Agenda and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest.

The following declaration of interest was made:

Application 24/00172/FUL – 87 Windsor Avenue

(Minute No. 23)

Councillor Udall – Had provided procedural advice for residents on the application.  Councillor Udall elected to speak and vote on the item.

Of the meeting held on 18th July 2024 to be approved and signed.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th July 2024 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Such inspections of current application sites as may have been recommended by Officers and as may be approved by the Committee.

Members of the Committee should inform the Service Manager – Development Management of any requests for site visits by 5.00 p.m. on Monday 12^th August 2024 and reasons for the request.

Site visits will be conducted in accordance with the procedure attached which forms part of the Council’s Good Practice Protocol for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters.

The Committee visited the following site, which was the subject of an application to be determined, prior to the commencement of the meeting:

Application 24/00176/HP – 61 Spetchley Road

Up to a total of fifteen minutes can be allowed, each speaker being allocated a maximum of five minutes, for members of the public to present a petition, ask a question or comment on any matter on the Agenda or within the remit of the Committee in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 10.

None.

Members of the public will be allowed to address the Committee in respect of applications to be considered by the Committee in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 11. Members of the public will address the Committee during the Committee’s consideration of the respective item.

Those representations made are recorded at the minute to which they relate.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grants planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a proposed two storey extension to front, side and rear of a House in Multiple Occupation, property to become a 6-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation at 87 Windsor Avenue.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Lamb for the reasons as set out in paragraph 1.2 of the officer’s report.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The application formed a re-submission of a refused application in 2023.  Similar to the previous planning application, it was proposed to remove the front boundary wall and provided three off-road vehicular parking spaces on the frontage, along with refuse storage and cycle provision (at the rear) of No. 85 Windsor Avenue.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which referred to an update to condition 8 relating to tree planting, bird and bat boxes.

Officer Presentation

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

Public Representations

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

Andrew Pitt – Objector (on behalf of Windsor Avenue residents)

Ho Lim Yung – Agent for the applicant (Place/Wright Design Studio)

Key Points of Debate

·         The objector, on behalf of Windsor Avenue residents, stated that there were currently enough HMOs in the area and considered that this should still be a residential house.  The conditions set in 2019, when approval was given for the change of use of the property, were not met in the time given.  The discharge of conditions was given before conditions completed.  The area is already congested with car parking, this proposal would not provide enough car park spaces.  The proposal is not in keeping with the area due to the mass and scale of the design.  

·         The objector responded to questions from Committee Members in terms of car parking, the Service Manager – Development Management reminded Committee Members that this was an extension to an existing HMO and also referred them to condition 5 in relation to parking spaces at the property.

·         The agent referred to the planning permission given previously, and the discharge of conditions and visits to the property by the Local Authority.  This was not a new HMO but an extension of an existing HMO.  When an application was refused last year, the applicant worked with the council to alleviate any concerns raised.  

·         The agent responded to questions from Committee Members in relation to occupancy of the property in terms of licensing, cycle storage, access and security and the management plan for the property and car parking.  In terms of car parking the Service Manager provided clarification on the provision, which is in line with the HMO Parking Standards.

·         Committee Members proceeded to ask the Service Manager questions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grants planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a proposed first floor side extension and single storey rear extension at 61 Spetchley Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee following a ‘call in’ request from Councillor Agar highlighting the issues of overdevelopment, affecting enjoyment of a neighbouring property.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to:

·         the correction of the 4^th sentence of paragraph 7.16 of the officer’s report which should read – Access to the neighbour’s property has not been agreed by the interested parties; and

·         additional neighbour comment.

The application was originally reported to Planning Committee on 20^th June 2024 but was deferred to allow for a site visit to take place and to allow additional information to be sought in respect of the gutter line and construction/maintenance of the west elevation of the proposed first floor side extension.  Additional information had been received and as such the application was reported back to Planning Committee.

Officer Presentation

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

The Senior Planning Officer drew Members attention to the late papers, in particular the correction of 4th Sentence of Paragraph 7.16 which confirmed that access to the neighbour’s property has not been agreed and the additional neighbour Comments that had been received since the publication of the agenda.

The Senior Planning Officer made reference to the concerns raised over the gutter line and construction and maintenance of the west elevation, whereby additional information had been provided by the applicant.  Officers were satisfied that there would be no unacceptable impact on the neighbouring property at 59 Spetchley Road.  A Construction Management Plan condition had been recommended to control the elements in the construction phase that is in the public interest.  Additional neighbour comments had been received and were contained within the report, which Offices had fully noted and understood.

Public Representations

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Part 5, Committee Procedure Rules 11.3.7, as public representations were made at the 20th June 2024 meeting and no significant changes had been made to the scheme, no-one had been permitted to register to speak on this application.

Key Points of Debate

·         Clarification was requested on the robustness of the guttering, and had it been tested to take volumes of water, officers confirmed that it had the capacity.

·         In referring to the site visit it was asked what the percentage of increase of the footprint the proposal would make.  The Service Manager – Development Management confirmed that overall, there would be a 34% increase.  Committee Members considering the size of the garden, considered this to be acceptable increase.

·         Reference was made to the Construction Management Plan and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Which in the opinion of the Chair is of sufficient urgency as to warrant consideration.

None.