Transcript

All right, sorry about the delay. I'll just start at the first item in part one, which is declarations of interest. All members present are required to declare at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter one any disposable pecuniary interests and/or two any other interests rising under the code of conduct in respect of any item of business being considered at this meeting. I don't see any declarations of interest, so have a nil return on that. Item two is the minutes of the meeting held last meeting held on 30th of January 2024. These minutes have been published online and circulated in the relevant planning committee agenda, are we happy for me to sign those off in due course? Yeah, okay fine, as I agreed then. Item three is the item relating to the tree preservation order. I understand from our officers that's where the interest in the items are this evening from the public? So Jenny, do you want to start? Thank you Chairman. Tree Preservation Order EL 2402 relates to land at 35 and 37 Oatlands Drive and Waybridge. Tree Preservation Order was made on the 29th of January 2024 at the land just mentioned. The order was made in response to threats the tree would be severely pruned and upon completion of the Council's evaluation process. The Council's evaluation process takes several factors into consideration including public visibility, tree condition, estimated useful life expectancy, local significance, other qualities such as rarity, ancient or veteran status, screening, cohesiveness and ecological value. Also, whether removal would have an impact on the local and wide landscape and character of the area. And finally, expediency. The outcome of the evaluation is the tree is suitable for inclusion under a new preservation order. A copy of the completed evaluation can be viewed in the officer report. The Council received a letter of objection to the serving of the new order. A copy of the letter and the officer's responses are available in the published report for members to truly consider. After reviewing the objections received, the officer's recommendation is to confirm the TPO without modifications. Right. Thank you, Russell. Let's say a short comprehensive review of the situation. I think I'm the only Councillor on the North Area Planning Committee who represents sports and central, where this tree is to be found. Obviously there is an objection. I have to say that my reaction, or my views on this, is that Oakland Strive, where the property is situated, which is overlooked effectively by the tree, is a very busy road, lots of traffic going down there. And I think most people would want to see as much environmental improvement as possible. So I think looking at it from that perspective, I would certainly support the officer's recommendation . Are there any other comments from members of the subcommittee? Steve. Thank you, Chairman. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to go on the site visit for this, so perhaps I missed some of the key information, but I know that often when we put a TPO in place, it's because there's a conservation area there, and I wasn't aware that this was one. So I can tell from the photograph that the tree is set back by a distance. I think in my mind, I was just not that sure why we were taking the action we were taking and whether this is really just a matter for the householders. But as we have put a TPO in place, I just wonder what the long-term solution, if you like, is for this, and we're going to need to keep renewing the TPO, or is there a better solution that can be reached? I'd be interested in your thoughts and that of Russell as well, please. Can I ask Russell to respond? Yes, thank you very much. The site is not within a conservation area, so unlike where we do have trees in a conservation area and we receive works, applications for works for those trees, the only way we can prevent those works is by serving the TPO. This tree preservation order was made because the Council were made aware that some significant pruning of all the branches and growth overhanging half of the property would potentially be removed. Because the tree actually straddles the boundary of two properties, so it's a joint ownership. With regards to the renewing of a tree preservation order, at the moment, the tree preservation order is only temporary. So once the Council has initially served the order, it will last for six months. And then it will either lapse, so in this instance, because it's come to committee, it will either be approved or revoked. So if it's revoked, it will go, it will no longer exist. If it's approved, it will be permanent unless the Council would like to review it at a future date or the tree is approved for removal. But so I think that sort of takes me back to my second point, really, is what is the long-term solution here? Is it for us as a Council to make some sort of suggestion of a way forward or is it really just a kind of civil matter, if you like, between the two neighbours? I'd be more comfortable in voting for something to be permanent if I thought that there was a good reason for it or otherwise, you know, it might be that the temporary is better if we continue to temporary order so that some arrangement can be reached. To try and help explain, the tree preservation order, if it was made permanent, is not there to prevent reasonable works. So if the order is confirmed and is made permanent, the Council would consider tree work applications for works to the tree. And these may include works to prune it away from existing buildings, so works that would we do conceive reasonables to prevent the trees from causing actual damage. So if branches are touching the buildings, or if in future there is evidence presented to say that the tree is causing damage to uncidery buildings or potentially, you know, through damage to foundations, then we would take that into consideration. But at the moment, because no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that there is any damage, the public immunity value of the tree is considered quite high and worthy of protection. Okay, I think it's unfortunate that you weren't at the actual site visit, it's quite a special little island, you know, it's my opinion anyway. I appreciate it's not been formally designated as a conservation area, but it is, you know, if like gladdens the heart when you go up there, right? Okay, any other comments or questions to our tree officer? All right, oh, Councillor HUINS. Thank you, Chair. I was lucky enough to go on the site visit, and it really is quite an impressive tree, and I think we need to retain as many of these trees in our borough as possible. It's probably several hundred years old, if I'm not much mistaken, Russell. And yeah, we just need to ensure that biodiversity is protected and I would be keen to see it approved. All right, okay, right, so I think there is, you know, at least some support for confirmation. I think probably best if we simply go to a vote now, so those in favour of confirming the tree preservation order as set out in your agenda items on the page three options, please show your hands. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eight, five, six, seven, eight, eight, eight, five, six, seven, eight, eight, eight, five, six, seven, eight, eight, five, six, seven, eight. Right, so that recommendation is approved, and we can go ahead and put, you know, put it in place, the TPO EL24 oblique O2, thank you, right, move on to the next item, right. So the next item is consideration of planning application 2024 oblique 0139. This is, the proposal is for a variation of conditions two, the approved plans, and condition five, which is the additional windows of planning permission 2020 oblique 0749. Do you want to introduce this? Oh, grab it. Right. Thank you. Great. Over to you. Thank you Chairman. Just before presenting this item, there is one update members should be aware of. Within the officer report, sentence, the sentence in paragraph 24, paragraph 24 should include the word not, and so should read. There are dormer windows and roof lights found at neighbouring properties, so the proposed development would not conflict with the character of the development in the area. This application has come before subcommittee due to receiving over 15 objections from neighbours. This is a section 73 application which seeks the variation of planning permission 2020 0749, which gave permission for a pair of semi-detached houses at the site. The proposal under consideration here seeks to add rear dormer windows and front roof lights to both houses to create rooms in the roof space, as well as lowering of the ground level and alterations to fenestration. The application site contains a single story bungalow present located on the northeast side of Hurstfield Road. Planning permission was granted on the original location for a pair of two-story semi-detached houses following demolition of this bungalow. This site shows the site plan showing the layout and of the approved semi-detached houses, as well as the location of the proposed roof lights and rear dormers. This slide shows the proposed elevations of the houses, as well as floor plans for the house one, and this slide shows the floor plans for the proposed house number two, and the elevations again. The proposed dormers and roof lights can be seen in the roofs of each house, the first floor side window in each flank is also proposed. As well as this, the proposal seeks to lower the ground level by approximately 40 centimetres so that the finished floor level of the houses is at ground level. Here we have some photos of the site. Top left shows the front of the existing bungalow, top right is the existing bungalow, top right is the view along the street towards the site, and at the bottom is the view across the rear of the house. There have been 16 letters of objection received from 15 addresses. These are summarised in full within the officer report, however in short, objections are concerned with the design of the development, its impact on the area and overlooking. With regard to design and its impact on the character and appearance of the area, the proposed dormer windows would not be readily visible from the street and are set appropriately within the main roof. There are other similar dormers found at neighbouring properties, as such they are considered to be acceptable. The proposed roof lights, alterations to fenestration, lowering of the ground level of relatively minor in scale and would not result in harm. Regarding the impact on neighbouring amineity, given the scale and location of the works, it is not considered to cause a loss of light to appear overbearing. The dormer windows and first floor floor flank windows serve non habitable rooms and would be obscurely glazed by condition. The front roof lights would offer similar views as the first floor front windows, as such no loss of privacy is expected. The proposal would not make any changes to the approved access and parking provisions at the site and the amendments are not considered to impact parking in the area. The officer report is given consideration to all the other relevant planning matters and officers have found the proposal to be acceptable in all other respects. Therefore, the recommendation is to permit this application for the reasons set out in the officer report. Thank you. Thank you, Graham. So this is a West Mulsey planning application. I don't think we have our West Mulsey Councils with us yet. So we do have two members from Mulsey. One of those wants to start. Yes, Steve. Chairman, I think what I'm not entirely sure about with this application is it's very being conditioned rather than this being a fresh planning permission, isn't it? That says to me that we've obviously approved something very like this before or it's been done under delegated powers. Therefore, I'm wondering whether we're on very solid ground if we were to refuse this if something similar has already been given permission. But I did notice in the objection that residents were drawing attention to the fact that the houses were going to be higher than existing properties, and I wondered if officers might be able to comment on that and whether that is acceptable or not. Because I know when I had my own loft done, we had to keep the height of the property consistent with neighbours. Yeah, so the height of the building would remain the same as approved. They're lowering the ground level, so the elevations would get taller, but the actual ridge height of the building would remain the same. It's just the ground level is reducing by approximately 40 centimetres. Okay, any additional comments? I found this is quite an interesting application. Hirstville Road, which I've not really been aware of before, is relatively short road, and it's quite varied, so you've got 17 attached terraced houses, two storeys, fairly standard. You've got bungalows like this one, and you have a number of the houses there, which have been extended with roof dormers at the back, especially at the hearth road end of it. And indeed, at number 18, directly opposite, there is a dormer, a front dormer, quite visible and in your face. So I think it's something we would have quite a lot of difficulty in trying to justify on the grounds that it would spoil the character because it's not such a universal theme driving through it all the way through. So I think those were my observations. There were also a couple of dormers, rear dormers on the other side of the road, so again that tends to support that this would not be seen as out of character to the area. Any other comments from people that are poor? Yeah, thank you, Chair. I tend to agree on that. I think the main change really is to add the dormers. There's a very little overlook, there's a large distance between the rear of the house and the houses behind it, they're going to be opaque anyway. The roof lights will be looking that way, they won't be overlooking. And I think that site is getting so run down and so overgrown, I think it needs, you know, it can only be an improvement. And as far as the mixture of houses there, I mean the riverside houses, which are just next door to it, are significantly larger. They're very large houses, so it's not that, it's a road of tiny bungalows, it's very mixed with some very big houses, very close by, so it's an observation. Yeah, okay, thank you, Chair. Yes, I tend to agree, I mean the houses across the road from this proposed development are quite a similar in character in a way. And the fact that they're wanting to add some additional room in the roof space, I think, you know, matches with people's working lifestyles at the moment, you know, people are working from home, they need that extra study space outside of bedrooms and living areas where they can have a bit of privacy for teams and Zoom meetings, so it seems to make sense to me. Okay. Right. Okay, any other comments? I seem to get the sense that we are supportive of the officer's recommendation to grant permission or grant approval for the amended conditions. So perhaps if we move to a vote on that, as well. So those in favour of the proposed variation of conditions, numbers two, approved plans and five, the additional windows, that should be approved. Please show. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, votes, Chairman. That case, application 2, 4, 0, 1, 3, 9 is approved. Thank you very much. That ends the meeting for this evening.