Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct, councillors are reminded that it is a requirement to declare interests where appropriate.

The following disclosures of interests were made:

The Planning Code of Conduct requires any councillors who have been lobbied, received correspondence, or been approached by an interested party regarding any planning matter to declare this at the meeting at which the matter is being considered. Councillors should declare if they have been lobbied at this point in the meeting.

The following lobbying declarations were made by councillors:

Councillor Pritchard had been lobbied but had expressed no view on application CR/2023/0317/FUL.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 23 April 2024.

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 23 April 2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider report PES/460aof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to PERMIT.

The Committee considered report PES/460a of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Retrospective application for single storey rear extension and proposed change of use to 7 person HMO.

Councillors Adeniyi, Burgess, Jaggard, Mwagale, and Pritchard declared they had visited the site.

The Acting Group Manager (Development Management) provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought retrospective permission for a single storey extension which used materials that differed from those acceptable under permitted development.  The application also sought permission for a change of use to a seven-person house in multiple occupation (HMO).  The officer then gave details of the various relevant planning considerations as set out in the report.

Andrew Metcalfe, the agent (Squires Planning), spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The application was retrospective, which was not a planning consideration, but the applicant wished to pass their apologies to the Committee for the builder using different materials to those originally set out.

·       The proposal met all the relevant standards for a seven person HMO.

·       The key considerations were the addition of one potential inhabitant to the dwelling and the materials used on the rear extension, which were not considered sufficient reasons to refuse the application.

The Committee then considered the application.  A number of concerns were raised about the impact of the size of the rear extension on the adjoining property.  It was highlighted that the extension did not comply with the minimum required standard of a 45 degree angle between the edge of the next-door neighbour’s window and the extension, and caused overshadowing due to its height and depth.  The officer clarified that this was classed as acceptable on balance as the depth of the house was relatively shallow and the adjoining room had an alternative source of light (the front window).  Committee members’ concerns remained, particularly as a significant shadow from the extension fell over the rear patio doors of the neighbouring property and this was considered to have a harmful impact on light levels in the room and therefore the neighbouring amenity.

Further concerns were raised about the intensification of use of the property and that the size was unsuitable for seven occupants.  It was highlighted that the officer report stated that the applicant had been requested to decrease the proposed occupancy to six as this would create additional communal space and therefore a better environment for occupants.  Committee members sought further explanation of this from officers, who confirmed that the size of the communal space as proposed and all bedrooms met the Council’s separate HMO standards, but there were general concerns that the proposed occupancy of seven was high for one property.  The Committee continued to have concerns about the proposed bedroom sizes, the potential for overcrowding, and the lifestyle impact this would have on future occupants.

The Committee also discussed the application’s proposed parking provision, which was for four cars. The officer explained that the Council’s policy standard for parking provision for an HMO was 0.5 spaces  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To consider report PES/460dof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE.

The Committee considered report PES/460d of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Retrospective permission for creation of dormer on rear elevation.

Councillors Adeniyi, Burgess, Charatan, Jaggard, Mwagale, and Pritchard declared they had visited the site.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought planning permission for an extension to a residential property in the form of a second floor rear dormer.  The dormer had been constructed prior to submission of the application so the permission sought was retrospective.  The Officer then gave details of the various relevant planning considerations as set out in the report.

Sandra Smith, a neighbour of the site, spoke in objection to the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The constructed extension had had a significant impact on neighbouring amenity, mainly due to a loss of privacy for the immediate neighbours.  Although the houses were at right-angles so according to policy were not deemed to cause a significant loss of privacy, the height and size of the extension resulted in full visibility into the neighbour’s home and garden.

·       Neighbours could also see into some rooms in the extension itself.  Blinds had been installed and trees had been planted but the size of the extension made it difficult to hide.

·       Planning policy stated that there should be a good standard of amenity for other nearby neighbours, however the appearance of the extension was not sympathetic to the streetscene due to its style, size, and large windows.

Mohsin Uddin, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The extension had been built to accommodate a growing family.  A previous planning application for the property had been submitted and granted permission in 2017, which had included cladding on the front of the property.

·       The property was not in a conservation area and complied with all permitted development rules (including height and size) except for the materials which had been used.

·       The extension was not visible from the entrance to Woodlands.  The eaves of the extension were visible from further down the road, but not significantly.

Jack Townsend, the agent, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       If not for the materials used, the extension would have fallen under permitted development rights.  Grey cladding had been used rather than tile, but other properties on Woodlands and in the area had been constructed with similar cladding. Nearby properties also had similar dormers.

·       Two prior applications had been permitted for grey windows and grey slate tile roofing on the property in the past.

·       There was no impact on neighbouring amenity and the impact on the streetscene was minimal.

Councillor Justin Russell, Ward Councillor for Pound Hill North & Forge Wood, spoke in support of the application.  Matters raised included:

·       The property, including its extension, was of a high quality design and had been well constructed. 

·       Whether the colour of the cladding was acceptable was arguably a subjective matter.  The grey colour complemented the design of the property as a whole.  Other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider report PES/460b of the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to CONSENT.

The Committee considered report PES/460b of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

Oak 246405 - removal of epicormic growth to crown break.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought consent for works to reduce an oak tree which was considered to be obstructing the footpath and nearby residential garden.  The Officer then gave details of the various relevant planning considerations as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the application, then moved to a vote on the recommendation set out in the report.  The recommendation was moved by Councillor Pritchard as the Chair and seconded by Councillor Mwagale as the Vice-Chair. 

RESOLVED

Consent subject to the conditions set out in report PES/460b.

To consider report PES/460cof the Head of Economy and Planning.

RECOMMENDATION to CONSENT.

The Committee considered report PES/460c of the Head of Economy and Planning which proposed as follows:

4116 beech – section fell.

The Principal Planning Officer provided a verbal summation of the application, which sought consent to fell a diseased beech tree in the interests of safety and replace with a similar tree.  The Officer then gave details of the various relevant planning considerations as set out in the report.

The Committee considered the application, then moved to a vote on the recommendation set out in the report.  The recommendation was moved by Councillor Pritchard as the Chair and seconded by Councillor Mwagale as the Vice-Chair. 

RESOLVED

Delegate the decision to consent to the Head of Economy and Planning (to await the end of the site notice expiry period on 6^th June 2024) subject to the conditions set out in report PES/460c.