Agenda and minutes

Councillor Seacome, Councillor Hobley.

Note:  Councillor Savage apologised for only being able to attend the meeting for the first hour or so. 

 i. 17/00443/FUL 55A Beeches Road

-       Councillor McCloskey – personal – the applicant is a close neighbour – will leave the Chamber

-       Councillor Lillywhite – personal – the applicant is a friend – will leave the Chamber.

-        Councillor Mason has visited all the sites

-        Councillor Baker visited Nos. 68 and 70 Sandy Lane.

There were none.

Resolved, that the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th April 2016 be approved and signed as a correct record with the following correction:

-       Councillor McCloskey is marked as being present at the meeting, whereas in fact she was not and had sent her apologies.

MJC introduced the application, reminding Members that they deferred the previous scheme for a two-storey side and front extension and remodelling with render and cladding finish at March committee.  The applicant has taken stock of the issues discussed – privacy, size, width, space between properties, and suggestion he discuss his proposal with the neighbours.  In consultation with officers, a very different proposal has been generated which officers consider to be acceptable and are happy to recommend for approval.  It is at Committee because the neighbour is a senior member of CBC staff.

Public Speaking:

SW:  this doesn’t very often happen – that a number of Committee requests for redesign and changes have all been taken on board.  Is impressed that the applicant has made the changes in line with what Members said, and thanks them for the efforts they have gone to.

PB:  must congratulate the applicant and architect for taking on board the detailed comments from neighbours and councillors.  The proposal is well designed, but still very big – will therefore struggle to support it, as it is not subservient.  Having said that, it works with the street scene and the size of the plot.  On balance it is a better scheme, and a great example of an application being deferred and sent back, and then coming back to Committee much improved.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

0 in objection

1 abstention

PERMIT

VH introduced this proposal for a temporary three-year planning permission to site up to six temporary structures – non-permanent refreshment vans – in three areas of the car park.  The number and type of van will vary and change over time – there are examples of the type of vehicle on the Committee wall – but visibility splays must be provided to the front.  The units can operate as A1, A3 or A5 outlets in line with the opening hours of the retail park.  Environmental Health, Highways and neighbours have not raised any objections;  the application is at Committee because the Parish Council has objected. The recommendation is to grant temporary planning permission for three years.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

MC:  was on site visit on Tuesday,  as it was important to look at this site in person rather than just on the plans.  Would like a few answers to some questions.  Would be more happy if this was a temporary  application for the Christmas period – it would have novelty value – but the biggest concern is the fact that they applicant wants flexibility, for any number of uses.  This will conflict with other businesses and offers on the retail park.  Would be more happy if the units were different in the three areas.  At the moment, cannot support the proposal.

BF:  hears what MC is saying, but his main concern is loss of parking.  Planning View took place on an ordinary Tuesday afternoon.  Gallagher Retail Park has improved greatly over the years, and is now a popular destination.  Parking for Sainsbury’s and Whole Foods sometimes spills over onto the Gallagher Retail Park side.   Parking spaces will be lost, both for the pop-up units and for the vendors’ vehicles.  Has been at Gallagher Retail Park when it is virtually impossible to find a parking space, especially around Christmas.  The parking survey which accompanied the application was done in February – this is not typical – but for most of Saturday it was over 80% full, which is high for a car park.  More and more, staff are unable to park on the site, and have no choice other than to park on residential streets nearby.

HM:  would reiterate BF’s comments.  Twenty spaces will be lost for the three pop-up units; on Planning View – Tuesday lunchtime – the car park was very busy, and in fact more than 20 spaces will actually be lost – these areas will have fencing and barriers around them.  Drivers won’t want to park adjacent to the barriers due to lack of sight line, so at least another five spaces will be lost. Regarding the single unit by the road,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

MP introduced the application as above.  The proposal is in line with the existing property – scale, height, massing, materials all reflect the existing, and officers consider it an efficient use of the site.  It will not harm neighbouring amenity, and there are no highway safety issues.  It has been referred to Committee by Councillor Coleman, due to concerns from neighbours about over-development of the site.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

TO:  this is a good development, which will make good use of the site.  The only concern is that this is currently a leafy green wasteland which adds to the community.  The proposal will mean trees coming down.  17 Norfolk Avenue access will go to the access for cars, a new drop kerb and the removal of a hedge.  Would like a condition to put trees in somewhere.

SW:  looking at the drawings, is concerned about what will happen to the area behind the garages – great if it becomes a garden and vegetable patch, but problems if it becomes a bramble patch.  Realises that the application can’t be refused on this, however.

MP, in response:

-       To TO, re the drop kerb and hedge, the application proposed to use the existing access.  There was a comment on planning view that a future applicant might want parking for the existing property which would mean widening the drop kerb;

-       the trees officer has previously commented on this application, and didn’t object to the removal of the trees but suggested general re-planting. There is a condition to cover this, but this could be made more specific to relate directly to trees, if Members wish;

-       to SW, the space to the rear is expected to come is as part of the landscaping scheme, which is concerned with all hard surfaces.

TO:  would like the landscaping condition to refer specifically to increasing the number of trees.

MP, in response:

-       can alter the condition to be more specific.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit, with amended landscaping condition

12 in support - unanimous

PERMIT

Councillors McCloskey and Lillywhite declared an interest in the following application, and therefore left the Chamber for the duration of this debate

MJC introduced the application for works to facilitate a loft conversion, as above.  The recommendation is to permit.  The application is at Planning Committee due to Parish Council objections regarding loss of neighbours’ privacy.

Public Speaking:

Marcus Evans, of Evans Jones, in support

The application has generated a number of comments from local residents and the Parish Council, concerned about amenity levels of neighbouring properties.  The officer recommendation is to permit.  The proposal is for two dormer windows and roof lights to create accommodation in the roof space of 55A Beeches Road.  The proposed roof light in the west-facing roof slope will be obscurely glazed, non-opening, and 1.7m above floor level.  A condition is proposed to ensure these windows remain as such.  The remaining rooflights will all be 1.7m above floor level – an important dimension as it ensures protection of neighbours’ privacy and is consistent with requirements set out in the General Permitted Development Order.  As such, there are no concerns that these windows will provide an outlook which will be harmful to the amenity of adjoining neighbours. The proposal complies with CP4 and the SPD for Residential Alterations and Extension.  It has been designed to protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties, together with future occupiers of the dwelling.  To conclude, there are no local plan or national policies which would support the refusal of planning permission.  Urges the committee to support the officer recommendation and approve the application.

Member debate:

MC:  this is a case which proves how invaluable Planning View is to get a proper understanding of the sites being considered.  It is very interesting, a good use of the space.  There are no problems from a planning point of view, and believes that the proposal won’t cause the problems that the objectors think it will.  The designer has mitigated any potential issues with use of obscure glazing.  Is happy to support the proposal 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

10 in support

PERMIT

MP introduced this householder application for the remodelling and extension of 70 Sandy Lane.  It is at Committee because the applicant is a senior member of CBC staff.  The scheme proposes a two-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension, alterations to the bay window at first floor level, and new grey fascia boards.  The materials will alter the character of the building, but the extension will be subservient, and not have any impact on neighbouring amenity.  As such, the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

BF:  likes the use of the two-colour brick, which tones down into the colour of the vale.  Is a fan of brick-built buildings, and this is an excellent choice of brick – better than block and render.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

12 in support – unanimous

PERMIT