Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Steve Drury and Alison Scarth with Councillors Margaret Hofman and Stephanie Singer attending as named substituted Members. 

An apology for absence was also received from Councillor Stephen King.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 24 June 2021.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 24 June 2021 were confirmed as a correct record by the Committee and were signed by the Vice-Chair in the Chair.

Items of other business notified under Council Procedure Rule 30 to be announced, together with the special circumstances that justify their consideration as a matter of urgency. The Chair to rule on the admission of such items.

The Vice Chair advised that there was no other items of business. 

To receive any declarations of interest.

Where a member of this Planning Committee is also a member of a Parish Council they are entitled to take part in any debate at this Committee on an application within that Parish area provided that the Councillor

·         has an open mind about the application

·         is not bound by the views of the Parish Planning Committee and

·         can deal with the application fairly and on its merits at Committee

Councillor Raj Khiroya read out the following statement to the Committee:

“All Members are reminded that they should come to meetings with an open mind and be able to demonstrate that they are open minded. You should only come to your decision after due consideration of all the information provided, whether by planning officers in the introduction, by applicants/agents, by objectors or by fellow Councillor’s. The Committee Report in itself is not the sole piece of information to be considered. Prepared speeches to be read out are not a good idea. They might suggest that you have already firmly made up your mind about an application before hearing any additional information provided on the night and they will not take account of information provided on the night. You must always avoid giving the impression of having firmly made up your mind in advance no matter that you might be pre-disposed to any view.”

The Planning Officer reported that a number of objections had been submitted since the publication of the report. These objections do not refer to any new points of concern that had already been set out within the officer report.

This application follows an already permitted planning application and listed building consent, granted at Planning Committee last year.

For clarity, the changes from the approved permission are:

¾     New open sided extension to the garage building

¾     Increase in the height and depth of the garage addition

¾     Alterations to the glazed link (set further forward and 0.8m lower) between the garage and The Windmill

¾     New link between The Windmill and extension

¾     Addition of one further rooflight, now 5 in total, set lower within the roof of the extension

¾     Addition of a chimney to the extension

During the process amended plans were submitted which reduced the height of the glazed link, reduced the number and size of the rooflights, reduced the height of the Windmill link with the main extension and lowered the height of the main extension to the approved height.

Councillor Chris Lloyd stated that applications on this site had been discussed on a number of occasions and some applications had been withdrawn.  The Councillor had some questions on the following points:

·         What was approved with the last application;

·         What had been changed as a result of comments;

·         What were the Committee now being asked to approve which would help residents when reading the minutes.

The Planning Officer referred to the extension, the garage and the canopy over the garage.  The garage had now been pushed slightly further forward into the site to be level with the tower.  The plan showed the garage with the canopy at the back, the rooflights and the garage now coming level with the tower where previously it had been set slightly further back.  The glass garage link to the Windmill had been reduced in height from the previously permitted scheme.  When the applicant made repairs to the tower and removed the existing cap on the over-hanging part of the tower a number of small holes were revealed which show the steel supports. The proposal under this application was to retain them and glass over them, their location being just below the cap.  Residents had made note of this.  Another change was to provide a link at the first floor level.  Members were aware from previous discussions there is an unsympathetic 1970s extension.  Under the previous permitted scheme the existing link was to remain and the new extension was to have a pitched roof element.  Now the new first floor element between the Windmill and extension would be set slightly beneath the main ridge to provide a variation between them.  The roof lights at the back of the pitch roof extension, where previously there had been four and slightly higher up they were now lower down with five proposed.  This application included the addition of chimney. The applicant had  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC29/21

The Planning Officer reported that this application had been submitted following changes to the roof form of the rear extension which was part existing and part approved via a prior approval application which requires applicants to build in accordance with what was agreed. The extension now has a lower overall height from 3m to 2.8m and a flat roof.

Previous conditions under separate planning permission secure garage parking with a total of 3 spaces.

Councillor Sara Bedford said as one of the Members who had called in the application, which was in quite a prominent location, they felt that having seen the changes particularly with regard to the height of the dormer window and having checked with people who had raised concerns they were now happy with proposal. The Councillor moved the recommendation that Part Retrospective Planning Permission be Granted subject to conditions.

Councillor Debbie Morris asked if the permitted development rights for extending further could be removed.  The Councillor referred to Condition 5 which removed permitted development rights with regard to Class E - buildings etc. incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling house but felt it should be extended further.  The Planning Officer advised it could be extended further to include further extensions.  Their understanding historically was a previous application had removed permitted development rights solely in relation Class B - extensions to the roof.  This had been part of an application earlier this year which was approved therefore removing that condition and thus the applicant was open to further extend the roof without planning permission.  In respect of the ground floor there was still the potential to extend to the side but if they wanted to extend at the back they would have to submit a prior approval application due to the depth but would be assessed solely on whether or not the neighbour next door objects.  It would be for the Committee to decide if they wished to tighten the condition on permitted development.

The Planning Officer clarified that the Council had recently had a planning application which removed Class B so they had already accepted that knowing that the extension was already there.  The Committee could include Class A to restrict further ground floor extensions but would have concerns on Class B being added.  Given the lack of amenity space highlighted and given that officers have controlled outbuildings in the future it would be reasonable to Condition Class A.

Councillor Debbie Morris asked if the proposer of the application would accept an amendment to Condition C5 that it be extended to include removal of permitted development rights in relation to Class A.

Councillor Sara Bedford was happy to include that amendment to Condition C5 in the recommendation

Councillor Debbie Morris seconded the motion with the amendment to Condition C5 to include removal of permitted development rights in relation to Class A.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Vice-Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That PART RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC30/21

The Planning Officer had no update.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke against the application.

Councillor Sara Bedford advised that once the neighbour letters were sent out a lot of people had been distressed, particularly those neighbouring households and residents at the back in Broomfield Rise, about the depth of the new properties proposed.  The existing property is a beautiful house but this had not stopped houses being lost in the past in Gallows Hill Lane.  However, that does not mean this individual unique house should be lost.  The concerns were the depth of the houses going back into the open space, being prominent within the land there, prominent to the neighbours either side, particularly No.80 and in Broomfield Rise.  The access road proposed would be noisy and disserving to residents in Gallows Hill Lane and Little Orchard Close.  Officers had done a very good job in summing up the number of reasons why this application was not acceptable. 

Councillor Sara Bedford moved, seconded by Councillor Keith Martin, the recommendation that that Planning Permission be Refused for the reasons set out in the officer report.

Councillor David Raw advised it was an excellent report provided by officers.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being 9 For, 0 Against and 1 Abstention.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the officer report.

The Planning Officer reported that as Members would see from the photograph the roof of the dwelling had been removed in its entirety but the plans show that the roof would be rebuilt as previously approved.  Officers suggest that the Condition relating to materials (Condition C2) be amended to include reference to submission of roof tiles samples.

Councillor Debbie Morris asked with regard to the description of the works – changes to elevations – this was plural and asked if it was just the front elevation that would be the subject of works or if there were other amendments in relation to the rear of the site.

The Planning Officer advised that there would be changes to the elevations to the flank side too.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke against the application.

Councillor Debbie Morris said 11 of the 13 windows in the front elevation were being changed and asked if that was something the officer agreed with because the Heritage statement seemed to suggest that the works would be extensive.

The Planning Officer appreciated that 11 of the 13 windows were to be replaced.  The Conservation Officer was consulted and had a preference for the windows to be retained as existing however on balance given the fact that they had requested amendments to include transoms it was considered they would be sufficient and acceptable.

Councillor Debbie Morris understood what the Conservation Officer had said but wanted to provide details on the history of the site.  In 2018 an application came to Committee for extensive extensions and changes which was approved.  The saving part for the Conservation Area was that the front elevation would more or less remain intact.  In 2020 there were further applications to substantially amend the front elevation including the removal of the chimneys which was refused.  Today the report refers to the external appearance and the removal of the original chimneys which would result in the loss of the characterful features.  The chimneys and the windows add to the external appearance and make up the character of the front elevation.  We now face a situation where the chimneys are to be replaced but not with existing materials.  The Councillor imagined the chimneys were close to 100 years old so it would be hard to find materials to match with the same said of the tiles.  The windows, as advised by the speaker and officer, are going to be substantially and overwhelmingly changed. This is a pre 1958 building and the Council was committed to the Moor Park Conservation Area appraisal where the protection of pre 1958 buildings are to be given the highest degree of protection.  In the Councillor’s opinion this application was going too far and supported the objections raised.

Councillor David Raw raised concern about the amount of earth that was to be removed from the back of the house due to the basement.  Being in a Conservation Area were officers happy that the work being  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC32/21

The Planning Officer reported that following the publication of the report 1 further supporting comment and 2 additional objections had been received

The further objections do not raise any additional points which had not been summarised at Paragraph 4.2.4 of the officer report.

The supporting comment included reference to the benefits of the development providing a bungalow for a retired person and suggests that the development would not impact on privacy of existing residents at No.27.

The benefit of one dwelling was not considered to outweigh the identified harm, however, it was accepted that there would be no harm to neighbouring amenity and the application was not recommended for refusal on that ground.

Councillor Sara Bedford advised the dwelling had been the subject of a number of applications over the past couple of years and appeal decision.  The Councillor felt the reasons for refusal as set out in the report were sound reasons. The report was well written and took into account each point. It was hard following the previous appeal decision to stand up a refusal on neighbour amenity and parking.  They felt that the reasons for refusal summed up all the points in terms of amenity because of the siting, layout and design which would be cramped, contrived and incongruous and very prominent to the neighbours.

Councillor Sara Bedford moved the recommendation as set out in the officer report that planning permission be refused. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 35(b) a member of the public spoke against the application having been allowed to speak by the Committee as they had not registered before the meeting. 

Councillor Sara Bedford wished to make clear that had they known a member of the public wished to speak they would not have spoken and moved the recommendation.

The Committee Clerk advised that they were not aware of any member of the public wishing to speak as the member of public had just turned up to the meeting and had not pre-registered to speak.

Councillor Chris Lloyd said having heard the speakers and read the report they were happy to second the motion that planning permission be refused as set out in the officer report.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RESOLVED:

That the decision be delegated to the Head of Regulatory Services to consider any representations received following the expiry of the consultation period and PLANNING PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the reasons set out in the report.

The Planning Officer reported that the applicant had today emailed all Members which highlighted the following:

·         Works were done for the safety and privacy of the family

·         Original plans would not achieve the purpose we had in mind so made positive amendments

·         There was a 4 foot drop around our patio

·         We have planted a root protection around the hedges so roots grow downwards

The applicant had also provided some pre-existing photographs which Officers would take Members through of the current situation.

The Planning Officer advised the development had substantially been completed.  A previous application had come to the Committee in April and was deferred for a site visit but had been withdrawn before the May Committee meeting and before a site visit could be undertaken.  This application slightly altered the patio at the top which now came down to another level and there was a further lower level adjacent to the boundary creating a terracing.  Some new hedging had been planted between the pergola which was not on the plans.  Officers had assessed the pergola and decided it came under Class E permitted development, measured from the original ground level. 

Councillor Sara Bedford said because of the gradient of the site it was quite difficult to assess the application just on the photographs without going along to see it and view from the neighbour’s garden.  The Councillor moved deferral of the application in order that the Committee can make a site visit.

Councillor David Raw asked if there were any drawings of the gradient that Councillor Bedford was talking about so the Committee could see the gradient and the different levels between the applicants land and the neighbours land. 

The Planning Officer advised that the plans would not necessarily show the changes in the land levels and the difference between the two. The plans do show the difference in the levels in respect of the ground level of the house which was where the bi-fold doors are at the top and dropping down quite steeply to the level closer to the neighbour’s fence.  The dotted line on the plans showed where the ground level of the patio was and the other lined area showed the actual level which was higher than the natural land level.  There was a difference in respect of height which was why the hedging had been planted to mitigate against any overlooking being provided from the more elevated height.  As Members had seen from the photograph previously, there was obviously quite a drop in levels. The patio had been built at a high level closer to the neighbour but because of the circumstances, as set out in the officer report, it was felt it was acceptable.  The land levels do change with one of the neighbours on a much lower land level but the other on a higher land level so a site visit may assist Members.

Councillor Chris Lloyd seconded the motion to defer for a site visit.

On being put to the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC34/21