in the Green Belt as stated in the Chief Planner’s report.

Members having considered the report and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – Part one/two storey front extension with dormer and single storey side extension.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PERMISSION

Description of application – First floor side/rear extension.

Members having considered the report and objections, RESOLVED that PERMISSION be GRANTED as recommended, subject to the conditions set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

PRIOR APPROVAL REQUIRED AND REFUSED

Description of application – Installation of 12.5m high telecommunications mast. Consultation by Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd (CTIL) regarding the need for prior approval of siting and appearance.

Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Charles Rideout, and on behalf of his fellow Ward Member, Councillor David Cartwright, in objection to the application were received.  The layout of the potential siting was inappropriate and accidents or near misses at the site were common. Further street furniture on this site would reduce motorists visibility.  In Councillor Rideout’s opinion a more suitable location had been offered but the telecommunications company had not taken this up due to technical reasons.

It was reported that the application had been amended by documents received on 11 February 2016.  Comments from Ward Member, Councillor David Cartwright, in objection to the application were reported and circulated to Members. It was reported that Highways Division had no objection to the application. 

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PRIOR APPROVAL BE REQUIRED AND REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.  The proposed mast, by reason of its prominent location, height, siting and design, would represent an obtrusive and over-prominent feature in the street scene, out of character and detrimental to the visual and residential amenities of the area, contrary to Policy BE1 and BE22 of the Unitary Development Plan.

REFUSED

Description of application – Single storey side extension.Replacment garage with covered porch.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that on page 137 of the Chief Planner’s report the first sentence should be amended to read, ‘The proposed single storey side extension would increase the width of the dwelling from 10.6m to 18.2m by using a 3.6m wide strip of adjoining land which is currently outside the ownership of the property, eroding the space to the side of the property.’

Ward Member, Councillor Douglas Auld, spoke in objection to the application.  Councillor Auld’s comments and the ordnance survey plan are attached as Minute Annex, Appendix 1, to these Minutes.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.  The proposed development, by reason of its length, height and prominent boundary location, will result in an overdevelopment of the site and the development will have an overbearing impact on the occupants of 16 Sequoia Gardens resulting in a loss of prospect, privacy, amenity and vista contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan. 

REFUSED

Description of application – Part 1/2 storey front, rear and side extensions. Conversion of garage into habitable room with elevational alterations.

Oral representations in support of the application were received at the meeting.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED, as recommended, for the following reason set out in the report of the Chief Planner.

DEFERRED

Description of application -First floor rear extension.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received at the meeting.

A plan had been received from the applicant and circulated to Members.  Comments and photographs from Ward Member, Councillor Simon Fawthrop, in objection to the application were reported and circulated to Members and attached as Minute Annex, Appendix 2.

Ward Member, Councillor Douglas Auld, spoke in objection to the application.  Councillor Auld’s comments are attached as Minute Annex, Appendix 3 to these Minutes.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED, without prejudice to any future consideration, to seek reduction in the height of the roof of the proposed extension.