Venue: Hybrid Meeting - Castle. View directions
Contact: Geoff Durham 742222 01782 742222
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES Minutes: There were no apologies. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive Declarations of Interest from Members on items included on the agenda. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest stated. |
|
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 247 KB To consider the minutes of the previous meeting(s). Minutes: Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 March, 2021 be agreed as a correct record. |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved: That theremoval of Conditions 7 & 8 of 17/00722/FUL permitted but the following conditions are now necessary to reflect the information submitted:
(i) Tree Protection Measures fully implemented and maintained; (ii) The recommendations of the Arboricultural Method Statement fully implemented and maintained; (iii) Soft and hard landscaping to be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the development; (iv) Suitable replacement tree planting if the Lime tree dies within 5 years.
and subject to the imposition of all other conditions attached to planning permission 17/00722/FUL that remain relevant at this time. |
|
This item includes a supplementary report. Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved: That the variation of Condition 2 of 17/00834/FUL be permitted, subject to the imposition of all other conditions attached to planning permission 17/00834/FUL that remain relevant at this time, amended as necessary. |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved: That the application be permitted, subject to the undermentioned conditions:
(i) Time limit condition (ii) Approved plans (iii) No commercial use (iv) Submission of Construction Management Plan (v) Restriction on external lighting (vi) Adequate control of animal waste |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved: That the removal of Conditions 9 & 10 of 20/00354/FUL be permitted but the following condition to be included
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and implemented in strict accordance with the mitigatory measures set out in the ‘Report on the Assessment of Coal Mining Legacy and Risk to Surface Stability’ (January 2021) by D J Erskine.
and subject to the imposition of all other conditions attached to planning permission 20/00354/FUL that remain relevant at this time. |
|
This item includes a supplementary report Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Gary White spoke on this application.
Amended condition (v) proposed by Councillor Reddish and seconded by Councillor Burgess.
Resolved: That the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned conditions:
(i) Time limits (ii) Approved plans (iii) Facing materials (iv) Provision of access, parking and turning prior to occupation. (v) Access shall be a maximum of 3m wide and surfaced in a bound material for a minimum of 5m from the site boundary in accordance with details that shall have been approved by the LPA beforehand. (vi) Garages to be retained for parking and cycles (vii) Gates to open away from the highway (viii) Construction hours (ix) Noise levels (x) Electric vehicle charging. |
|
This item includes a supplementary report. Additional documents:
Minutes: Resolved: That a decision on the application be deferred until the 27th April meeting, to allow time for the comments of the Highways Authority to be received and such views to be taken into consideration by the Planning Committee in its decision.
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved: That the application be permitted, subject to the undermentioned conditions:
(i) Time limit condition (ii) Approved Plans (iii) Materials |
|
This item includes two supplementary reports Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Simon Tagg spoke on this application.
Amended recommendation proposed by Councillor Holland and seconded by Councillor Northcott.
Councillor Simon Tagg, speaking on behalf of residents stated that there were four areas of objection to this application: the design and scale of the proposed extension; highways and parking concerns; impact on trees and the extent to which the property was to be used as a House in Multiple Occupation. The extension detracted materially from the character of the original dwelling and the design of a group of dwellings forming the street scene which went against Policy H18 (design for residential extensions). The Highways Authority had objected to the parking provision as there was only space provided for two vehicles.
Plans and photographs were shown to Members.
Councillor Holland supported the objections raised by Councillor Tagg. The extension did not sit behind the development line of Beresford Crescent. Reference was made to the Landscape Development Section’s comments regarding the tree root protection areas being unaffected if only two parking spaces were provided. The Highways Authority stated that a development of that size required off-street parking for three vehicles. The existing garage could not count as a parking space as it was not 3m by 6m internally and the applicant had already stated that the garage space would be used for cycle storage.
The property in the past had been used as a HMO and there were concerns that the extension, including the additional bedroom space would again be used for that purpose. Larger HMO’s came under a different use class. If this was to be used as a family home, Councillor Holland stated that he would like to see three parking spaces within the curtilage and, if it were to be used as a HMO he would expect to see three spaces minimum. Finally, with regard to the impact on the root protection area, the applicant had indicated that the roots from a mature highways tree intruded very slightly on the proposed development. Councillor Holland stated that the tree was already there and the proposed development would infringe on the root protection area by 1.7m.
Councillor Moffat had concerns as to the size of the proposed extension and close proximity to the pavement and agreed with previous comments of Members.
Councillor Northcott was concerned about it becoming a HMO which would be wrong in this area. He would second the proposal to refuse on the grounds that it was far too big and for the objections received from County Highways.
Councillor Reddish also shared concerns about the size and the massing and, should it become a HMO, huge concerns regarding parking. A possibility could be another application with the extension set back by as much as a metre.
Councillor John Williams stated that this had been a Bourneville Development and a garden village. The extension was too large for a family home and suspected that it would become a HMO.
Councillor Jones had concerns about the massing of the proposal and ... view the full minutes text for item 11. |
|
This item includes a supplementary report. Additional documents:
Minutes: Resolved: That the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned conditions:
(i) Time limit. (ii) Approved plans. (iii) Prior approval of the bricks, including the provision of samples, to be used in this repair and reinstatement of the rear elevation including method statement for structural repair of the rear gable. (iv) Prior approval of full details for the proposed window and door (v) In all other respects the permitted repairs and alterations shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted details. |
|
This item includes a supplementary report Additional documents:
Minutes: Resolved: That the application be permitted subject to the undermentioned conditions:
(i) Time limit. (ii) Works to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and details set out in the supporting documents. |
|
COMMITTEE SITE VISIT DATES 2021-2022 PDF 13 KB Minutes: Resolved: That the site visit dates, as set out in the agenda report, be agreed. |
|
URGENT BUSINESS To consider any business which is urgent within the meaning of Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972 Minutes: There was no Urgent Business. |