To approve as a correct record the minutes of the Extraordinary Planning Committee meeting held on 25 February 2021 and the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 18 March 2021.

The Chair informed Members that 20/00430/FUL had been moved to a later Committee date at the request of the Applicant.

The minutes of the Extraordinary Planning Committee Meeting held on 25 February 2021 were approved as a true and correct record.

The minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting held on 18 March 2021 were approved as a true and correct record.

To receive additional items that the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were no items of urgent business.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair declared on behalf of the Committee that correspondence had been received from the Applicant for 21/00205/HHA. Councillor Shinnick declared that she had received correspondence from a resident in regards to 21/00205/HHA. Councillor Rice declared that he had received correspondence in regards to 21/00156/FUL.

Members were satisfied with the report.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.

The report was presented by Matthew Gallagher.

Councillor Lawrence questioned whether a road assessment had been undertaken. She also asked whether there had been concerns with footpaths in a previous approved application on the same site. She commented that the Council could improve the pathways around the site to make it accessible. Matthew Gallagher answered that the Applicant had been advised that a Road Safety Audit was needed which the Highways Team had not received. With regards to the previous approved application, he said that the application had also been recommended by Officers for refusal and had been approved by Members. He explained that the issue with the current site was the pedestrian link to the nearest amenities in that there was no footpath and it was an unlit 60mph road. He noted that the Applicant had offered a unilateral undertaking in regards to the footpath but there were still too many unresolved issues around this and involved an external party.

Julian Howes added that the site did not have good walking or cycling routes which was encouraged in developments. He said that he had walked the route of the site and would require a lot of work to be done to make the road safe and walkable such as the telegraph pole that would require relocating into a private field that the Council had no ownership of. He explained that there was a bend in the road where the visibility of vehicles were not good; hedges and ditches along the side and there were also utilities underground on the east side of the road. Permission would also be required from landowners. He said that the most important part was that the route was not lit.

Councillor Shinnick pointed out that putting a footpath on that road would be dangerous as the bend made it difficult to see other vehicles. Councillor Potter said that people would be able to see what they were buying into so had the choice to buy or not. Councillor Rice commented that the application only required an s106 to have a footpath link from the site to the nearest shops. He said that Belhus Country Park could implement this along with lighting which the Applicant could put financial contributions towards it.

Matthew Gallagher explained that there were existing footpaths within Belhus Country Park but there was difficulty getting to these from the site entrance. With the issue of lighting, he stated that the management of Belhus Country Park would eventually be handed over to a charity trust and introducing lighting in the park would be inappropriate due to the issues of the park being a nature conservation site as well as being in the Green Belt. He said that an s106 could not be relied upon for lighting as it involved an external party and that the Applicant also had no interest in this.

Steve Taylor commented that it was dangerous to walk along that road and across it so access was an issue. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

This item was moved to a later Committee date at the request of the Applicant.

The report was presented by Lucy Mannion.

Referring to the unlawful building, the Vice-Chair sought clarification on which part of the building was unlawful and whether the proposal included the unlawful building. He also mentioned that properties in the area appeared to have taller buildings and that the current proposal would not look out of place. Lucy Mannion answered that over two thirds of the building was unlawful and that a part of it had been there for over ten years which was also now unlawful due to be joined to the unlawful additions. She said that the proposal included the unlawful building but the proposal was proposing a building that was a lot larger than what was allowed. She explained that the other properties in the area had Permitted Development Rights (PDR) but due to the 2008 planning permission, the property had its PDR removed.

The Committee discussed a previous application from 2019 on the same site which had been granted planning permission to build a building to run the Applicant’s business. Members sought further details. Lucy Mannion explained that the application from 2019 had been separate and on a different part of the site. She said that the building granted in that application had not been built yet.

The Chair asked whether the unlawful building would remain if the application was refused. He also asked if there were personal circumstances attached to the application and whether conditions had been drafted. Lucy Mannion answered that the unlawful building would become an enforcement issue if the application was refused. She said that the Applicant had provided a speaker’s statement that highlighted personal circumstances and also pointed out that the family members lived 450 metres away from the site. She explained that no conditions had been drafted as the application was recommended for refusal. However, if Members were minded to approve, conditions would highlight that the building would be for family members only.

Speaker statements were heard from:

Barry Johnson, Ward Councillor in support of the application.

John Cross, Applicant.

The Vice-Chair said that he understood the Officer’s reasons for refusing the application but he felt that the Applicant had engaged with Officers to comply with the size requirements. He said that the fact that the parents were only 450 metres away was irrelevant and the parents was intending to move into a one story building and would free up a two story building which importantly, would benefit another family. He noted the Applicant’s parents’ age and health issues and said that these factors should be considered. He went on to say that proposed building was not a large building on the Green Belt and would have minimal harm to the Green Belt.

Councillor Lawrence said that she was minded to agree with Officer’s recommendation of refusal. She went on to say that she was wary of the application due to a similar application in the past where planning permission had been granted for an add on to the property for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

The report was presented by Jonathan Keen.

The Chair noted that there were a lot of the properties on that same road had extensions and questioned if this was a common feature. He questioned whether the front dormers would impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties. He also sought clarification on whether the proposal would impact on access issues such as guttering and result in a significant loss of light as mentioned in neighbour comments.

Jonathan Keen confirmed that the proposed extension was a common feature on these type of properties. He said that the property in the application was a detached house and had no visual issues. The proposed dormers were fairly small and would not have any harmful overlooking as it faced out onto the public side of the street. He explained that planning consent was not concerned with boundary issues but referred to the proposed plans and said that it did not look like guttering was proposed on the single story element so should not be an issue for neighbours on that side. There would also be limited impact to the loss of light as the existing property was already higher than the extension.

Speaker Statements were heard from:

Lorraine Mead, Resident in objection.

Joyce Redsell, Ward Councillor in objection.

Anthony Tobin, Applicant.

Members were concerned of the discrepancies mentioned in the speaker statements and that no site visit had been undertaken. Councillor Shinnick noted there was a gap between the driveways of the neighbouring properties and sought further detail.

Jonathan Keen explained that a site visit had been undertaken by the Case Officer as shown by the photos on the presentation and had considered the impacts between the neighbouring properties. He confirmed that the dormer on the north side of the elevation was on the south facing elevation of Mrs Mead’s property and that a corrected site plan had been uploaded. He confirmed that there were no errors that would have caused a problem in the Officer’s recommendation. Referring to Councillor Shinnick’s query, he said that there would be space between the driveways on either side of the property. He explained that the previous works that had been undertaken on the property through PDR and a lawful development certificate could not be considered with this application and that only the proposal within the current application should be considered.

The Chair proposed the Officer’s recommendation to approve and was seconded by Councillor Rice.

FOR: (7) Councillors Tom Kelly, Colin Churchman, Angela Lawrence, David Potter, Gerard Rice, Sue Sammons and Sue Shinnick.

AGAINST: (1) Councillor Mike Fletcher

ABSTAINED: (0)