Agenda and minutes

Councillor Smith declared that he will not be participating in the debates on item 6 of the agenda

The meeting Commenced at 19:30.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee (C) meeting held on 11 September 2018 were reviewed. Councillor Penfold wished to correct record of his vote for item 5 on that agenda as abstained instead of for. The Minutes of the Planning Committee (C) meeting held on 11 September 2018 were approved once corrected.

Changes to standing order: Item 4 to be considered first as Councillor Smith has to leave early.

(DEBATE ON reading out the entire letter from Councillor Feis-Bryce). Mr. Rezaie expressed that matters of a material planning consideration had been summarised in his forthcoming presentation. Members pursued the Chair to have the whole document to be read out, the Chair refused and instead opted to adjourn the meeting for 5 minutes to allow members to read the document.

Mr. Rezaie outlined the details of the application to members and explained that certain planning matters had already been judged to be acceptable in principle at a previous planning committee and that the current determining issues should be focused on the marketing aspect.

Mr. Rezaie outlined the site constraints material to the application site, summarising those as ‘’other employment’’; ‘Floodrisk Zones 2-3’ and a ‘PTAL rating 1/2'.

Mr. Rezaie outlined particulars of the existing and proposed Change of Use, the

accompanying design alterations, both at elevation and floor plan. He explained that

previous and current consultation with statutory bodies/authorities had resulted in no

objections being raised, however there had been objections from nearby residents and a non-statutory body.

Mr. Rezaie gave brief response to the written objections received, steering members to relevant sections from the officers report which addressed concerns raised. Principally, and on the topic of marketing, Mr. Rezaie highlighted the applicants efforts, the period by which he had marketed the site for with no success in generating interest for their current use, stipulating that the marketing evidence provided demonstrated that a long and extensive process had been carried out which from a planning policy perspective those efforts far exceeded the minimum local plan policy requirements, which subsequently aligned with national guidance.

Mr. Rezaie commented on the late objection letter which had been received by Councillor Bryce, expressing that he could only regard comments from a material planning perspective, that some comments were unsubstantiated and non-material. Mr. Rezaie expressed that consideration of the marketing report had been dealt with within paragraphs 6.9-6.11 of the original report. That the applicant had provided copies of all sales literature, which unequivocally accorded with Paras. 2.75 and 7.76 of the justification for DM Policy 11 and relevant paras under Para. 2.152 from DM Policy 20.

Mr. Rezaie outlined that officers remained satisfied that due marketing steps had been taken and evidence provided. Based no new material planning considerations raised since members last resolved to grant planning permission on the same application in February, officers recommended to members that approval should remain unchanged and that planning permission be granted without delay subject to legal agreement and imposition of conditions.

Councillor Gallagher queried the reason for appeal to be allowed in June and Councillor  Penfold indicated that some of the factual information in the officer’s report regarding amenities (restaurants and cafes) nearby are incorrect. Mr. Rezaie explained that the principle of this weighed against access to services, and that the relevant statutory authority in this regard the Highways had been consulted and officer’s recommendation aligned on those consultations.

Councillor Gibbons made reference to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Mr Rezaie provided details of application and proposal stating that determining issues being the principal of development, the potential impact on occupant/neighbour amenities, and the potential character and appearance of the area.

After due consideration of aspects of the proposal Planning officer advised the councillors that with minor adjustments the proposal would be permitted under General Planning Development Order (GPDO) and therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

The original application had been revised to reduce overall height and removing solar

panels, which makes the proposal compliant with local and national planning  guidelines.

No question were raised from the committee members.

The applicant was invited to speak by the chair. He explained the purpose of the proposed application and reject the objection.

Councillor Smith asked about the reasons for removal of solar panels from the roof design.

The chair then invited the applicant to speak in support of the proposal.

Then the objectors were invited to speak by the Chair. Mr. Cunningham that proposed development would not respect the existing design and would change the existing character of the area.

Councillor Moore moved to accept officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by

Councillor Sheikh.

All councillors present voted in favour of the motion and the application was approved, Councillor Ogunbadewa (Chair), Councillor Penfold (Vice-chair), Councillor Gallagher, Councillor Gibbons, Councillor Krupski, Councillor Mallory, Councillor Smith

Mr. Rezaie detailed the application, stipulating that the property is located in a Conservation Area and informed the committee that Culvery Green Residents Association had objected to the principle of creating a new opening in the façade of the property.

Mr. Rezaie outlined that the planning case officer had consulted conservation officers who had initially raised an objection as to the size of the new proposed opening. The owners had consequently revised their proposal so as to adhere to earlier Conservation Officer’s guidance, since the Conservation Area Officer retracted their objection and offered full support and the planning case officer weighed this in when forming their recommendation for approval.

Councillors Gibbons and Penfold asked for more information regarding the window and how it would facilitate the loft conversation and the officer stated the function of this type of windows.

The chair invited the planning agent to speak in support of the proposal. Ms. Marshall, the architect on behalf of the applicant and explained the proposed development would have minimum impact on the character of the area.

Then the objector from Culverley green Residential Association Mr. Kently was invited to speak out by the Chair. His emphasis were on proposed windows on gable, would change the character of area. A discussion on the comparative advantages or disadvantages of window or skylight in the loft took place, by Councillor Gibbons, Gallagher, Penfold and Mr Rezaie.

Councillor Gibbons moved to accept officer’s recommendation. Councillor Mallory seconded

For approval were councillors; Councillor Ogunbadewa (Chair), Councillor Penfold (Vicechair), Councillor Gallagher, Councillor Krupski. Abstained; Councillors Councillor Moore, Councillor Sheikh

Mr. Rezaie presented the application, informing the committee that revisions had been received adjusting the size of proposed mansard (due to objections by Lee Green society). Consequently changes to the submitted plans were made to reduce the bulk.

Mr. Rezaie also indicated that determining issues with regards to this application were concerned with potential impact on amenities (overbearing/overlooking) and the potential impact on character and visual amenities (Conservation Area).

Mr. Rezaie expressed that the building is located in Lee Manor Conservation area and is subject to Article 4 direction, situated within flood risk zone 2. Mr. Rezaie advised members the case officer recommended approval of planning permission subject to conditions, which was supported given precedence of similar proposals in the area.

Councillor Krupski raised a question on the subject of overlooking of the mansard and Mr Rezaie explained the assessment of officers, highlighting no detrimental impact in this regard.

The applicant was invited by the Chair to defend their proposed planning application. He defend their proposed plan and mentioned other examples in that area.

The Lee Manor Society representative, Mr. Batchelor explained that they do not raise any objections to loft conversion, however their consideration is for the setback and explained that their preference is for bigger set back as in other applications which have a setback of between 25 to 30%, while this proposed application has agreed to a setback of 10%.

After these presentations a short discussion took place on the dimensions and set back of the mansard, and the likely harm to the conservation area by councillor Gibbons, and Mr. Batchelor.

Councillor Mallory sought advice of Mr. Batchelor and his degree of satisfaction over amount of setbacks he considers acceptable and whether those changes could be made.

Mr. Rezaie expressed that only the applicant should answer the aforementioned line of request as they held the authority to decide whether or not to make those amendments.

Councillor Gibbons explained that the main consideration is not about percentage setback, but about the impact on the visual amenities of the conservation area and asked if there is precedent for this type of extension in the area.

Mr. Rezaie explained that as long as no harm is caused by the development the amount of setback would be assessed on a case by case basis. He further explained that the conservation society guideline document has no weight in planning decisions as it was not an adopted document.

Councillor Gallagher asked about the method for establishing precedent in these cases and how to establish whether there is harm particularly in a conservation area.

Mr. Rezaie further explained that as the mansard is to the rear of the building and could not be seen from the street scene and is outside of public domain, there are no harm to the visual amenities of the area.

Councillor Mallory requested the officers to go back to the applicant and request further set back to the mansard.

Legal advice was sought by the chair whether the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Mr. Rezaie outlined the details of the application to members and explained that the primary planning considerations for the application were regard to potential impact on

occupant/neighbour amenities and potential impact on the Conservation Area. The officers were satisfied that the proposal should be approved subject to conditions noting that reasons for previous refusals has been overcome in the current application.

Councilor Gibbons raise the question of clarification with regards to the previous reasons for the refusal.

Mr. Rezaie outlined the previous refusal reasons and expressed that the current proposal had adjusted the scale of the proposal and its skylights and consequently planning officers considered the amendment to appear more subservient to the existing building than previous efforts.

Councillor Krupski requested information with regards to regulation about locations of

skylights.

Mr. Rezaie explained that there is no such a regulation on such application types and that the proposal should be considered on its individual planning merits.

Objections had been raised by neighbours on grounds of impact on their privacy and the design impact on the Conservation Area.

The applicant Mr. Mike Jaques was invited to speak by the chair. Mr Jaques stated that their proposal for loft conversion is similar to other conversions nearby (Hurren Close) and he rejected objections which have been made due to impact on the Conservation Area and neighbours amenities.

Councillor Gallagher questioned information about the material to be used and if this is a condition of the approval of this proposal.

Mr Jaques explained that all the material would match the existing and Mr Rezaie indicated that this requirement is reflected under condition 3.

CouncilorPenfold asked Mr. Rezaie for details about potential overshadowing/overlooking impact and what those parameters were.

Mr. Rezaie explained parameters concerned (45 and 25-degree rule), and that the necessary sunlight/daylight assessment had been carried and that officers remained satisfied that there would not be any adverse effect on loss of natural light on windows serving habitable rooms of both neighboring properties.

Objectors were then invited to come forward.

Donna Bamford Pringle (14 Perks Close) and Debbie Bowen (17 Perks Close) joined neighbours. They both objected underground that the back extension would impact natural light entering the open green space, and the proposed extension is not within the character of the area.

Councillor Smith asked Mr. Rezaie for details related to privacy issues and Councillor

Gallagher asked points of clarification on the proposed application.

Mr. Rezaie outlined that the siting of the proposed windows would overlook the applicants own private amenity space and no detrimental impact on neighbor amenity by virtue of privacy intrusion would manifest.

Councillor Smith moved to vote in favour of the officer’s recommendation to allow the

application. Councillor Sheikh seconded.

Members voted as follows;

For: All Councillors voted for the officer’s recommendation to approve the application with conditions Councillor Ogunbadewa (Chair), Councillor Penfold (Vice-chair), Councillor Gallagher, Councillor Gibbons, Councillor Krupski, Councillor Mallory, Councillor Moore.