Transcript

Transcript

between councillors, councillors and officers and when we have the external visitors and members of the public we expect expecting respect to be shown at all times. Questions and comments are to be made through me at all times please. Apologies for absence please Tim. Yes thank you chair through you we have apologies for absence from councillors Jones and Poulton and their substitutes are councillors Burton and Collins respectively. I also have apologies for absence from councillor Buck who can't be with us and I believe councillor Longstaff may be late but he may not be able to make it either chair. Also councillor Berry's on his way yeah okay. Declarations of interest please. Councillor Burton. Thank you chair I was quoted in the paper discussing item 12 so I'm going to excuse myself from that item if that's alright. Okay councillor Moroney. Thank you chair item 8 the Lee Hill item to declare that I'm a member of Lee town council and of Lee conservation and heritage and but I don't sit on their planning. Thank you councillor Deer. Thank you chair. Item number 6 I've been approached by a number of the objectors to this particular application and I have two declarations item number 6 the applicant is known to me but it's non computer I don't have to leave so thank you and item number 12 likewise as well okay any other declarations interest no so everyone's got the supplementary report that's been handed around today yeah a chance to look at it yeah okay so we can move on to item number 4 on the agenda which is for James to present Thank You James Thank You chair first of all just to introduce myself to any new members I'm James Ben planning officer here at the council first I would like to draw members attention to the supplementary report which sets out that the public consultation period expired on the 27th of May and the no further representations have been received the application is brought to the development control committee for determination as the applicant is the council and public representations have been received objecting to the proposal the officers report starts on page 7 of the agenda the application sites contains the base remnants of a former garage block and a small grass verge area in Anson chase to the rear of numbers 40 to 46 the site is part of the eagle way estate which is a large 1970s council housing estate with a mixture of residential houses and flaps laid out in a landscape setting the former garage blocks were used totalitarian in appearance undersized for modern cars and did not make a positive contribution to the street same the site is not subject to any planning policy designations the application seeks planning permission for a one-bedroom two-person wheelchair accessible bungalow the bungalow would have a dedicated disabled parking space to its southern side with a carport over and it would have a private private amenity spaces to the front side and rear the bungalow would form part of the council's wheelchair accessible affordable housing stock more detail of the more details of the proposal were described in section two of the officers report the site has previous planning permission for a two-bedroom three-person wheelchair accessible bungalow and this application is an amended proposal the amendments include that the dwelling has been relocated within the site because it is required to be one and a half meters away from a nearby power cable and ten meters away from the nearby electric substation the 2020 permission is a relevant material consideration in the determination of this application carry and wait because a policy in sight circumstances are similar a summary of their representations can be found in section 4 of the officer report two letters of representation have been received from the public object into the proposal section 8 of the report sets out the assessment of the proposal in detail the proposal seeks to provide an affordable wheelchair unit for which there is an identified need in the city in principle the new residential development in this residential location is acceptable subject to conditions a proposal is considered to be acceptable and policy compliant in terms of its impacts on the character in appearance of the site the street scene and the surrounding area the proposed bungalow would introduce an active frontage to the area which would improve local character provides some natural surveillance to the rears of the adjacent properties which is to be welcomed the proposal is considered to be acceptable and policy compliant in terms of its impacts on the residential amenity of neighboring occupies in all relevant regards mainly due to the separated addition distances involved and it's single-story nature one off streetcar parking spaces proposed on the forecourt which is a disabled space for occupies and visitors to the bungalow which is policy compliant and an additional three public spaces are proposed to the south of the dwelling the former garages all now demolished were undersized and unsuitable for parking modern cars the base remnants of the garages provided temporary parking for local residents pending redevelopment of the site the rest of the coast is not affected by the development and there's sufficient on-street parking in Anson Chase and surrounding area is not considered to be an area of material parking stress the council's highways officer has not raised any objections to the proposal and it's considered that the provision of an affordable wheelchair accessible dwelling would be of significant benefit to the commit to the community and the proposed parking layout is considered to be acceptable policy compliant and this is consistent with the findings of the 2020 application subject to conditions the proposal was found to be acceptable in all other regards in terms of acceptable living conditions for future occupies sustainability refuse and recycling storage flooding and drainage and ecology having taken all the material planning considerations into account the proposal was found to be acceptable provide a affordable wheelchair unit which is there an identified need for in the city and this would be a significant benefit to the community members are recommended to approve kind of permission subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report Thank You chair Thank You James any questions from the committee Councillor Garstin thank you mr. chairman thank you for that very comprehensive introduction to the city application I mean it's a really good application I think it's pretty it's only for one unit but the objectors seem to be unhappy with the parking situation and I realize on site what you're saying is fine with the car port and the parking but had we had this not happened how many spaces I know the garage is worth very suitable that parking in front of the garages how many spaces are actually being lost in the area yeah through through you chair and that all the tech parking spaces there were were actually just temporary spaces so that we don't consider that there's been a loss of parking spaces as such because they're all temporary just to repeat as professionals you're more than happy that the parking provision is adequate yes and highways have raised no objection so we're confident that the parking is acceptable any further questions Councillor happened well yeah thank you chair again following up on Councillor Garstin's that was my concern as well about the parking you mentioned that you're not concerned because they were temporary can you explain to us how they were temporary I'm Patrick keys on the service manager for development control the position is that the garages were no longer the viable use because of their size so they were taken out of Commission so the development follows a situation where there are no garages there as a temporary measure only whilst this has been a site in the making people have been able to park on the basis of the redundant garages have been removed what the report explains is that the proposal itself is self-sufficient in its own parking needs and this is not identified as an area where there is a level of any sort of parking stress where the provision of those temporary parking spaces and their removal would have a severe impact on the surroundings for that reason in both respects the proposal itself is acceptable and the impact of the proposal in removing no longer enabling those parking spaces temporarily to be there does not have a harmful effect on the surroundings that's a that's a view that's supported by planning and by highways as well thank you if I can chair just coming back on that so these garages and apologies I haven't had time to read the report in it you know study it for hours but these garage were never assigned to the surrounding properties and they weren't owned by residents in the local area at one time this is probably a 60s development I would guess from the age of the properties in the photograph at one time garages were provided with the houses at that sort of point in time over time like many of the garages exist in much of the housing stock with modern cars the garages are simply too small they serve no purpose in that respect so although there's been the temporary provision that the fact that the garage were taken away is not a consequence of this development there's something that they became redundant in any event is to do with their size thank you sir thank you any further questions that's the Bolton question really I'm just looking at 2.3 I mean it says we're going to have a just dedicated disabled parking space which wasn't there before and also there will be three additional parking spaces so though we might have lost the temporary ones we're gonna get three permanent ones so yeah just thank you thank you capital that's the Collings thank you chair I just want to ask that the office is about eight point five four permitted development and whether it's appropriate for us to mention this as a committee to say that you're stretching out there of saying that when this is built if it's approved that there would be a clause put in place on the planning permission that no further extensions towards neighboring properties would be allowed is that something we should discuss now and say that I would support that but minus nature where it's gonna be placed have to clarify that chair what we do is we don't normally take away permitted development rights because people are entitled to do that where we think that the situation of the property is such that if general permitted extensions were put on it could have some adverse impact on amenity we put a control in place such as that condition it doesn't say never to any extensions what he does is just means anybody wants to extend in that way in the future would need planning permission for it and it would then be considered on its merits so it retains control by the local authority thank you any further questions so we can move to comments any comments councillor Garston well as I said I think in in the questions I think this is a really good application it's something that the council should be really proud of and I think it's right obviously that comes here because it's a council application but my only sadness is there's only one but nevertheless one is better than the water and I hope that this proceeds very quickly and we have a very contented resident in in this property before too long thank you thank you councillor Garston any other comments no so you can move to the vote please Tim thank you three the motion before you now is to grant planning permission subject to the condition set out in the report please can I have a show of hands all those in favor 13 chair unanimous Thank You Tim so moving on to item number five on the agenda and that's for Charlotte to present please Thank You chairman this is page 47 28 Belfast Drive and neon see the application has been called into committee by a councillor Allen and I draw your attention to supplementary agenda where there is one for the letter of representation the application site contains a detached bungalow on the east of Belfast drive of Belfast Drive the surrounding area comprises a varied street scene with a mix of bungalows and two-story dwellings there's no strong uniformity or distinctive characteristics ground levels change with properties to the north of the application site the request at progressively lower levels the application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of two four-bedroom hipped roof dwellings with accommodation over three level the dwellings would be some six point eight meters wide nine point two five meters in maximum height and a maximum of four point seven meters in depth and now set back further in their plots and the existing dwelling to enable the formation of parking areas to the front cartilage or Street parking is proposed for two vehicles per dwelling accessed by two new dropped curves this scheme is an amended proposal following refusal of a previous application 22 0 1 1 9 4 FUL the 2022 application which was dismissed at appeal for reasons relating to design an impact on the character the scale and bulk of the development and the detailed design which were found to be odds with the street scene a copy of the appeal decision is attached as appendix one to the main report and the salient points raised by the inspector are summarized at paragraph 3.1 this amended proposal seeks to overcome the previous design based reason for refusal and the detail changes compared to the 2022 application are set out at paragraph 2.7 of the main report during the course of this application amended plans were received removing side dormers rep says representations objecting to the application have been received from seven addresses and are summarized paragraph 4.1 of the officer's report due to re consultation as a result of revised plans the consultation period does not expire until the 30th of May the the plan that you see before you shows you a comparison of the existing dwelling on site the scent the middle middle drawing is the refuse scheme that was dismissed appeal and then the dwelling at the bottom is the development that is now proposed as detailed at paragraph 3.1 onwards of the officers report the 2022 application was dismissed at appeal for reasons mainly relating to the size scale bulk and stemming from the main gabled reform other secondary areas of concern related to detailed design elements notably the placement width and square form with the projecting front cables as well as the position and forms of windows and roof lights to overcome the harm identified by the inspector the design has been amended as describing detail at paragraphs 8.11 onwards of the officers report the main roof is now hipped reflecting the predominant roof form in the immediate vicinity and has also been reduced in height it now suitably reflects the spaciousness across the site as well as creating a more sympathetic transition between neighboring properties the two-story front gabled projections have been repositioned centrally and reduced in width with the bay shape altered from a square to a curved bay and the gabled reefs over the bays have been redesigned to a smaller to more traditional scale with a traditional timber panel detailing in addition the gable window has been removed so the projecting bays and roof form would not be read as a three-story development from the highway these amendments are considered suitably to reduce the overall scale and bulk of the built form on site and will ensure the perceived spaciousness across the site is maintained the amended proposals considered to overcome the previously identified harm will now be acceptable with regards to its design and character impact impacts between the proposed layout would allow for policy compliant parking provision and a reasonable amount of soft landscaping on this basis the character and appearance impacts of the revised development are acceptable and policy compliant and the basis of refusal of the 2022 application has been overcome the 2022 application was found acceptable in its neighbor amenity impacts and this current scheme is reduced in terms of its resultant scale and bulk such that the briefs previously accepted amenity impacts would be reduced subject to the described conditions the application is acceptable and policy compliant with regards to its impact upon the amenities of neighbors and this conclusion is consistent with the basis of the previous application and the appeal decision the proposal remains acceptable and policy compliant in respect of the standard of accommodation proposed and in relation to traffic and transport issues ecology and drainage the proposal creates new housing and the council has a deficit in housing land supply so the tilted balance in favor of sustainable development should be applied when determining this application the proposal would make a contribution to the housing needs of the city but which must be given increased weight in the planning balance as there are no other material planning considerations which would justify reaching a different conclusion it's recommended that members delegate to the director of planning and economy or the development control service manager the grant planning Commission subject to the condition set out into the main report and any additional representations received up to the end of the 30th of May 2024 that do not raise any new considerations which have not been addressed in the report so if further representations are received up to that date which are a new which raised new considerations not already addressed within the report the application is to be brought back to development control committee for determination Thank You chairman Thank You Charlotte this Fleming have three minutes to address the committee when you're ready thank you if you press the button on the side it should switch it on oh is it okay sorry - oh sorry fella that's it okay okay good afternoon good afternoon my name is Amelia Fleming and I have lived on Belfast Drive for 30 years along with other residents arm opposed to this development reasons are proposed development is against the character and appearance of the road it will be situated next to another bungalow number 24 Shelley bungalow number 22 on the other side of 24 has conditional planning permission and approximately the same height as proposed dwelling number 28 this development number 28 will have a detrimental impact on our environmental mental health and in particular for the people living in bungalow 24 the boundaries are too close to the adjacent properties causing number 24 lack of light and encroach on their space referring to the Urban District Council scheme dated 1902 bungalows must be replaced by bungalows there is a lack of bungalows in South End and they're in great demand for people who like to downsize and or people who have mobility issues parking is an issue in this road if the proposed development is agreed there's a potential of 16 people with only four parking spaces where will the rest park I like to refer to the inspector reports are assumed that everyone has read this and bar the initial planning application was dismissed to summarize in our opinion this proposed development has been tinkered with to make it look more attractive on paper but not materially I trust the counselors agree this new proposal is reacted as was the previous application thank you thank you mr. Ali you also have three minutes to address the committee thank you zone yeah yeah my name is Mabasha Ali I'm one of the directors of the company that has submitted the application or the reapplication for this site as you can see we have taken great length to address all the objections that were raised we are very sympathetic to them but at the same time we are trying to comply with planning laws and having taken into account all the rejections and the points made by the appeal we feel that we have addressed all those issues which takes into account all the objections that have just been summarized earlier and we feel that our application should now be granted because now that we've addressed all the objections that were raised by that appeal in theory would be illogical to reject the application now because everything that has been objected to and has been stated as a concern has now been amended to comply with planning law and as the planners have recommended it should be granted permission and I hope the council do agree with that and see that it is going to be a positive addition to the road and not to the detriment of the residents that have been living there and I hope you draw the same conclusion thank you thank you miss a like council ailing you have five minutes when you're ready canceling thank you very much thanks for different control for allowing me to speak on this I called this in because so many residents requested me to the basic what I want to say is I'm gonna leave it to council Alan dear to address this because he's been taking the lead on this but the point that was just made that it's very important is it's a loss of bungalow and that's most people's concern and under the 1902 Lee Urban District Council Parkland scheme as this building was built before then it restricts the development of a bungalow to a house and that is a still valid because southern council adopted that scheme I'll leave it that I'd hand over to council Alan dear to follow through thank you thank you so I can go to questions the committee okay questions no okay comments has libertas looking at this it's quite similar to a lot of the developments that happen in my ward where they take a bungalow and the Blenheim Ward by the way which is obviously the neighboring ward and the 77 Blenheim Crescent Manchester I think Pickett's Avenue Madeira I think has one and I quite often find that when you're calling to residents before they're going oh I'm not quite sure about about that then when it's done they all quite like it we've got to be building houses in South End we've got like a housing shortage I mean yes bungalows are nice but this is like the kind of thing we should be saying yes to I've got a feeling I was on the arm thing previously subbing a couple of years ago and I think I was one of the few that well I was both voted for it last time I do feel a bit of natural justice here in the the things that we said last time the applicant has now changed so I think if we were then to come around and say no no we've got a load of new objections for me that wouldn't feel fair so I think this is a really good application it's kind of thing that works quite well elsewhere in the city it doesn't look like it's over imposing so I'll be unvoting for tonight and council of a council of Berry comment thank you chair I'm pretty much covered by my colleague council about yeah I I think it's a shame to lose a bungalow because they are in great demand and much needed but overall on this I think the fact that the devout the applicant has addressed all of the reasons for the previous refusal it would probably be perverse of us to refuse this now but by bringing in any new objections that could have been raised last time I'll be voting for it thank you Thank You Councillor Berry castle dear your queen thank you chair being the wall cancer for Belfry is um Belford is known for the number of bungalows the garden the state which I live on is full of bungalows and I must regret to see a bungalow go having looked at the application the amended application I think I find it very difficult to not to approve this one every objection that was raised at the last meeting has been addressed on this application every item that the inspector raised has been addressed on this application so if I say I would don't want to see a bungalow go I don't as much choice apart from to actually approve this item thank you Thank You councillor dear councillor Moroni thank you chair I think all of us prefer to see bungalows retained because they have their value and they have their use for obvious reasons I find it quite difficult for the same reasons that Councillor dear has just spoken you know we've had this one before we gave quite detailed comments on what was wrong with it before and the applicant has put together a scheme now which is more in line or in line with what we were looking for last time so I find it very difficult to go against it I would just comment on this I wrote down quickly being a his local historian I wrote down Lee urban district council 1902 Parkland Development Scheme which I'm going to look up but I have to say that after 122 years I'm pretty sure it's not relevant it will have been taken over by subsequent policies if not our own plan you know recent planning policies and I doubt if it was a planning document anyway so it's pre planning so you know interesting as it is I don't think it has a bearing on this particularly and I'll be voting for this thank you Thank You councilman on that point I'm going to bring Patrick teasing to clarify what was said thank you yeah thank you chairman on their last point there are all statutes and pieces of legislation the main thing is that the decision you have to make as a planning committee today and the appeal inspector would do in the same basis is you have regard to the development planning force so that's the suite of documents that's the local national policies the NPPF so there may be in existence something from the early part of the last century and it may be like a covenant for example that somebody may consider that that has bearing but covenants wouldn't have a bearing on the planning decision either because that's a separate piece of legislation you have to make a decision today in accordance with the policy framework that's outlined in the report and just to help members in the theme of what's being said is obviously this is an emotive kind of application when the inspector allow dismissed the appeal they did so solely on the grounds of the carrots and appearance of the dwelling and its impact in the street scene it wasn't about loss of a bungalow the inspector found that the redevelopment of the site with houses would be acceptable in principle also we have a condition on the recommendation for approval which is about m42 which particularly for newer members what that means is that under the building regulations there are requirements about future accessibility of the building so say for example I live in the house I get more elderly I have mobility problems ensures that there is ground for accommodation available and access means in this the house that means that I do not have to live upstairs in that dwelling as a member of the family so we've got a condition on and that would provide some reassurance that as we get more modern with some of the developments are coming forward bungalows used to be the only form of reasonable accessible dwellings for people with mobility problems nowadays modern developments are achieving that as well so what's been said by the counselors is whilst the loss of the bungalow character wise is something that is perhaps regrettable you would have very very thin grounds to sustain an appeal if you dismiss if you refuse this application on that basis and it's not to say that the views of people to the country are wrong it's the framework you have to make a decision today has to have significant regard to what the inspectors said in their decision letter I think that's what's reflected in some of the comments that's been made by the members so far thank you chair oh could you just turn your mic off thank you counselor Collins thank you for allowing the comment chair first comment is regarding bungalows and the suitability for mobility access as a family member we have to consider that and a bungalow like this actually wouldn't be appropriate because it's not suitable for wheelchair use and things like that because it's not actually designed for that so we need to think about the previous items council garces was quite rightly celebrating the previous item we're discussing that mobility the bungalow designed specifically for people with mobility issues and designed with that in mind is what we should be doing my comment chair is about 4.4 parks and they are concerned about the loss of grass verge as I am and they say that we the applicant will be required to meet this with a planting of a standard tree within the city at the cost of its the officer says here that that's not a valid comment I'd like to ask the committee I think it is a valley comment I don't see why we cannot ask for that it's not huge amount of expense and I'm sure the developer would agree with any position of that that would be good thing to come out of this thank you yes thank you chair um it's probably the way it's phrased in the report it's it's a consultation of ponds that's been made but that wasn't raised when the 2022 application was considered so it's not been on the table previously so what we have to be careful about is consistency in introducing new things for the developer if the members felt that that was a something that really took the balance in their view then you could impose a condition that would require a scheme of replacement planting to be provided officers don't think that planning officers don't consider that's critical to this scheme given the other benefits of the proposal but it is potentially something that the committee could do thank you to help me understand their chair please through you this is a new application is it not I know we refer back to the proof on that was lost but this is a new application in its own right is it not yeah in that basis and I think we can look at it in that light okay I would like to propose to the committee that we do put that in position not a big in position but I would like to do that okay do you want to clarify that them for me yeah I take obviously understand the point that Councillor Collins is making two things first of all when we did the training there's the six tests for planning conditions and you have to be absolutely sure that it's necessary in the circumstances the application which is a judgment and also what we're careful about on your behalf as a local planning authority is when we're dealing with a proposal that goes through various iterations including subsequent applications if we introduce new factors that weren't introduced first time round that can I'm not saying here but it can be regarded as unreasonable behavior on the part of the council in changing the goalposts so that's why we for both points of view we didn't consider it necessary and we didn't consider it be consistent with the previous decision but we could put together some form of condition if it was critical to members view thank you thank you for that Councillor Evans parking issue here is it does it still stand now that the council are saying that doesn't matter how many bedrooms are put into place it's just one parking place per property because as it the residents pointed out it's going to be I know Belfer's Drive very well I've worked for them before very narrow so what what this year Patrick's thought about the the parking issues which I am actually concerned about for you chairman um the plan that you can see before you now shows the proposed parking for the development and there would be two spaces proposed per dwelling which is policy compliant for this size of property Council Evans thank you your Councillor Moroni your comment please thank you chair and I'm going to follow on from Councillor Collins and the 4.4 and yes this wasn't referred to previously I can't believe that a developer is going to going to founder on the provision of one tree in a verge and not to do so is actually going against according to 4.4 is going against our own vehicle a crossing policy so are we going to go against our policy and I would support Councillor Collins in the request for a condition to require a tree to be planted in that area thank you Councillor Garstin your comment place I think I agree with most of what's being said I think that this one we should be now approving it just having things on eight point three nine I think we should change the word can to will I think active electric charging facilities and cycle parking within the rear garden can be secured by condition I'd like to propose that it is included please three three chairman if we go to condition 11 that requires electric vehicle charging points to be provided one per dwelling it's already covered Councillor Gaustin okay thank you okay I have no more people down for a comment so we can go for the vote with the condition that's being proposed by Councillor Collins and Councillor Moroni yes thank you chair so the motion is to delegate to the director of planning economy and the development control service manager to grant planning permission subject to conditions set out and report in the additional condition that you suggested regarding the tree to be planted in the area subject to no new objections racing no new considerations being received before the 30th of May and if there are any new objections as such that they will be reported back to this committee please can I have a show of hands all those in favor for that motion 12 chair any against no thank you team so we can move on to item number six the agenda and that's for Charlotte to present again Thank You Charlotte thank you and I apologize I realized I didn't introduce myself I'm Charlotte gal fog I'm one of the team leaders in development control so we're now on page 97 item six of the agenda and this is Elkington house 9 Imperial Avenue which has been called into committee by councillor folk art the application site lies on the northern side of Imperial Avenue and the site contains a vacant two-story former care home building to the front is an associated parking area and to its rear is a garden with mature trees there's a single preserved tree on the western boundary of the sites frontage with number 11 pedestrian and vehicular access is from Imperial Avenue planning permission was granted on the 31st of August 2023 for partial demolition of the existing building to provide access for the construction of three dwellings on land to the rear of 9 Imperial Avenue this application six seeks to discharge condition 10 which required a construction method statement of that permission the condition is set out in full at paragraph 2.2 of the officers officers report there is a submitted construction environment environment management plan a simp includes and this includes information relating to the site management plan of the site which you can see here with the location of the site compounds and measures to address the different elements of the condition there's also a demolition method statement which includes details of where for accommodation working hours services safety asbestos removal methods and phases of demolition measures control emission of dust and dirt during construction measures to control noise and during demolition and construction and details of the separate limbs of the condition and the submitted details to address them are set out in paragraphs 8.2 onwards of the officers report highways and environmental health officers raise no objection to the proposals it's therefore considered that the submitted details meet the requirements of the condition and that the simp and the demolition method statement are acceptable and appropriate for the development members are therefore recommended to approve details for condition 10 as set out on page 103 of the agenda thank you thank you Charlotte so we can move straight to questions council folk off thank you chair I did call this in and obviously residents are very sensitive about this particular development which is kind of half and half at the moment isn't it but I just want you and the officers to confirm that I the shrub borders there won't be damaged that the height of the construction will be appropriate and there'll be no contractors parking in this road because it's a stressed a car stressed road thank you thank you through you chairman on the slide before you the central plan shows the location of the construction compounds there's a pink one at the front of the site and the screen area at the back and I don't know if you can see but there's a preserved tree set out in the front of the site so the compounds that would be used for parking avoid that tree and avoid the frontage part of frontage shrubbed areas on the front of the site the plan also includes confirmation that parking would be within the compound within the site for operators carrying out the development and in that regard should not result in parking on the highway as a result of this proposal I hope that clarifies matters any further questions no Oh Councillor have more sorry yeah like like Councillor folk art we appreciate this is just a approval for the foot for the method and Councillor folk are touched on the damage to the possible damage to the shrubs and protection of those one thing we've been asking about in development control for a long time is sort of damage to the footpaths in terms of crossover are we any further to being able to achieve that or is there anything that we can do just to protect the footpaths that was my only concern thank you through you chairman so damages of footway obviously I completely understand why it's a matter that members are concerned about we put an informative on all approvals highlighting that issue and risk to applicants and the consequences of doing so I potentially damaging it but it is ultimately a matter for separate legislation is a matter under the highways act so it's not a matter that's before this committee today so I completely understand definitely an important issue for the council more widely but not an issue for this committee here today and through the informative I believe we've gone as far as we reasonably can in highlighting that issue though so that no one receiving a Planning Commission can claim ignorance at a later date thank you Thank You chair now I appreciate that and thanks for pointing that out is there any point in the Planning Department sort of recording the state of the footpath so and just for record I have had the additional resource required to do such things then perhaps but even then it really doesn't make a great deal of difference because these things are so fluid so a photograph taken of a footway and a permission implemented six months later possibly a couple of years later who's to say what happened in the intervening period so a photograph taken but sometimes the planning photographs will show the footway for a variety of reasons but they're not really of any assistance in dealing with these matters yeah it's for the highway authorities to deal with through the highway act okay thank you for pointing that out and maybe it's something we can take up with them and hopefully the legislation will come forward eventually any further cuts Moroni sorry I did everything thank you just following on from that I appreciate that the original permission that's been granted has got the informative on it but we are approving details albeit just limited details I don't think it does any harm to remind the applicant of that informative on here okay okay any other comments no okay so we come over to the vote please Tim so the motion before you now is to prove the details for condition 10 is set out in the report please can I have a show of hands all those in favor 13 chair any against that's carried thank you very much move on to item number seven on the agenda that's for James to present please James thank you chair firstly I'd like to draw members attention to the supplementary report which sets out an officer clarifications paragraph 2.4 a representation received from the lead local flood authority which raised no objection to the proposal subject to a drainage condition an amendment to the wording of paragraph 8.21 an amendment to condition 10 and informative added the officers report starts on page 123 of the agenda the application site contains two garage blocks to the eastern side of Bradford berry the garages on the site are undersized for modern cars and underutilized all 14 of the garages are currently vacant the garage blocks are utilitarian in appearance and do not make a positive contribution to the street scene the surrounding area is predominantly residential in character the site is part of a medium-sized 1960s council and sheltered housing estate with a mixture of two-story houses and flats laid out in a landscape setting land levels slope downwards south to north and the south site bounds protected green space to the north the application seeks planning permission for a pair of two-story semi detached dwelling houses with two bedrooms for three persons and to lay out four off-street car parking spaces private amenity spaces would be provided to the rear and the houses would form part of the council's affordable social housing stock the proposal aims to deliver houses which would exemplify sustainable and energy-efficient housing solutions more details of the proposal are described in section 2 of the officer report a summary of the representations received can be found in section 4 of the officer report and two letters of representation have been received from the public objecting to the proposal section 8 of the report sets out the assessment of the proposal in detail the proposal seeks to provide affordable social housing for which there is an identified need in the city in principle new residential development in this residential location is acceptable subject to conditions the proposal is considered to be acceptable and policy compliant in terms of its impacts on the character and appearance of the site the street scene and surrounding area the proposal would introduce some active frontage to the pedestrian footpath which would improve local character and provide some natural surveillance and just to be welcomed the proposed houses would be two-story and would have low-pitched gable roof forms to reflect the character of the surrounding development the proposed design and finishing materials provide a contemporary contemporary reinterpretation of the surrounding context would not appear significantly out of keeping or unusual subject to a condition for the first floor window in the eastern side of evasion to be obscure glazed with limited openings the proposal is considered to be acceptable and policy compliant in terms of its impacts on the residential amenity of neighboring occupiers in all relevant regards to tandem off-street car parking spaces but dwelling are proposed which is policy compliant and to cycle parking spaces are also proposed dwelling which exceeds the policy requirement the existing garages are undersized and unsuitable for parking modern cars this has led them to be an underutilized there is adequate on street parking in Bradford berry and the surrounding roads and it's not considered to be an area of material park and stress the council's highways officer is not objected to the proposal the provision of two affordable social housing dwellings would be of significant benefit to the community and offsets the loss of the underutilized garages in this location and the proposed parking out considered to be acceptable subject to conditions the proposal was found to be acceptable in all other regards including living conditions for future occupiers sustainability refuge and recycling storage flooding and drainage tree impacts and ecology having taken all the material planning considerations into account the proposal is found to be acceptable and policy compliant proposal would provide two affordable social housing dwellings for which there is an unidentified need in the city and this would be a significant benefit to the community members are recommended to approve planning permission subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report thank you check Thank You James mr. Russell you have three minutes when you are ready okay good afternoon committee my name is John Russell and I reside at 40 Bradford bury I'm ex-royal navy chief pay also gunnery instructor and critical care paramedic 730 37 and a half years I'm a disabled war pensioner the proposed development of two standalone buildings built with modern building techniques it's not in keeping with our sheltered accommodation type as the garages are an integral part of the community and they are used by the locals of Bradford bury unfortunately as the drains are always blocked those garages facing north are prone to suffer water overflowing into them the car parking on the main roads usually taken by workers and nearby at nearby progress road industrial estate to enable them to get a quick getaway and not get caught in the progress road let lights all of the inhabitants stroke tenants of Bradford bury we are all elderly over fifties and 90% are disabled the funding for this new build could be better spent on improvements for all the blocks which have four flats per block there are five blocks by insulating the roof spaces to the government recommendation levels which are only three inch at present roof noise insulation for the amount of light aircraft that fly directly above us we have a very limited parking when we are able to use it there are virtual parking of progress would workers the bad dream age at the garage and lockups such developments like this we've been here before and no doubt we will be again but until such one destruction of the garages is home as halted all the talk of embedded carbon reuse recycle and livable cities as just developers window dressing hot air and sleight of hand the garages and lockups would have been used even more so however due to the drainage in the water there is a grassy area 20 yards to the west of the poop public footpath that could be utilized instead of knocking down the garages I urge you to leave the garages you act on behalf of the people of South End I've spoken to many of our tenants and told them I intended to come today and speak against this from those local tenants I was to speak up and say no leave the garages thank you thank you mr. Russell no okay it's a council ailing when you already you have five minutes to address the committee thinking thank you development committee I would like to pick up on one item that was stressed by the officer about parking there is extreme parking stress in this area it's been raised time and time again so how he can even say that there isn't alarms me I will get towards of what I was going to say the planning application 2402421 stroke BC I've called the planning application development control for the following reasons and asking for development control to reject the application one no vehicle parking the plans have provision for four vehicles referring to the application 2.3 there will be two tandem parking spaces per dwelling four in total to the western side the dwelling finished in terminal paving this to be accessed via crossover from Grandford Berry the area shown read vehicles on are not permitted to park if the plans are approved with parking very serious issues will come up regarding many parks in South End if however the rules and covenants of South Elkwood Park are ignored the minimum space as set out in national stands for parking bays 2.4 by 4.8 South End City Council requirements for planning applications is 7 meters by 2.4 for a single vehicle the actual size of the parking for four vehicles as shown on the drawings is 9.8 by 4.2 wide therefore the only area there is only area for one vehicle and not for as indicated on the plans this will already congest parking of the surrounding area to a point raise the Egyptian from residents to not in line with the street scene the design and access statement clearly references the local architecture referring to the application in 2.5 charter appraisal architecture ensure the designs in keeping local context and it goes on about architectural details the windowsills misspelt seal is in is of constituted stone the nearest building with a similar is two miles away at Coombs cooler windows and coping RL 7 3 5 light grey all surrounding properties are white rainwater pipes grey aluminium to match windows therefore should they not be 7 0 3 8 instead of 7 0 3 5 because that's the match all surrounding rain or water pipes of black the front door is mint green rail 6 0 3 3 the surrounding doors of all the properties are rail 8 0 2 2 brown black bricks are London where the yellow all surrounding buildings are tradesman light buff the side elevation shows insets that are not a feature of any buildings within a large surrounding area proxy five miles can't find one side elevation windows of poor design and look like a mistake has been made the window size does not match the visible opening size giving the impression of very poor design not in line with properties within three miles window proportions do not blend with any surrounding and the nearest example that stole windows that turnpike some three miles away building height is out proportion to surrounding properties three adds parking congestion surrounding areas for poor design five no place to locate future rubbish ie wheelie bins six EV charging point is located on public land seven the council completely reject the use of grey style on properties one example is in the area's 900 yards away from the site being discussed this is false those be further than that property to go to a pill to get planning so great tiles against council policy to sum up the design of the properties are extremely poor failure to even attempt to match the street scene no parking lack a simple design for visibility and layout therefore request development control committee reject this application and I'll go on to say I recommend a rethink that this should be used for car parking as within the few yards there is a suitable area to build up to six houses that's been totally ignored thank you thank you councillor so we move on to questions I've got councillor Burton's first thank you chair discrepancy here in the 1.1 it says all 14 of the garages are vacant be at the public consultation some of the public are saying the garages are needed and used by residents and we've heard from mr. Russell that the garages are in use so could someone explain that discrepancy to me so through you chair and we've had it confirmed through the applicant that all 14 garages are vacant that's the basis of the assessment that we've carried out I'm afraid you can't that's lame that's the rules I'm sorry you can't I'm afraid Councillor Berry thank you the summit despite that attempt was a clarification for Councillor Burton there I for one still unconvinced the resident mr. Russell is saying that the garages are in use the offices are saying I'm sorry council ailing you can't approach commit you know you're not allowed to do this you've been a council for a long time you can't approach the committee I'm afraid you can't cancel a place okay so I'm going to ask the committee on these points because we have a disparate discrepancy here about the garages I think we should defer this I'll put that to the vote please so through you check the motion before you now is to defer the application please can I have a show of hands all those in favour 14 you know mr. thank you Tim sorry about that if you've come to hear this but we have to have the right facts in front of us so we shall move on to item number eight now on the agenda and that's for Abby to present please Abby you hi I'm Abby Greenwood principal planner and design and conservation officer at the council report for this application can be found on pages 1 8 9 2 3 8 of the agenda I draw committee's attention to the updated conditions and the additional neighbor representation in SOPS the site is on the south side of Lee Hill in the Lee conservation area and contains a partially demolished terrace of three historic properties the building for many years contains JA bathroom showrooms with flats above but has been vacant for a number of years and it's in a poor condition the eastern end of the terrace number 26 was demolished in 2014 due to structural concerns in its present partially demolished state the site is detrimental to the character of the conservation area and deteriorating but it still has the potential to make a positive contribution if appropriately restored and extended the site is located between the rebuilt Bell Hotel and Bell Sands development to the west and the south a grade 2 listed cottage at number 28 Lee Hill to the east and Norman Terrace and Churchill opposite to the north the street scene is an eclectic mix of historic buildings of two to three stories and a variety of well articulated designs there have been several previous planning applications at the site in recent years which are material to this case in 2014 planning permission was granted to demolish and rebuild number 26 and create a terrace of three three-story houses with basement parking the proposal included the rebuilding of number 26 at three stories various rear extensions and the enlargement of the basement to create five parking spaces this application commenced with the demolition of number 26 which became unsafe but a development itself has not progressed in 2018 an amended proposal was approved for commercial office space at ground floor and lower grounds and three flats above including accommodation in the roof space this scheme had a slightly larger basement area both these schemes maintained a high level of articulation and the fine grain of the surrounding area and were considered positive for the conservation area in 2022 an application for the part demolition and rebuilding of number 24 and the rebuilding of 22 to create three houses of an alternative design was refused concerns raised in regard to the materials but also the design and form of the proposal particularly at the rear and at roof level which was unresolved in places and failed to respect the finer grain and vertical proportions of the conservation area this scheme was also refused because it failed to demonstrate m42 could be achieved for the houses and the Rams tariff was not paid the current amended proposal also includes the demolition and rebuilding of number 24 and 26 and the retention and refurbishing of number 22 to create three three-story houses including accommodation in the roof and basement car parking the design has been refined including the use of more more appropriate materials and detailing amended design at the rear which maintains the three distinct plots and a simplified reform which better conceals the roof accommodation the following slides show a comparison between the previously refused scheme and the current proposal this choice shows the front facing Lee Hill and West Side facing the Bell Hotel and this side shows the rear facing Belsan's and the estuary and the east facing the listed building the amended design is a significant improvement over the 22 refusal particularly in terms of the form the grain proportions detailed design and materials in terms of the scale and form and the relationship between the proposal and the listed building which was renovated in 2019 after the demolition of number 26 the scheme is similar to that approved in 2014 and 2018 including the rebuilding of number 26 at three stories the blue line on this plan shows the outline of the 2018 approval to the current relationship to the current proposal which is very similar and the relationship in terms of scale remains acceptable however the amended materials and detailing and much improved and this will enhance the setting of the listed building and the wider conservation area it is now considered that proposal positively integrates into the existing front and rear street scenes of Lee Hill and the wider conservation area and the reason for refusal in relation to design and impact on nearby heritage assets has been overcome the design is now considered to be acceptable the province the principle of a basement extension was established in the previous approvals in 2014 and 2018 and remains acceptable subject to conditions no objection is raised to one parking space per property given the constraints of the site and the character of the conservation area policy compliant past cycle parking and refuge storage is also proposed at this level in terms of the standard of accommodation at ground floor each property will have a main living space and amenity space over the parking area to the rear all properties have four bedrooms over two floors and number 22 and 24 also have a smaller living area in the roof space all properties include balconies at the rear at various levels to supplement the rear amenity space the site has a tight urban grain and close relationship with neighbors representations have been received from 11 neighbors and these are set out in paragraph 4.1 of the report the 2014 and 2018 schemes were found to have an acceptable impact on neighbors in all regards subject to the privacy screens and obscure glazing in key locations the current proposal has adopted a similar arrangement in relation to number 28 to the east side this diagram shows the scheme in relation to these buildings the side windows of the listed building are shown in blue and the green shows the gardens and mini theories of adjacent properties the southern window position on the listed building is to a habitable room and must be protected the development has one side window and a balcony at first floor facing this location the side window shown in red will be obscure glazed and the privacy screens in orange are also proposed previously screens are also proposed in similar locations at second floor and subject to securing these mitigation measures the proposal is considered to an acceptable impact on the amenities of number 28 in all regards in terms of the impact from the basement extension the application has demonstrated that the appraisal does not encroach into a 45 degree line taken from the foundations of 28 and this is controlled by condition building regulations and the party will like to also cover the basement construction overall it's considered that the pros would have an acceptable impact on the means of number 28 Lee Hill in terms of relationship with Bell Sands to the south this diagram shows the proposal in relation to the windows of that development again the blue windows show the only habitable windows on the north face of Bell Sands given that most windows face south over the estuary is considered that there's sufficient separation distance between the balconies and Bell Sands development not to cause overlooking concerns the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the amenities for neighbors in all regards the pros always has an acceptable impact regarding sustainability drainage and ecology including paying the Rams tariff which was the final reason for refusal overall it is considered that all of three reasons for refusal have been satisfactory addressed and the amended proposal is acceptable and policy compliant in all regards and recommended for approval subject to conditions set out on page 207 to 14 of the agenda thank you Thank You Abby Councillor Stuart ailing you have five minutes to address the committee when you're ready thank you Alan sorry I can't get him out my mind okay thank you for letting me address the committee on behalf of local residents circumstances have changed since 2014 permission and it's only right that the council considers the development of this site afresh we take far more care of our heritage assets now the need for restoration of long-term blighted properties should be not require the council to accept what might otherwise be an unacceptable form of development the council has statutory duty to ensure the preservation and in the enhancement of its heritage assets in this case the Lee conservation area and setting of the grade 2 listed building 28 Lee Hill when considering the impact of the proposed development on the designated heritage asset great weight should be given to the assets conservation insufficient weight has been applied in this case I believe the current proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the Lee conservation area it will harm the setting and the possible stability of the grade 2 listed heritage asset it pays in sufficient regard to and will harm the establishment amenities of the nearby residential properties this will seriously undermine the council's development plan objectives to achieve well-designed places this includes policies requiring and that development should add to the overall quality of the area be visually attractive be neighborly be sympathetic in scale with the prevailing local character and maintain strong sense of place with the respective local built environment and heritage assets the scale of the replacement building on site number 26 Lee Hill is clearly too large and overbearing it radically and harmfully alter the character of the street at the bottom of one of Lee's most important and well-used thoroughfares I believe along with residents the development on the vacant site of 26 Hill should be reduced by one floor in height the reduced scale will less than the harmful impact with the Lee Hill and so within Lee Hill and the residents on Norman Terrace opposite upon the views of the site and from a long cinder path upon the setting of the listed building in the same views of the cinder path the proliferation of projecting balconies on the rear of the building at first and second floor levels will be harmful to the neighboring amenities I don't think we should allow such features on the existing buildings and we shouldn't do here do you let balconies as permitted in 2014 would be preferable mechanical air conditioning heat pumps close to the neighboring property should not be allowed these should be positioned away from the site's boundaries and well within the confines of the site finally council policy DM 14 states very clearly that all development proposals that are at a risk from the land instability or that it is likely to increase risk to the site or surrounding area will not be acceptable the application has not demonstrated to the council how the development on the unstable land will be capable of safe construction without increasing instability of the site and nearby heritage asset this must first undertake a detailed study of the site's grounds conditions to inform the design this has not been done to date we should not be granting any permission until we are fully satisfied that the detailed ground investigations on site have taken place and proposals and made out of fully mitigate the potential risks involved the adverse impact of granting this proposal would therefore significantly and demonstrably outweigh the marginal benefits its provides when assessed again the policies of this local plan and national planning framework taken as a whole the presumption in favor of sustainable development notwithstanding the long-term direction direction on the site and should therefore not apply in this case officers should go back to that and insist that the revision be made in fresh application the address and concerns raised by the local community thank you thank you so we can move straight to questions please cancel Moroni just a couple of clarification questions because I'm more commenting than questioning did I hear Abby right when she said that the top floor I can't remember which property would be a self-contained unit no the top floor isn't self contained you said something about I said it had it's an additional living space so this is I think no they're they're just houses so they just go all the way up it just gives them a second living space on the top right and we've got three four bedroomed houses and three parking spaces in what I consider to be a really contrived way of parking with a turntable and you know for those of you that walk along Lee Hill you will know that it's incredibly narrow pavement traffic goes down there a hell of a pace and I do think that's a really contrived way of dealing with parking which is obviously in my view not not I'm commenting I know not in it's it's what's the word what's the opposite of excess dearth of parking for a property for three four bedroom properties but I'll save the rest of what I want to say to comment thank you cancer Moroni any further questions no so you can come back with a coin Oh sorry cats level sir yeah just one sort of concern when you look at the original property can you compare is there a slight dish to show them side by side the original and this latest I'm just concerned that this this although aesthetically it's a lot better than the first application that went in I'm still concerned it doesn't follow the gradient of the hill and it would have been nicer it's not not a comment yet but to see the sort of roof apartments or the space in the roof be more subservient to the roof line was that taken into account you know following the gradient of the hill when you compare the old property with the new one you can see that it does step down the hill in terms of the the ground floor arrangement and the roof is slopes away from the road so you won't really see that but we've we've worked with the designers to conceal the top floor so that won't be apparent from the street or from this into path I'll come back in comments Councillor berry your question please yeah just quickly it has been stated at most if not all of the reasons for previous refusal have been overcome by discussions is that correct yes just to clarify the 2022 scheme we shall be showed earlier was refused for three reasons which was character and appearance and have he's gone through the changes have been made it was the m42 accessibility because that time there were flats involved in scheme whereas this is three dwelling houses now and in the last reason was the Rams payment had not been made and that's now been made and this is a sequence of planning permissions where the principle of three-story on that part of the site including basement and so forth has been established in 2014 2018 and then in 2022 although that one was refused so what this scheme now through the pre-app system has done is reached a point where the balance of the provision of housing the significant improvement in the condition of the site although we shouldn't approve schemes simply because the site is left derelict it should be about the contribution the new building makes we believe that balance of factors is in the right place now to recommend this okay thank you any further questions please no so Councillor Moroni your comment please thank you chair interesting to hear Patrick refer to balance and I think that's what we need here there is absolutely nobody in Lee that doesn't want this site restored in you know to a satisfactory scheme within the conservation area but it's been an eyesore for as long as I can remember in in its previous form as J&A bathrooms and as time has gone on what I am more concerned about than anything else is number 28 this is an example and a very lonely example of a fisherman's cottage which has been superbly renovated and saved it quite frankly because down the road from here you've got the Bell Hotel which well what was her hotel the problem we've got along all the way along this frontage is is the unsafe at the unsteadiness of the ground and the bell as most people know when that was being constructed reconstructed collapsed for whatever reason but the ground conditions didn't help I was there at the time it fell down but I saw it just afterwards and the poor little cottage was literally teetering on the edge and quite frankly if I'd have gone there the next day and saw it had gone I wouldn't have been surprised so that cottage is vitally important to the historic value of Lee so I think that that that should be the primary concern I have no objection to the two three stories that have already been approved and that but the third one which is the closest to the cottage you haven't got I mean as I remember that that wasn't as high as the other two as I remember it and I cannot see why we need three of that a set excessive height I objected it to it the last time I object to it again and I would just like to read from you've got this in front of you but from a survey which has been conducted by a firm of structural consultants at which says the masonry chimneys that this is talking about a little cottage the masonry chimney stack is fragile already leans towards a development site and it is simply braced by the existing timber structure of the cottage basement development on the adjacent site will result in ground movement the amount of movement has not been calculated nor has the proposed foundation system being confirmed in the absence of a site-specific ground investigation the developer seems unable to confirm the actual geology beneath the site and actual foundation system that will be appropriate in the absence of such investigations it's difficult to see how the engineering design can be taken much further now I know that you will probably tell me that's building regulations and I understand that totally but we should not be I in my view with all the other things around it we should not be permitting something which quite frankly may never be built because building regulations may say it can't they can't we you know we stand so I do really object to this because I think the effect on that little cottage which is so important to Lee needs to be really really taken into account and that means ground structure structural ground investigations before before anything is granted thank you through you chairman listening to the nature of the issues raised there and the strength of feeling on that batter absolutely it's the case that there are many aspects of this that will be looked at under the building regulations there are is also mass as pertains to the party wall act and we're not here to enforce either the possible that's all the building regulations of some members will have heard me say many many times before where there are genuine legitimate concerns about land stability though conditions can be applied to address those issues to ensure that suitable measures are put in place to ensure that there aren't issues arising from land instability so that can fall under the scope of the planning system so if it alters members perspective or assists members with making a decision on this today particularly given what seems to be recognized around in certain quite widely amongst people that there is a need to do something here that there perhaps are heritage benefits arising from the proposal with certain instances in certain regards then that condition hopefully can allay some concerns around the instant land instability issues so it won't be looking to duplicate the building regulations or the party wall act it will be focusing specifically on land instability to the extent to which it's a planning issue in certain cases and I think there's a legitimate case for that here thank you captain early thank Thank You Kevin for that that does give me a little bit of comfort all I would say is the owners of number 28 I think deserve to have this sorted out before any decision is taken in terms of a finality of the planning application and it strikes me that that's something that the applicant could be asked to provide prior to a determination because it seems to me that it's it's fundamental to whether or not this development is appropriate that third arm of this development is appropriate in that position I think the ground conditions there have been proved to be really unsatisfactory and we do really need to understand it so what I was going to say was sorry what I was going to say was can we ask on put if it's going to be granted can we and I note that the applicant is not sorry the the adjacent owner is is not totally against development there can we put a condition on requiring that submission as Kevin has said and can that please can the applicant be told that that will be brought back to develop control for consideration the change of condition and additional condition outside through you and Kevin so I think I wasn't quite sure I thought but basically I think if a matter can be dealt with through condition we should deal with it through condition so I think there is an issue here which can be dealt with through a condition so that's the way it should be done in terms of the condition coming back to committee we can't sort of circumvent the council's constitution in that regard the condition would go on the weekly list in the same way other conditions do and if members wanted to bring it before the committee they could so it's not a decision we could make here today but the opportunity to do so would be there as it is with other conditions absolutely okay well there'd be nothing to prevent it basically if that decision you want it to make a life today in the event of an approval I'm quite happy in that with that element of it and you know put you on notice that there will be a calling thank you yes we'll have a lot you have a comment yeah just be quick because Councillor Maroney's already said much of what I was going to say you know I said earlier on it's a it's a much more it's much better design than the previous one however I still feel it's a bit out of character especially in relation to the the cottage which is uphill of it and I would have liked to have seen the roof line reduced over the two the two properties further downhill I think that would have helped in terms of stepping it down and following the the hill and I think it would have sat better in terms of this particular conservation area that's all I'll say thank you thank you any further comments so we can move to the vote please Tim thank you Jay through so the motion before you know is to grant planning Commission subject the condition set out in the report and the amendment set out in the supplementary report together with the additional condition proposed by Councillor Maroni please can also have a show of hands all those in favor of that motion 12 chair any against that's carriage chair thank you Tim so on item number nine on the agenda and that's for Charlotte white to present place Charlotte thank you chairman to introduce myself to the new members of liquidity I'm Charlotte white and one of the development control team leaders at Council and my dual members attention to the supplementary agenda first which confirms that the neighbor consultation period has now expired and their representations have been received the application site is on the south side of Kilworth Avenue as you can see on the map on the screen the site relates to a two-and-a-half story semi-detached building which is currently used as a house in multiple occupation or HMO for up to six people it has an existing two story rear outrigger a flat roof rear dormer and a flat roof single-story rear extension beyond the outrigger which you can see in that photo planning permission is sought to change the use of the building from HMO of up to six people to an eight bedroom eight person HMO this plan shows the this plan shows the existing layout of the building which has six bedrooms over the ground and first floor so this is the proposed plan and as you can see the in the plans the proposed bedrooms are on the ground first and second floors all have on suites apart from bedroom four on the first floor which has access to a separate shower room on also on the first floor shared kitchen living and dining facilities facilities are provided on the ground floor towards the rear of the unit an existing ground floor window in the flank wall the main building would be removed and infield which is highlighted with red circle on the plan wooden bike shed and timber bin store shown in the rear garden area of the site so it's been noted in 2023 certificate of lawfulness confirmed planning permission was not required to change the use of the dwelling to a HMO for up to six people for the rear dormer chimney removal and the alterations to elevation so I could show you could show you some of the photos that have been submitted of the development with the application so it's example one of the bedrooms the outdoor space and the bike shed and the communal areas photos of those that's a communal stairway and some more examples of the bedrooms so there's no objection to the principle the development noting that the building is already used in use as HMO given that the site is located close to the high street and given that the MPPF encourages the effective use of land and seeks to create sustainable inclusive and mixed communities the design is considered acceptable there are no residential immunity concerns the two-person increase in capacity over the existing lawful occupancy of the site would not give rise to any significantly harmful immunity impacts the development exceeds the Essex HMO minimum standards for the bedrooms and the shared living kitchen dining room and a good-sized rear garden areas provided a condition is recommended to limit the occupancy of the developments eight bedrooms and eight single persons to protect the living conditions of the occupiers no parking is proposed the building is currently in use of a six-person HMO with no off-street parking site is in a sustainable location highways have raised no objection and informatives and and an informative is included outlining the occupiers of development would not be eligible for parking permits the impact of two additional occupants would not have a significantly harmful impact on local parking conditions or highway safety bike and refuse recycling stores have been provided and for details have been conditioned to be submitted and is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions which are outlined on pages two four seven two four nine of the agenda thank you Thank You Charlotte any questions can't say thank you very much yeah sorry for being late to the meeting I was at a disputing leaflets for the campaign so I'm never so sorry about that but I'm substitute for councilor Matt dent who is a counselor in this particular world and it's raised particular objections and I will just want to go through with you what is this the nature of objection the objection is on the ground that the father this could lead to pass over development in this particular area and already has a large number of flats and HMOs and also the impact on packing and packing facilities because of the it's not a CPZ and again there's a larger system impact on packing in that particular area so in suggestions of these two forms so on the basis of the fact that there are a lot of HMO already in the area and the fact that there will be packing challenges and on his behalf is of the view that this should not be approved today or given sanctions possibly for the planner or the builder to have a look at it again so we can at least have a clear impact assessment of if this particular building is going to be going ahead so I hope I've done a good job in raising a suggestion on his behalf and is as a counselor in the world is actually saying that this should not be approved because of the reason I've already stated thank you chair thank you any other questions counselor person the thing that attracted me is the is that the garden I mean I know you use that word loosely because it's just concrete surrounded by gravel and obviously as a council we should be encouraging kind of like green space so my question is is that something we could take it account of thank you for you chairman and if that's something the members are particularly concerned about we wouldn't usually for rear gardens but if it's something that members particularly concerned about we could impose a condition requiring a landscape conditions so hard and soft landscaping details to be submitted to us please if it's possible any other questions from the committee yeah that would need to be seconded okay councilor only thank you any other questions no we've gone to sorry it's very rare as an application for an HMO doesn't get objections from the neighbors even though they've had two opportunities to object and now we hear from Councillor Allen that the Councillor for the board is objecting to it I mean it's quite a clever way of doing it you have a six bedroom HMO not too many problems and then you put it in for planning application for an eight probably if you've done it eight originally that would be an objection I mean I'm not keen on HMOs but they do have a use so we do have a terrific housing shortage in this city so unless I can be persuaded otherwise I should go along with this Thank You councillor Garson any other comments no so we could move the vote please Tim thank you chair through you the motion before you knows to grant planning Commission subject the condition set out in the report please can I have a show of hands all those if I also the extra conditions proposed please have a show of hands all those in favor 12 chair and you against - motion carried thank you Tim so move on to item number 10 on the agenda and Tino is to present that thank you thank you through you chair just to introduce myself my name is Nintendo manguanda and I am one of the planning enforcement officers here at the southern City Council and so the officers report starts on page 281 of the main pack members attention is drawn to the supplementary agenda and the information provided there about this item so the site is on the northern side of Albion Road the area is residential and the site isn't in a conservation area or subject to any site specific planning policies so the breach of planning control is the erection of a rare extension it's going to show you a few pictures of that so through investigation of the enforcement case a retrospective application was submitted and that application and a make an amended proposal were both refused just to show you the previously refused existing and proposed elevations and the previously refused site plan so the the extensions positions size and depth and height above the existing fence is dominant and creates an unacceptable loss of outlook and light and enclosure for number 37 Albion Road as you can see on the photos so essentially enforcement action needs to be considered to entirely remove the unauthorized extension and materials resulting from compliance and three months would be sufficient and reasonable time to allow for compliance thank you chair thank you Tina questions the questions so can move to comments and comments nope so we can move to the vote please Tim so the recommendation is to to authorize enforcement action please can I have show of hands for those in favor 14 you know in this chair thank you Tim so we move on to item number 11 and that's for Tina to present that game thank you thank you through you chair and so the officers report starts on page three to three of the main reports pack and the site is on the northern side of Manchester Drive the site is not on article two three land or subject to any planning related policies and that's the front part of the site so the breach of planning control is the erection of a hip to gable as seen in this photo highlighted by the red box and the and a rare dormant to the roof so a certificate of law finesse application and planning application was submitted and refused and these are the refused elevation from the CLP application and these are the refused elevation from the elevations from the planning applications so following communication with a site owner confirmation was received of works to the roof associated with construction of the granted rare extension following a site visit in October the officer was informed by the owner that works to the roof had stopped further works were confirmed by a follow-up visit however a letter was sent regarding the unauthorized works but information has been received demonstrates that works continued after that the development is being constructed constructed in accordance to the unsuccessful CLP application plans which are these ones so the scale forming sitting and design of the roof are dominant and out of place resulting in harms the character and appearance of this site in wider area without a planning condition so that the rare and side facing openings are obscure glazed and non opening up to 1.7 meters from internal floor levels the development results in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to number 188 Manchester Drive number 61 Madeira Avenue and number 60 Benham Crescent for more detailed analysis of this breach please see page 3 to 6 and 3 to 3 to 7 off the officers report so essentially enforcement action needs to be considered to entirely remove the roof extensions and materials resulting in compliance and two months would be sufficient and reasonable time to allow for compliance Thank You chair Thank You Tina any questions cats the colleagues thank you to the officer is two months a little quick I don't scream what you've just said but I do think two months is not reasonable we could be asked that we're not being missed thank you through you chair for for those members that do not know me my name is spirit some one of the development control team leaders here in the council so the as you can see from the photographs that these are fairly recent photographs the development is under construction at the moment so that's why the the time frame allowed for compliance is a little bit on the on the short side of what we would normally I mean to be fair normally if this was completed would we would allow about three months it's just one month less than what we normally are because it's at the moment at construction so they the materials and all the works can be done here now thank you any other questions I was going to ask the same question actually spirit so I propose we put it to three months if anyone would second me and thank you just because I think it allows a bit more time for them to get it right okay any other questions from the committee no comments Councillor Burton this is in yet my watch and I've been contacted work for you the residents here and they're really concerned about this so I'd like to thank the officers for their prompt action here certainly on Madeira the the house is there it's really intrusive it's not obvious in the photographs quite how close it is but it's really is certainly for those house there and on Blenheim Cresence as well so I'm certainly be voting for enforcement action on this one Thank You Councillor Burton any other comments no so we can move to the vote please to thank you chair so the motion before you now is to authorize enforcement action subject to the compliance within three months and not to set out a new gender please can I have show of hands all those in favour 14 chair unanimous Thank You Tim so we're on item number 12 and that is for Charlotte to simply show thank you we're on page 357 and this is 12 billion drive Leon see the site is on the eastern side of pavilion drive to the rear of number 12 and 14 and it contains a building accessed from Recreation Avenue via a neighboring block of flats the yard in front of the building is in is used as an amenity area and is enclosed with fences and with a gate in the part of the fence separating the building from number 12 surrounding area was mixed commercial and residential to the south and residential in character in other directions the identified breach from control is material change of views from ancillary outbuilding to a self-contained dwelling in 2017 an investigation took place about the use of the site as a live work unit and planning permission was refused for that sui generous use a new dwelling was subsequently erected at number 12 and the unauthorized sui generous use of the outbuilding ceased in 2020 there was an application for a certificate of lawfulness for the ancillary use of the outbuilding in association of the with the dwelling and I'm 12 which was refused due to submission of insufficient evidence in 2023 complaints were received about use of the building as an independent dwelling applications for certificate of lawfulness was submitted in 2023 and 2024 seeking confirmation that the use of the building is dwelling house was lawful through the passage of time in both instances these were refused because the uses self-contained home has not been proven to have yet taken place for more than four years officers consider that the current unauthorized use is harmful because the unit results in significantly harmful living conditions for the current and future occupiers of the site its uses a two-bedroom property and the size of the building is inadequate it's 47.8 meters and should be 61 square meters and furthermore the bedroom on the north eastern part of the building is served only by high-level windows and doesn't benefit from acceptable outlook furthermore the office was considered that the harm use was harmful because of those impacts and furthermore the development offers no suitable mitigation for the in combination effect of the net increase of one dwelling on habitats and species you identified adverse impacts of granting planning permission for the development significantly demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development taking into consideration the presumption in favor of sustainable development for housing stemming from the needs of the city for homes in the circumstances of this case taking enforcement action action is justified and officers recommend that members authorize the service of an enforcement notice as described in section nine of the officers report and that is recommended with three months for compliance thank you thank you Charlotte any questions please no so we can go on to comments so we can move to the vote please - so the motion before you is to authorize enforcement action please can I show of hands all those in favor 13 chair any against thank you Tim so we on to item number 13 on the agenda and that's for Charlotte white to present please Oh sorry spear thank you through Jeff the officers both starts at page 375 of the main reports back the site as you can see on the plan display on the screen is on the western side of West Road within the primary shopping products area and contains terraced two-story building you can see some photographs here of how it used to be and how it looks like now the ground floor unit has been converted to a dwelling from a shop and this is a material change of use this sense of use has been facilitated by operational development namely the replacement of the typical storefront with domestic style door and window as you you could notice from the photographs on the screen officers consider that the identified risks of planning controller harmful because they significantly and emulsively harm the character function and thus the sustainability of the primary sort of shopping front ads in this local center the units on either side are subject to separate enforcement in subject to separate enforcement investigations furthermore it has not been demonstrated the unauthorized residential unit will not result in significantly harmful living conditions for current and future occupiers at the site finally the development offered no suitable mitigation for the in combination effects of the net increase of dwellings on habitats and species and that's the normally will be collected through Rams contribution the identified adverse impacts of granting permission for the development significantly and possibly outweigh the benefits of the development taking into consideration their presumption in favor of sustainable development for housing stemming from the need of of new homes in the city in the circumstance of this case taking enforcement action is justified and officers recommend that members authorize the service of the enforcement notice as described in section 9 Thank You chair thank you spirit any questions no any comments no so we can move to the Tim vote to please thank you through you the motion before you is to authorize enforcement action please can I show our hands all those in favor just check the time for a police there through you take three months as stated in section 9 of the report okay so all those in favor to the fourth rise 14 you know mr. thank you Tim and the last item on the agenda is item number 14 and that is for spirit thank you thank you through you Tim the officers report starts at base 387 the main reports but the site is on the western side of the of West Cliff Park Drive as you can see on the location plants played on the screen and contains an end of Terrace two-story building additional information is contained within the supplementary agenda and that's for members to to note the the ground the ground floor of the building has been converted to from a dwelling to a circumcision cleaning resulting in a material sense of use of the building to a mixed use including the dwelling in the cleaning element you can see some photographs displayed here you can see the sign on the door the logo of the company and a form to be completed by potential patients and the equipment for use for the clinic such a mixed use would not be would not be unacceptable where planning permission has been obtained and conditions have been imposed in the absence of conditions though officers consider that the development is unacceptable because there is no mechanism to secure that the property will not be used solely as a clinic and that's in light of the acute need for housing in the city's a significant negative of the development furthermore it has not the excuse me so furthermore officers consider that the nature of the use is such that it cannot be allowed to continue on a 24-hour basis without proper evidence and mitigation measures such operation does not harm the residential amenity of neighboring occupiers given the apparent relationship of the unauthorized use with a group of people with particular protected characteristics careful considerations be given to the quality and diversity issues as discussed in paragraphs 8.17 to 8.20 of the report also notice the information contained in the supplementary agenda that clarifies the target the target group of this operation in the second status of this state of this case taking enforcement action is justified an officer recommend the members authorize the service of an enforcement notice as described in section 9 of the report thank you sir thank you spur any questions Oh council Agustin this is an incredibly sensitive one so I've got to choose my words carefully but have the Environmental Health Department in the council been involved with this thank you through you chair as part of the initial allegations we received we have made contact with any third-party organization or any other theme in the council that we could think would be relevant including environmental health public health officers the NHS etc etc it's as far as we are aware the the all the other elements that licenses or permits and so on but are required for for this operation apparently are in place but obviously it will not be for us to to interfere with those different legislative regimes we are only concerned about planning and as you could read in the in the report there was an argument made to us that this this change of use does not require planning permission which clearly we think it's not the case and that's why we were putting the case forward for you to consider thank you chairman thank you for that I think if ever an enforcement action was required it's on this one would it be feasible for me to suggest two months on this one if members feel that this is the truth this is a suitable we're dealing with these types of matters so I'll perhaps just guide this to the fact that the time for compliance is more down to what's reasonable to achieve an undoing of the development it's not so much a question of the severity so if it members think there is a serious issue that might mean we should be serving our enforcement notice more quickly but it's not really necessarily reflected in the time period for compliance so you might jolly us along to serve the enforcer's notice promptly but the period for compliance is down to what is reasonable for someone to undo the development so I'm not suggesting we shouldn't be doing it at the two months in the way indicated but just to try and guide members a little bit there on their kind of decision-making and the basis for their decision-making that's the grounds on which we would be looking to set any period for compliance on this thank you we go I just finally could I thank Kevin very much for that I mean I'd like to stop it tomorrow frankly and I think members of the other side are agreeing with that but one's got it ought to be realistic but if two months would work on this I'd be you know I'd like to propose it okay so it need to be seconded okay seconded the recommendation is for two months already so that's that's the basis on which we have put this forward. I have you down councilor Moroney. Councilor Moroney, please. Yeah this is a change of use yes it can stop tomorrow with with I'd say that with a bit of facetiousness but it it does not need to be dragged on because if I'm if I'm right you serve your enforcement notice and if they appeal against it that suspends the notice anyway so it could continue for quite some time until the appeal is heard so the sooner the better as far as I support councilor Garston the sooner the better. So from a equality of diversity perspective thinking that people may have something booked in here so you're right it's not operational development that you've got to bring someone in to pull it down and you've got very different challenges to perhaps some of the other items we talked about here but there are other aspects of it that perhaps slightly different that I think have come into our thinking and we felt less than the usual three months but that two months was the appropriate position. Councillor Bury your comment please. In light of that discussion I agree it could happen tomorrow yeah as soon as possible and if we can say we'll cease within a week yes if we have to make it a month then make it a month but it needn't be longer than a month. Okay I have Councillor Collins first and then Councillor Holland. Thank you chair I just want to understand from the officers we're talking about a breach a change of use and therefore compliance therefore has occurred and non compliance has occurred therefore we're not talking about a building construction we're talking about a building use so therefore we're talking about stopping that building use until it is compliant with the laws and regulations that we understand it so I don't see why we can't impose that from the date the letter is served perhaps you could explain that to me. Through you chairman we definitely need a separate mics next time but so it's it's more a question I believe in this instance is not to do so there always needs to be a period of compliance is highly unusual for it to be less than three months I would say this instance two months I mean if they go to a payroll inspector would almost certainly extend it anyway so I think we are talking about something that may not be truly determinative in this instance in any event but what I would say about it is it goes back to that point of what's a reasonable period for achieving compliance we did believe that there may be people have things booked in there are various equality issues that potentially could come out of it but as I think you were highlighting it is very different for example to the dormer window that we were talking about before where you need to get someone in you need to get the materials so it's not that side of it that relates to the period for compliance it's very much about ceasing the use obviously we are asking them to also take out some of the stuff in there but I recognize that that's unlikely to take a significant period of time is that other aspects of it and looking to strike the balance here very carefully around the need for compliance with planning permission but making sure we're also addressing appropriately the equality of diversity aspects of this that led us to the two months thank you yeah cancel claims come back thank you and thank you for that I feel that this is something that's going to be quite important and I don't think two months is appropriate I think we should be saying one month from that research now if it is stopped and they say we want to appeal okay fine that's their right and they're they can do that but I'd rather that clock was ticking much shorter so I propose if there's a seconder for one month from the date that letter is served please thank you counselor O'Reilly jump in the Q but I'm sorry but I was just get well it follows on from what Paul's kept just said surely we can have a split appeal decision appeal notice that says one month for cessation and two months for getting rid of whatever is in there okay so you need to be seconded to counselor okay counselor Harlan and that brings me for your comment cancel on thank you thank you and through you chair I just feel that we're talking about enforcement and and I agree with Councillor Collins one month I mean we're talking about two tables and a laminated sign to be fair I mean it's not really going to take them long to dismantle that because I you know I know that there's a diversity issue and people might be booked in and that's absolutely right but I think we have a duty of care landed on our doorstep I think generally the members feel quite strongly that this should be sooner rather than later Councillor Bury your comment please not my comment it's Google's quick search and regard the points made about people have an appointment most most practice circumstance on day two of life most circumstances are performed during the first week of life so nobody can make an appointment until the child is born so we're looking very short term appointments here people aren't going to be booked up for months ahead thank you for that information council there Casa thank you very much yeah I can understand the strength of feeling by other counselors in terms of their comment but also we need to think about what the office is saying and I think this is a business we might not like it we might not support they're doing that and therefore I think giving them two months it's not unreasonable it is quite possible they might actually be able to leave the premises and fucking friends maybe before the two months but I think personally or well from my own thinking and listening to the strength of feeling around the table I think suggestion of two months by the other side is not always legal that we might propose it thank you counselor counselor Garson feel next well thank you mr. chairman I did propose two months I withdraw it okay I'll support the one month okay when you're looking at these things I always think how would I like to live next door to it how would I like to live next door to something like this which is so sensitive but it's a business within a residential area apart from anything else and without any consent whatsoever and it's wrong I mean obviously it's a business that is there any people are living it must be a demand for it but it's got to be at the right place with the right permissions and it isn't the right place it isn't the right permission so I support our endeavors around this table to get rid of it as soon as we can thank you cancel no no okay any other comments notes we can move to the vote please Tim thank you Jay sir the motion before you now is to authorize enforcement action subject to the time for compliance being reduced to one month please can I have a show of hands in favor 13 any against you no that's carried that brings us the end of our meeting and thank you for everybody and we can cease the webcast please