Transcript

Transcript

present I would like to draw your attention to the fire precautions. In the event of the fire alarm sounding leave the room immediately proceed downstairs by way of the main stairs or follow any of the emergency exit signs. Leave the building and follow the signs to the fire assembly point which is an old church path on the pathway between the rear of the Eastshire public car park, library end and the churchyard. As the agenda for this meeting was dispatched prior to confirmation of the membership I can confirm that the following Councillors are members of the East area planning subcommittee. Councillors Coats, Coombs, Crawshaw, Lainau, Langham, Liefer, Marshall, Cezman, War and Williams. First item on the agenda is the appointment of Chair. Please can I take the subcommittees and nominations? Councillor Langham. I'd like to nominate Councillor Coombs as chair, please. Thank you. Is that seconded? Thank you. Are there any other nominations? I can now confirm that Councillor Coombs is appointed as the Chair of the East area planning subcommittee for the municipal year 2024-25. Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen, for electing me as your Chair for the East area committee. I'm really looking forward to working with you all and hopefully we'll have some good debates and make some good decisions as and when things get put in front of us. But moving forward into onto item two, we need to hear a point of vice chair. Can I have the nominations, please? Councillor Baw. Thank you, Chair. Can I nominate Councillor Richard Williams as vice-chair? Any seconder for Richard? Thank you very much indeed. Are there any other nominations? No. Richard, you are appointed vice. Thank you, Richard. So agenda item three, declarations of interest. All members present are required to declare at this point in the meeting or as soon as thereafter any disposable pecuniary interests and/or any other interests arising under the code of conduct. Are there any declarations anyone missed to make? Stunt silence. Excellent. So moving on, we only have one planning application this evening. It is 11 Elm Gardens, application number 2020-4-0223. I'm going to hand over to Natalie who is going to go through the application and we have public speaking on this as well, don't we? Thank you. Mr Edgerton, who is one of the objectors, so we'll go through the application and then the objector will have a chance to speak for three minutes. Natalie. Thank you, Chair. An update sheet has been circulated and this confirms that a further document/photo and support and one in objection have been received. There is a correction to paragraph 23 with 30 metres to replace 80 metres and the word 'not' should be deleted after paragraph 32. This application is for a part two part single story extension, front porch, alterations to the registration and driveway following partial demolition of the existing house. Planning permission refers 2022-0815 was granted for a similar application and this application seeks permission for slightly bigger extension. On the screen there members can see the proposed site plan on the right hand side. These are the proposed elevations, the proposed floor plans, the existing and proposed roof plan, the proposed tree planting and then some additional site photos from the site visit last Thursday. The full assessment is set out in the office of report and the recommendation is to grant permission subject to additions. Thank you. Thank you very much Natalie. Does anyone have any questions for Natalie on what she has just shown you? Nothing. Excellent. So moving forward, we're going to have a three-minute talk from the object at Mr Andrew Eddington. I will time you so I'll give you warning just as you come in towards the end of your three minutes but please start whenever you're ready. Okay, thank you Mr Chairman. I'm speaking as the owner of the most directly affected property which is number 23 Cent of Leonard's Road although the other neighbours are joining the property have also objected on the portal and also speaking on their behalf. As a side remark we were actually unaware of the existing consent from 2022 which we were surprised to find out about in this process but we would have objected to that had we known about it. Anyway, the reasons for the objection are three main planning objections. The most significant is the overlooking aspect. I believe you should have a copy of this drawing that I created trying to show how it would look from our property. As you can see the proposal doubles the size of the existing property going from one side of its boundary to the other. It introduces an awful lot of fenestration from habitable rooms that overlook our garden and the adjoining gardens of our neighbours. The main problem is the fact that this house is two to three metres higher on ground two to three metres higher which gives it a grandstand type of effect. So even though we've erected now a fence and trellis which is some seven metres you can see even the downstairs windows already poked through that. This actually makes the overlooking much worse with these windows looking directly into our garden and it's effectively a grandstand type of effect. Second objection is the density and massing and architectural balance. Algarden is a close of small detached houses on large gardens. This creates a completely different type of building which is a large building on a very small garden because it takes most of it up and it's completely out of place in size and appearance with the rest of the close. The parish council objected to this application and they noted it was an incongruous development country to DM2B of the 2015 development management plan. Third objection is the visual amenity. Ourselves and a lot of the properties are the view of the woods at the back of the village. This view is going to be replaced by an oversized building out of keeping with the surroundings leading to a considerably detracting from our visual amenity and our neighbours visual amenity. So there are the three reasons. Significantly overlooks density and massing a very overbearing property and detracts from the visual amenity. Those are the planning considerations. The last few seconds I would say what is not a planning observation. It already has an existing planning approval for quite a large building in our view to be large but it's already there. The owners have shown real disregard for this process. They've torn down all of the hedgerow and trees that were a condition of the existing consent that they should be kept and they started to build it already. I think you could see from those pictures you could see the exterior walls that are already building in process as if they've got the application already approved. That's really it. Thank you very much. Indeed Mr Edgington you hit three minutes bang on with one second over. I'll give you that. Well I've got one more remark which was they've got no regard for this process and yet they shouldn't really benefit from this process. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for Mr Edgington? Can you turn your mic off please. Thank you. Right at the beginning you said you weren't aware of the previous planning application but I didn't pick up whether you said you would have objected to that too or whether you wouldn't have objected. Would you mind just feeling mean on that? Yes, sadly we weren't aware of it. I guess we didn't receive the letter but we would have objected although this building is about 20% bigger than that. Any further questions? Stunned silence. Councillor Marshall. Thank you, Chairman. Understand the hedgerow was removed. I don't know about trees but I think they have offered to replace the hedgerow with trees. Is that correct? They have indeed. Natalie you might be able to just elaborate on that please. Yes so there is some proposed additional tree plantings that on the screen that members have in front of them. There's three new trees proposed here and then some additional hedging proposed here as well. Do you have any further questions Mr. Marshall? No. Thank you. Right. If there are no, if anyone else have any questions for the objector? Well if that's the case we'll go into the debate. I am one of the wall Councillors for this ward and I promoted this application but as chair I think it is more appropriate that my fellow wall Councillor, Mrs. Marshall, leads on this and I reserve the right to talk later on this topic if required. So Mrs. Marshall over to you. Thank you, Chairman. I'm quite surprised that Mr. Eddington doesn't know about the previous application. You have to forgive me. I only got elected on the 2nd of May so I'm too unaware of the previous planning application. So I find it very difficult. It's big, yes I agree. You don't have a right to a view although we are very fortunate in Claygate but you know we do live in a beautiful place and I think it's extremely unfortunate. The garden although greatly reduced in size the measurements are still within the guidelines and I don't know what else I can say on planning grounds really. They are going to replace some trees or plant some trees. I don't know what do we know what they are, what the trees will be. They have been listed I think. And the hedge, is that a quick growing, what are we getting for that? Some hedges take a long time. Yes so on the top left hand corner, members might be up to zoom in on their iPads. They are proposed 3 new trees will be aces and they will be planted at a height of 3 metres with a maximum height of 12 to 14 metres and then the proposed hedging plants will be Tuja, Pilekanta. I'm not entirely sure I'll have to announce that but it will be planted at a height of 1 metre with a maximum height of around 2 metres. Thank you. Does that answer your question, Mr. Marshall? Yes, thank you. But it's not very high, is it? 2 metres, 6 foot. I mean it's not going to hide windows. I'd like to see some obscure glazing at the back, especially if it's overlooking at such a height and to others gardens. Yes, it's not overly high but then members have to be mindful of some people who don't want hedges that are too high because then obviously there might be an issue in terms of high hedges. In terms of obscure glazing, there is a condition for four of the windows up on the back, at first of all there will be a security glazed. There are two unglazed windows but that is similar to the existing situation where there are two clear glazed windows at first of all at the moment. So they are being moved in a slightly different position but in terms of overlooking it would be similar to what's there at the moment. Could I just ask a question? Have the owners of this house or the people are developing it spoken to Mr Edgington about what kind of hedge you would like? What would suit you? No, they've not spoken to us or any of the neighbours. In fact they've just torn everything down. So my worry is that you put these conditions and they'll just ignore them because they've ignored everything else. Thank you. This is Marshall. Thank you, Chairman. I understand that you had some concerns about health and safety. I didn't hear any further after the site, is it? Yeah, absolutely. Unfortunately health and safety is not a planning concern so we are in no, we're not in any way considering the health and safety that comes under the HSC and building control partially. So we don't have it in our gift unfortunately. As much as we had concerns we're not here to decide an application. No, I understand but they have been contacted. I understand they have here. Okay, thank you. Mr Councillor Wahl. Thank you Chair. I think look at this application. It's obviously, it's relatively small changes to existing granted application and I note obviously when we talk about trees and planting if a tree officers have decided they haven't raised major objection onto that as long as there's a planting schedule in place then I saw I can see no reason to refuse this application. Councillor Cairns. Thank you. Just on these windows on the rear elevation, I know the objector when he was talking referred to habitable rooms but perhaps Natalie you can just confirm that the majority of the new windows are actually in bathrooms and dressing room and will be obscurely glazed. Those aren't considered habitable rooms in our definition of planning in this Council. The two windows that would be clear glazed are bedroom windows and that's actually the same as in the existing property anyway. Can you just confirm that? It's not exactly the same as existing. In terms of the proposed this window will be excluded glazed. This window will be excluded glazed. This window will be excluded glazed. This window and this window will be clear glazed. The clear glazed on the existing house are on this side at the moment. They will be moved effectively but it's the same number of windows. So too clear at the moment, too clear proposed. Councillor interjecting. Is that clear? Does anyone else wish to bring up any other point? Councillor interjecting. Yes, Councillor Williams. Councillor interjecting. Yes, I mean listening to the objectors there, I do want to say something about this development. In different circumstances I would be going for refusal. It's a very decent 70s estate this one and it has many of the motives of that era of the motives of that era. Flat roof porches, modern looking houses, white weather boarding, hung tiles which break up the shape of the houses and make them quite discreet actually. They're nice houses on decent plots and then large, you know, gaily painted garage doors really works well as, you know, what I think a 70s estate should be like. And some houses have been extended but they've kind of respected by breaking the spaces up. Even if they've rendered the buildings, they, you know, they break the size of these houses up. And for me the tragedy of this one is this proposal carries none of that forward. This house doesn't look like it will look as though it doesn't belong on this estate. It's got nothing to do with the rest of it. It's been completely pulled apart. The tiles are going, that standard porch detailing which I really like is being ripped out and replaced by a sort of imposing porch. Heavy window detailing is utterly inappropriate. For some unfathomable reason, 20, 22, 0, 8, 1, 5 gave permission to a building which in many ways is even worse. Whilst it doesn't suffer the overlooking that you're complaining about, it was to be rendered white and completely rendered white. It would have been completely out of place. They have permission to build that. I don't know why we gave it permission. So I, you know, I suppose no way I'd like to put out a warning. Respect the roads you're building houses in. Respect the history of them rather than just put up something which is completely inappropriate. I'm also really disappointed that another plot of grass is going to be turned into paving to accommodate yet more cars. And, you know, the fact that you're using obscure glass strikes me as being a design failure. You know, you're putting your windows and then you're blanking them out. There's a better solution to that to provide light into a room without giving people the sense that they're still being overlooked. So it breaks my heart that I can't kick this one hard because I really hate it. But I simply don't have any past because it meets all of the rules that we have. And I'm deeply sorry about it. I'm sorry. I'm very sad about it. Thank you, Councillor Williams. I couldn't agree more with you. I feel very, very much the same. It really is, I think it is unnabably for somebody to come along and get planning application and then build something completely different, albeit slightly less foul, supposedly according to Councillor Williams. So I would just implore anybody who's putting planning applications and who's watching this evening. You know, please talk to your neighbours and let them know what you want to do. You know, it's not nice expecting coming across a great big lump of concrete and being told it's going to go ahead when they've got planning permission and then applying for it retrospectively. It's just don't like rude in my view, but that's my personal opinion. But I personally also cannot see a planning reason why we should be refusing this application tonight. If any member does have good reasons or they can put forward a reasonable argument for to refuse, obviously we'll take it to the vote before the substantive. But I personally cannot see a reason as much as I am unhappy with it to turn this down this evening. I saw Councillor Lee for you. You put your hand up. Thank you. I'll let you carry on to that. Yeah, no. Also as a new elected Councillor, I have looked at this one very closely and also attended the site visit. I also have a lot of empathy for the objectives for your day with you. Unfortunately, as has already been said, it's difficult to see a reason to refuse. I am concerned to make sure that any conditions are observed and enforced because that's very important. On the site visit, it was clear it's a messy site. There are health and safety concerns which I understand have been reported. I understand there have been. But I think it's one that we need to keep a very close eye on to make sure that the conditions are properly observed and that the applicant doesn't just ignore them. Otherwise it sends a very bad signal to everyone. I couldn't agree more, sir. Thank you. Councillor Langham. I just wanted to, I completely agree with them, everything I've heard tonight. I would like to comment on the fact that the building work began before permission was given or if that's indeed what's going to happen. It is an unfortunate fact that this is the case, in many, many cases, in my own ward of long didn't. A lot of development is started before permission is given and it causes an unbelievable amount of stress for everybody around wondering why that should happen and then why permission is then given afterwards. It seems like the wrong way around to do things. If the government could do one thing to help us in these rooms, it would be to disallow development out before permission is given. But I can't see that happening any time soon, but I do want to sympathise with that fact but explain there's a very little we can do about it. Very well said. I completely agree with you, sir. Mrs Marshall, do you wish to push for refusal? Thank you, Chair. I don't know what with. I'm really sorry. DM2B, density, massing, but it already has planning. I think we'll end up in an appeal and we'll be wasting Council money. I think you're absolutely right. Mrs Marshall, we've got to be realistic about what we have in front of us. The one thing I would ask is the planning authority keeps a very close eye on the planting of these trees and the hedge. I'd request that both myself, Councillor Marshall and Councillor Rongings, are all kept abreast of all planting going ahead so it does happen because I don't want this to go through for us to forget about it and in six months time they haven't done the planting that they're actually said they were going to do. Mr Williams, on a further point on that, I'm really concerned that the tiles on the front of this building are being removed and they will be replaced by a brick. Now these bricks are 1970s bricks. I don't even know that they're available any longer. The existing bricks. So how are they going to patch new bricks into that? I have got no idea. I suppose I'm asking the Council to be extremely diligent on making sure that what gets built matches what they've said they're going to do and if they are going to match old bricks, they are really going to have to go and match old bricks properly. I don't want to see an awful patchwork or we couldn't do it so we'd change old bricks. That is a very good point. Natalie, can we have that as an informative please? The bricks are matching as per the original and the Council to be shown examples before they actually go in. Would that be reasonable? You can ask for material samples to be submitted. I don't think that will be unreasonable in this situation. Do other members feel that is a sensible move? Well, I think we've talked this through as best we can. Unless anyone is going to push refusal, I would like to go to the vote now that the recommendation is to permit and grant permission. I'm sorry, I'm jumping ahead. Good, Natalie, a moment. So, condition two. So, I'm going to move on to the vote. So, I'm going to move on to the vote. So, I'm going to move on to the vote now. So, I'm going to move on to the vote. So, I'm going to move on to the vote. So, I'm going to move on to the vote. So, I'm going to move on to the vote. So, I'm going to move on to the vote. So, I'm going to move on to the vote. Fantastic. So, I'd like to show off hands. Can we grant permission to this application by chef hands? All those in favour? Those against? Abstentions? Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen. So, the application 20-24-0223 is granted permission as of this evening. Thank you very much indeed. That brings the end of the meeting. So, thank you for attending and thank you for the day of the meeting. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]