Agenda and minutes

Any information received after the agenda has been published, relevant to the applications on the agenda to be considered by the Committee will be published here.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor C Burton.

Councillor C Day attended as substitute.

There were no declarations from Members of the Committee to make representation as Ward Councillor on any item within the agenda.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2010 were approved as a true and accurate record.

Councillor Benton was in attendance at the meeting and wished to speak against item 5.2. The Committee unanimously agreed to allow Councillor Benton to speak. 

The application site was formerly a part of the rear garden of 105 Oxney Road which was comprised of a chalet style bungalow located close to the front of the property with garden area and a small woodland area to the rear.

The application site had an area of 0.25ha, although 0.08ha comprised the woodland area that was the subject of a tree preservation order. The application site had been overgrown for some years.

Immediately to the west of the proposed siting of the two flat blocks was an area of open space which was predominantly grass with mature trees. Detached dwellings within Lyvelly Gardens and those that fronted towards Oxney Road formed a horseshoe layout around the open space area. A narrow tree belt ran in a north to south alignment alongside the eastern flank boundary of the site with a footpath/cycleway to the east of the tree belt that connected Oxney Road and the dwellings further to the east and north i.e. Parnwell.

Along the frontage of 105 Oxney Road lay a row of leylandii. The driveway serving 105 Oxney Road lay beyond these trees. To the east of the access was the entrance to the aforementioned footpath/cycleway and beyond was an area of landscaping fronting Oxney Road. Approximately 42m to the west of the proposed vehicular access to the site was a signal controlled pedestrian crossing. The junction of Newark Road and Oxney Road lay approximately 25m to the west and to the south east of the access was an entrance to established offices.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and stated that a previous similar scheme had been approved on the site, however planning consent had now lapsed and therefore a new planning application had been made. The new application represented an improvement on the previous scheme in a number of ways. These included the design and appearance of the scheme, the relative proportions of the development, in particular the scale of the roof and also some alterations to the window openings on first floor level which reduced the potential of overlooking on the adjacent properties.

Key areas of concern which had been highlighted in the representations received against the application were the visibility splay and the accident record in the local area. The Planning Officer advised Members that the proposed visibility splay complied with the recommendations of the Highways Officers and in terms of the accident record, since 2004 there had been 17 accidents in and around the junction between Newark Road and Oxney Road. Approximately 7 of these accidents could be described as rear end shunts and 5 of the accidents could not be accounted for in terms of Highways safety, for example if a dog ran out into the road. Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report where a further breakdown of all the accidents which had occurred between April 2004 and September 2008, had been provided.

Members were further advised that comments had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

It was proposed to construct a single block containing ten flats over three floors.  The block, although on the site of 38 Elm Street (now demolished), would face onto and read as part of Silver Street.  The block was designed to pick up on some of the features of neighbouring buildings, and followed the existing building line along Silver Street.

The block would have a ground floor elevation incorporating some bay windows, a plain first floor with windows and the second floor would be mostly within the roof space, lit by dormer windows.

The vehicular and personal access would be from Elm Street.  This would be functionally the “front” of the building, although the more detailed elevation would be on the Silver Street side, where there would be a row of small private gardens, the same depth as neighbouring front gardens, separating the building from the street.  The car parking area would be on Elm Street, and the amenity space directly behind (or in front of) the block.

This area was characterised on the Silver Street side by Victorian terraced housing with a strong, regular 2-storey ridgeline.  On Elm Street there was some terraced housing, leading to later semi-detached housing.  There were larger houses facing onto London Road to the east of the site.

There was notable on-street congestion, as few of the dwellings on Silver Street had off-street parking, but those immediately adjacent to the application site had access to parking at the ends of their gardens, accessed from Elm Street.

On Elm Street and the adjacent residential streets there was more available off street parking, but not every house was so provided for.

There was also a large tree adjacent to the south east corner of the site, the crown of which overhung the site.

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the proposal and highlighted the main issues. Members were advised that there was a proposed bin storage area and authority was sought to approve the application subject to the bin store being moved slightly so that the adjacent cycle parking spaces could be accessed correctly. Members were further advised that there were two windows that served a lounge, these windows were to be conditioned with frosted glass and this would protect the privacy of adjoining residents. There were also lower level windows serving a galley style kitchen and a study room. These were also to be frosted glass to protect the privacy of adjoining residents.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. There had been a revised plan received on which the main Committee report was based, and consultation responses had been received in relation to the revised plan from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and the Head of Transport and Engineering who had recommended a number of additional conditions in relation to the cycle parking, the car parking, the access and visibility splays. A number of additional comments had been received  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

A report was presented to the Committee which provided an overview of the revisions to the pre-application advice fees.

The Planning Committee had previously been consulted on the principle and scale of pre-application charges and a report had been presented to Committee on 14 April 2009.  This report set out the background to making such charges.  The Local Planning Authority was entitled to charge for the service under Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2003.  The Service commenced charging in line with the recommendations set out in this previous report in January 2010.

Since the pre-application scheme had been in operation, it had become apparent that:

·        A nominal charge should be made for all small scale pre-application advice including from householders and small businesses; and

·        The fees set for changes of use were excessive and exceeded the planning application fee e.g. for telecoms, advert and smaller commercial proposals 

The need to introduce a nominal charge in respect of small scale pre-application advice above had arisen from the fact that:

·        These applications accounted for a significant proportion of pre-application advice requests and therefore there was the need for some of the costs incurred by the Council to be met by the applicants 

·        New permitted development rules had been introduced that meant more time had to be spent on handling pre-application enquiries from shops and businesses etc. 

·        The Planning Service, like many other areas of the Council, was having to make significant financial savings for the 2010/11 financial year and the alternative would be to reduce the scope of the pre-application service 

The proposed revised fees were outlined to the Committee and an overview of how the fees had been calculated was given. Members were advised that one of the significant changes was that going forward, where schemes raised issues of the principle of development, a fee free half an hour meeting with an officer to address the “in principle” issue prior to the applicant going through the formal application process, would be provided. 

Members were invited to comment on the revised fees and it was noted that the fees had been very well thought out and appeared to be very fair.

RESOLVED: that the Committee was consulted on the revisions to the pre-application advice fees before they were formally implemented from 18 May 2010 and that the Committee endorsed the principle of giving up to 30 minutes of free face to face advice in respect of the principle of development proposals.