Agenda, decisions and minutes

None declared at this stage of the meeting.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 22 May 2012 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

Refuse planning permission.

Councillor Daly declared an interest in that she knew the applicant and was not present to consider or vote on this item.

Tony Vincett (Legal Adviser) stated that he lived on the same street as the site, however he had no involvement with the application and so remained present during consideration of this item.

Steve Weeks (Head of Area Planning) introduced the report and advised that the applicant was responding to a council tender to replace facilities that had previously existed on the site. However, he felt that the application was excessive in terms of the range of activities proposed and did not provide the necessary parking spaces for such a scheme.  In addition, the council’s Sports Services had indicated that they were not satisfied with some of the replacement services proposed.  Members also noted that the applicant had previously withdrawn the application but subsequently re-submitted it despite the concerns raised by officers.

Robert Dunwell, an objector and representing the Queensbury Area Residents’ Association (QARA) and Group of Associates, commented that although community facilities were required on the site, the application did not fully address the area’s needs.  He felt that the applicant should undertake further discussion with officers to address issues in relation to the scale and size of the proposals and the lack of parking and to submit an improved scheme.  In reply to a query from the Chair about what were the particular concerns he had about the application, Robert Dunwell explained that he felt the proposed building was excessively expansive as it exceeded the footprint of the original building and he also felt the number of services offered was excessive as some of the proposed amenities were not required in the area.  The proposed uses could attract excessive visitors to the area and it also raised accessibility issues.  In reply to a further query from Councillor R S Patel, Robert Dunwell confirmed that the applicant had not directly consulted with QARA and Group of Associates but he had been made aware of the application through the council.

Alton Bell, the applicant, then addressed the committee.  He began by stating that work had started in developing the proposals since 2010, following a successful tender submission.  It was intended to submit a staged development to improve the site which was currently an eyesore and attracting drug and alcohol users.  Alton Bell stated that the Environmental Resource Centre had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

a)        Grant Planning Permission, subject to conditions, informatives, amendments to conditions 1 and 2 set out in the supplementary information and an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report, or

(b)       If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION:

Steve Weeks drew Members’ attention to observations and changes to conditions one and two as set out in the supplementary information.

DECISION: Agreed as recommended.

Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement, conditions, informatives and amendments to the recommendation relating to referral to the London Mayor, the development description, conditions 1, 8, 17 and 18 and informative relating to hours of work and to the Heads of Terms as set out in the supplementary information.

Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement, conditions, an informative and amendments to the recommendation relating to referral to the Mayor of London, Section 106 Agreement and Heads of Terms as set out in the supplementary information.

Refuse planning permission.

Steve Weeks introduced the report and confirmed that the recommendation remained to refuse planning permission. 

Mr Nassir objected to the application on the grounds of loss of light in living areas, the boundary with 137 Chatsworth Road being particularly overbearing and the application was out of character with the surrounding area and contradicted the council’s SPG5 and the UDP.  He felt that on this basis, the application should be rejected.

The Chair sought further comments and clarification with regard to the application being out of character with the surrounding area and what habitable rooms existed on the first floor of 137 Chatsworth Road, including how long had the kitchen been in use.  In reply, Mr Nassir stated that the removal of the boundary between the two properties would be out of keeping with the rest of the street and would set an unwelcome precedent.  He confirmed that a kitchen and a bathroom existed on the first floor of 137 Chatsworth Road and that the bathroom had been in use for over ten years.

Neal Osbourne introduced himself as a friend of the applicant.  He began by asserting that the kitchen in 137 Chatsworth Road was a functioning space and therefore ability to impede enjoyment of the room was not an issue.  In his view, the proposed extension was otherwise acceptable and the applicant was also entitled to enjoy use of his property.

Councillor John commented that the extension could be amended to make it more acceptable whilst Councillor Hashmi stated that the applicant had increased the set back. 

The Chair sought officers views as to whether the application could be considered harmful to neighbours.

In reply, Steve Weeks stated that consideration of the application was a balancing matter, however with regard to rear extensions, there was a margin as to what was considered acceptable and not acceptable.  It could be assumed that the kitchen in 137 Chatsworth Road was used routinely and as the proposed wall would be only 2.3m from the kitchen window, this would be considered too close to be acceptable.

Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement, conditions, an informative and an amendment to condition 8 prohibiting bookmakers/betting offices as set out in the supplementary information.

Andy Bates drew Members’ attention to observations with regard to issues raised at the site visit, additional representations and officers’ responses to them as set out in the supplementary information.  He also advised the committee of an amendment to condition 8 contained within the supplementary information.

The Chair agreed to additional papers being circulated by Louise Holmes, an objector to the application, whilst she addressed the committee.  Louise Holmes asserted that the application would have a permanent, detrimental effect on nearby residents.  She stated that the application was an overdevelopment, out of character and would overwhelm the surrounding area by the large size of the proposed building.  In addition, only two of the twenty flats would have access to green space and this would be unsuitable particularly for any children moving onto the site as well as the application failing to provide at least 20sqm of open space per dwelling as set out in SPG17.  She also expressed concern about the apparent lack of parking and the proximity of the electricity sub-station and felt that the application should be refused with a view to the applicant considering a smaller scheme. 

With the Chair’s agreement, Ian Britton, an objector and representing Rucklidge Avenue Residents’ Association, also circulated papers to Members for their consideration.  Ian Britton began by referring to the council’s UDP which stated that applications on brown sites should not have a negative impact on the area.  He felt that the proposed building was unsuitable and also disregarded established building lines, with 18m of the 32m total frontage excessively close to Rucklidge Avenue and Park Parade.  Whilst he was not objecting specifically about the proposed height of the building, Ian Britton felt that the application overall was overbearing and dominating and in its present form should be rejected.

In reply to a query from the Chair, Ian Britton stated that it was the overall size and scale of the application he was objecting to as well as the closeness of the building to the pavement. 

Mark Pender, the applicant’s agent, then addressed some of the issues raised by objectors and at the site visit.  He felt that considering the site’s location near the town centre and that it was a brown site, the number of flats proposed was appropriate as high density on such locations was permissible.  The applicant had amended the building line on Rucklidge Avenue to provide an additional two metres gap.  As the site was well served  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Refuse planning permission.

Neil McClellan (Area Planning Manager) drew Members’ attention to the supplementary information confirming that the applicant had submitted a Community Infrastructure Levy Declaration form.  A number of outstanding concerns about the application remained as set out on page 118 of the main report and the recommendation remained to refuse planning permission.

The Chair invited a Mr S Raza and then a Mr S Chaudhry to address the committee as both had made requests to speak, however there was no response to either of the invitations.

Mr Goodman, the applicant’s agent, then addressed the committee.  Mr Goodman suggested that the first three of the four reasons for refusal would be straightforward for the applicant to address, whilst the submitted plans could also be amended accordingly.  He asserted that the case officer had not visited the site to consider concerns raised about the perceived impact of the proposals on Wayside Court, whilst the application also offered the opportunity for employment.  Mr Goodman asked that the application be deferred to the next Planning Committee meeting to allow the applicant to address the concerns raised.  In reply to a question from the Chair, Mr Goodman stated that he had only represented the applicant since the previous week and this was why the issues raised had not been addressed earlier.

During discussion, Councillor John enquired whether it was realistic to defer the application to the next meeting in view of the number of outstanding issues the applicant needed to address.

In reply, Neil McClellan advised that the case officer was likely to have been liaising with the previous agent as they had not been notified of the change.  Although Mr Goodman had indicated that he was willing to negotiate with officers on behalf of the applicant, Neil McClellan felt there were significant inaccuracies in respect of the plans and these would require much work to address.

Steve Weeks added that a reduction in the scale of the building was necessary and he advised that both reasons one and four for refusal were likely to need more time to address that that afforded by deferring the application to the next meeting.  He advised that deferral could have been considered where the outstanding issues were minor in nature, however in view of the fundamental concerns raised, he advised that the application be refused and that the applicant consider submitting a new application addressing these concerns.

Grant consent subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement and conditions.

Neil McClennan advised that this was a revised application that was now considered acceptable by officers.  Members noted Councillor Hashmi’s observation that a section (e) had been omitted in respect of Mayor of London’s policy considerations on page 122 of the report.

None.