Agenda and minutes

Apologies have been received from Cllrs Bamford and Andrews.

Apologies were received from Councillors Bamford and Baker – Councillor Clark attended as a substitute.

Councillor Oliver declared an interest in application 5c and stated that he would leave the meeting for that item.

The Members that attended the planning view visited all sites.

Cllrs McCloskey and Nelson also visited all sites.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16^th June 2022.

The minutes of the last meeting were approved.

Planning application documents

The Head of Planning introduced the application, reminding Members that the application considered at June committee was a revision of an earlier scheme which had been refused for lack of sanitary provision.  The revised scheme included additional shower facilities, but at the previous meeting, Members were told that the two downstairs rooms, shown as a living and sitting room on the existing drawings, were in fact used as bedrooms - this was confirmed on planning view.  The drawings have now been updated, showing the existing provision of two ground floor bedrooms on the existing plan, but returning these to a living and sitting room on the proposed plan, with an extended kitchen and two additional bedrooms upstairs, making a four-bedroomed dwelling.  Members needed to focus on what was being proposed – an extension to a dwelling house.  Even if the property was being used as an HMO, they should bear in mind that planning permission was not required for HMOs of up to six people, and neither was it needed to amend internal development. Members’ previous concerns about amenity and shower provision wouldn’t ordinarily be covered through planning consent; the main consideration was the increase in living space, and officers remained of the view that the proposal was acceptable and it would be difficult to argue a case to refuse.

Public Speakers

The agent, on behalf of the applicant, said he had empathy with Members’ previous concerns about the lack of sanitary provision, but this had been resolved by reducing the size of the proposed bedrooms and adding an upstairs shower room and WC.  The only refusal reason had thus been addressed, as confirmed by the officer report and recommendation.  Members’ site visit confirmed that the two downstairs rooms were currently used as bedrooms, and although the lack of clarity was unfortunate, the applicant had done nothing wrong, and there was no reason to consider the applicant as anything other than an householder extension.  By adding upstairs bedrooms, the area downstairs had been freed up for living accommodation, in full compliance with Policy SD14.  He urged Members to vote in support of the recommendation.

A neighbour, speaking in objection, thanked Members for visiting the site, and hoped they got a clear perspective of the potential impact the proposal would have.  Specifically, neighbours felt the proposal was overdevelopment – the house had already been extended twice, making it disproportionate and out-of-keeping in the street, and the addition of the smallest shower room increased the rental potential to six bedrooms.   The proposed rear extension would reduce the natural light to No. 39, and result in overshadowing, and the loss of the gap between Nos. 35 and 37 would substantially reduce the natural light and sunshine to the kitchen and dining room at No. 35.  The gap between Nos 35 and 37 tapers to the rear because the new terrace had to be angled into the space, resulting in Bedroom 3 at No. 37 overlooking the rear courtyard and garden of No. 35.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Planning application documents

The Planning Officer presented the report.

The point was made in Member debate that it was noticed that number 3 is higher that number 2 and there is a reasonable gradient.

The matter went to the vote to permit.

For: 9

Abstentions:1

Against: 0

Permit

Planning application documents

Prior to the start of this item Cllr Oliver left the room.

The planning officer introduced the report.

There were no Member questions.

There was only one comment during Member debate and that was that charities are looking for warm places to use for people with heating concerns during the winter and hoped that this would be one of them.

The recommendation was to permit.

The matter went to the vote

For:9

Against: 0

Abstentions: 0

Permit.

Planning application documents

The planning officer presented the report for retrospective planning permission confirming that the majority of the works had been completed and the dormers were larger than on the original application.

The applicant then had the opportunity to speak.  He made the following points:

-        To take onto account objections made by the neighbours they added more to the front of the property than to the back.

-        The architect had measured incorrectly which is why there were larger dormers put in.

-        He had assumed that it was a minor adjustment and therefore did not require planning permission.

-        The dormers are tiled to blend in the roof.

-        Many houses on the street have changed therefore there is no street scene to blend into.

-        No opposite neighbours have objected.

-        He believed that the increase in size was not enough to refuse.

In response to a Member question it was confirmed that if it was refused then it would be refusal to the scheme on the whole.  Minor changes can be looked at as a non-material application.

During the Member debate the following points were raised:

-        The applicant should have ensured that the drawings were correct.

-        As there were very few complaints from the neighbours it wasn’t deemed proportionate to ask them to remove the dormers.

-        The tiling on the side of the dormers will look better after weathering.

-        As the houses are all different in this road this will not affect the street scene.

The matter went to the vote on the officer recommendation to refuse:

For: 4

Against: 5

Abstention: 1

Refusal not granted.

The matter then went to the vote to permit subject to previous conditions:

For: 5

Against: 4

Abstention: 1

Permission granted.

Planning application documents

The Conservation Officer introduced the report. 

In response to Member questions it was confirmed that the new pipes would be a mix of plastic and metal.  When it is a more sensitive elevation cast aluminium will be used.  At the rear plastic will be used.  A Member had suggested that a water butt be installed, as it is a listed building this is not in the scope however the Chair requested that this request be passed on to the cemetery site management.

There was no Member debate and the matter then went to the vote.

The recommendation was to permit.

For: 10 –unanimous

PERMIT

Planning application documents 22/0094/COU

Planning application documents 22/0094/ADV

The planning officer introduced the report.

Councillor Horwood spoke briefly on the matter as ward Councillor giving his support to the application.

The response to a Member question was that the sports club could use the facilities of the pavilion for catering and other events with non restricted hours, subject to appropriate licenses being sought..  The proposed café has restricted hours.

During Member debate Members stated that they were in favour of the application.  There was a question regarding whether the sign is too large, however the planning officer  confirmed that this was a standard size for this type of sign.

The matter went to the vote,  The recommendation for change of use was permit.

For: 10

Against: 0

Abstain:0

PERMIT

There was then the vote for the sign.  The recommendation was to permit.

For: 10

Against: 0

Abstain: 0

PERMIT

These were noted.

there were none and the meeting ended.