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 Winslade and Councillor Thacker.

09/01038/FUL Councillor Todd declared that she knew the registered speaker, Mr Branston, but this would in no way affect her decision.

Councillor Todd declared that she would be making representation as a Ward Councillor for agenda item 5.1, 37 Glenton Street

            The minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2009 were approved as a true and accurate record.

Councillor Todd left the meeting for the following item.

Permission was sought for the erection of a detached two-storey, three-bedroom property in a traditional Victorian style on land at number 37 Glenton Street.  The proposal would remove a large single storey office unit on the site.  It was noted that planning application reference 09/00470/FUL, for the erection of a three-bed dwelling, was refused for the reasons detailed within the committee report.

Following negotiation, the applicant had redesigned the scheme to provide a one metre wide access to the rear garden which would separate the proposal from number 35 Glenton Street.  The scheme proposed a dwelling house with a footprint of approximately 45sqm.  No in-curtilage car parking was proposed.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. A further consultation response from the Environmental Protection Officer had been received and two additional conditions had been proposed.

Councillor Todd, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Clarification was sought by Councillor Todd from the Planning Officer on whether the application had been presented to the Committee on a previous occasion. The Planning Officer clarified that this was the first time the application had been presented to the Committee. The application had previously been refused at officer level.

Councillor Todd responded to questions from Members and in summary, the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        The distress of the local people, the problems they faced with regards to off road parking and the overall increase in pressure this development would pose

·        The new development would be no more in keeping with the local surroundings than the original proposal was?

·        The problems faced by vehicles manoeuvring in and out of the street, namely dustcarts and emergency service vehicles

·        Dustcarts had, in the past, not been able to access the street at all because of the parking problems

·        People who worked in the city centre were parking down the street, this made the parking situation worse

·        Councillor Todd had requested a single yellow line to be put on the south side of the street, as the houses on that side all had off road parking. However, a response had been received stating that a single yellow line could be put on the north side of the road restricting the hours of parking from between 8.00am until 6.00pm. This would have a terrible effect on all of the terraced houses on that side of the road and would in no way appease the parking problem in the area

·        If the development was set back slightly it would help with the parking situation. This had originally been proposed by the applicant but had been refused at officer level

·        The application was contrary to DA1 and DA2

Mr Pooley, an objector and local resident, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the concerns highlighted to the Committee included:

·        The problems with traffic

·        The problems faced by emergency services vehicles. On occasions the parking had been so bad that residents had been woken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

The application sought planning permission for the construction of a total of 64 extra care and close care units for the elderly / infirm. The proposal consisted of the following:

·     52 socially rented extra care units with communal gardens

·     6 shared ownership affordable close care bungalows

·     6 market sale close care bungalows

         The 52 extra care units would be located in a large block situated on the front part of the site, facing Thorney Road and opposite Fountains Place and would be mostly 3 storey in height with the ‘end wings’ on either side of the building being 2 storey. This would gave the effect of the building rising from a height that was actually lower than the two storey dwellings which had been granted planning permission either side of the proposed development, to 3 storey.

Access to the proposed development would be via the two accesses that already had the benefit of planning permission.

21 car parking spaces (of which 3 were of disabled standard) were proposed to serve the 52 extra care units and 5 of the proposed bungalows. The remaining 7 bungalows were to be served by 14 parking spaces.  

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and gave an overview of the main issues surrounding the proposal, namely the appearance of the streetscene, the increase in traffic and the impact of the likelihood of discovering reptiles within the site.

Members were informed that part of a hedgerow was due to be removed as the first ten metres of it affected the proposal. It was highlighted that the hedgerow could contain hibernating common lizards therefore a fingertip search of the first ten metres had been proposed. If any lizards were found then works would have to be halted until spring. Members were further advised that if permission was granted to the Head of Planning Services to grant planning consent, a revised lizard mitigation condition would be agreed with the applicants and if that was not possible, the application would be brought back to the Committee.

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report The Committee was advised that there had been a subsequent response received from neighbours on 21 October consisting of a letter and a 34 name petition. Numerous objections and issues had been raised and were highlighted.

The Committee was further advised of several conditions which had been altered and these revised conditions were detailed within the update report.

Mr Goodsell, an objector and member of Eye Parish Council, but speaking as a resident and on behalf of the local objectors, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. He wished it to be noted that although he did not object to the application in principle, there were numerous issues that he wished to highlight. In summary, these issues included:

·        There were no other three storey buildings in Eye. This would be a three storey building in a hole

·        The building would be considerably higher than surrounding properties

·        There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Planning permission was sought for the conversion of an existing house in multiple occupation (HMO) to three separate flats (1 x 1 bedroom and 2 x 2 bedroom).  The application scheme also proposed cycle storage, bin storage and a private amenity area.  The application was part-retrospective, and had been amended from a previously refused scheme under application reference 09/00777/FUL.  Members were advised that the scheme had been refused due to the reason detailed within the committee report.

Following negotiation, the applicant had amended the scheme to provide private rear amenity space for each separate flat and had relocated the bin store for the existing retail units to prevent noise disturbance to occupants of the ground floor unit. 

The Planning Officer addressed the Committee and stated that revised plans had been submitted following discussion with the applicant. The revisions related to an amendment in the red line site area which was now in line with those parts of the site in the ownership of the applicant. This revision had removed the three car parking spaces from the scheme. Members were advised that the committee report had been finalised after receipt of the revised plans and was therefore based on them and not on the initial submission

Members’ attention was drawn to additional information contained within the update report. A further consultation response had been received from the Head of Transport and Engineering which raised no concerns to the application, an email from Councillor Swift had also been received in objection to the application and an alteration to condition C3 was highlighted. 

Mr Branston, the agent, responded to questions from Members. He had registered his interest to speak at the meeting, however as there were no objectors present he did not feel it necessary to address the Committee further regarding the application.

The Highways Officer addressed the Committee and stated that whilst it was not ideal to approve a flat/dwelling without off road parking, the proposed use of the property for three flats would not place a greater burden on the highway network or residents parking bays than the use of the property as a house in multiple occupation.

After brief debate, a motion was put forward and seconded to approve the application. The motion was carried by 7 votes with 1 not voting.

RESOLVED: (7 for, 1 not voting) that the Head of Planning Services be authorised to approve the application subject to:

1.      the conditions numbered C1 to C3 as detailed in the committee report

2.      the alteration to condition C3 as detailed in the update report

Reasons for the decision:

Subject to the imposition of the conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighting against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

-    The principle multiple occupancy of this former residential dwelling had already been established.  

-    There would be no detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential or retail properties.

-    There would be no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The Planning Officer presented a report to the Committee which outlined the appeals performance from January 1 2009 to September 30 2009 and provided an overview to the quality control in respect of appeals and decisions.

Members were advised that going forward, details of appeals performance would be presented to the Committee on a regular basis.