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 Todd. 

At this point Members must declare whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest, or other interest, in any of the items on the agenda, unless it is already entered in the register of members’ interests or is a “pending notification “ that has been disclosed to the Solicitor to the Council.

Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

There were no declarations of interest.

The courts were situated within the Longthorpe Memorial Hall grounds which comprised a community centre, car park, four no. tennis courts, a bowls green, play area and playing fields.  This complex was situated at the heart of the urban village of Longthorpe, a predominantly residential area of varied character and form.  The properties surrounding the site were predominantly large detached two storey dwellings with rear gardens facing on to the site, albeit there were terraced properties facing on to Thorpe Road.  The site was located within the identified Longthorpe Conservation Area. 

Parking was provided to the front of the site in an area of car park accessed from Thorpe Road adjacent to the Post Office.  This was a shared facility between the Tennis Club, Memorial Hall and bowls green.  A public footpath ran to the south of the site. 

Planning permission was granted for the installation of all weather surfacing on Courts 1 and 2 (retrospectively) and Courts 3 and 4 to allow usage of the courts throughout the year under application reference 09/01435/FUL. 

The application sought planning permission to vary Condition C2 of planning permission reference 01/01598/FUL which granted permission for the installation of external downlights to tennis courts 3 and 4. 

To date, the floodlights in operation at the site had strictly adhered to the following hours: not before 09.00am and after 20.30pm on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays; not before 09.00am and after 21.30pm on Wednesdays; and not before 09.00am and after 18.00pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays. 

The proposed variation sought to increase the hours of use of the floodlights by re-wording condition C2 as follows:

The floodlights hereby approved shall not be illuminated before 09.00am and after 20.30pm on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays; before 09.00am and after 21.30pm on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; and not before 09.00am and after 18.00pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

The Group Manager Development Management provided an overview of the application and the main issues for consideration. It was advised that there had been a number of further letters of objection received following the publication of the committee report along with a petition from local residents; these were outlined within the update report. A submission had also been received from Councillor Matthew Dalton, Ward Councillor. The Officer’s recommendation was one of approval.

Ward Councillor Nick Arculus addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members.  In summary, key points highlighted included:

·         Councillor Arculus wished to echo the comments made by Councillor Dalton;

·         If the Committee was minded to grant the application, a set of conditions should be attached in order to balance the situation for both the tennis courts and residents;

·         The application was located within a Conservation Area;

·         Longthorpe Tennis Club was not the only tennis facility available within West Ward;

·         In increasing the hours to 21.30pm, three days per week, this would mean an overall increase of 100 hours over the year. This was unreasonable for the adjoining neighbours;

·         A discussion should be held between  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The application site comprised a two storey end-terrace residential property located at the junction of Cromwell Road and Taverners Road.  The property occupied a prominent position within the streetscene, with both the front, side and rear elevations clearly visible from the public realm.  The property was of traditional Victorian design, with an existing two storey rear projecting 'wing' with a mono-pitched roof.  The dwelling had previously been extended to the rear at single storey beyond the rear wing and to the side, running adjacent to the shared boundary with No. 292 Cromwell Road. 

Parking was provided to the rear of the dwelling, within a paved parking area/amenity space.  This area was enclosed by 1.8 metre high close boarded fencing and vehicular access is granted via a gated entrance and dropped kerb crossing from Taverners Road.  Adjacent to this access sat an existing single storey outbuilding of lean-to construction with poly carbonate roofing. 

The application sought planning permission for the construction of a first floor rear extension and reconfiguration of the existing two storey 'wing' to form a single dual-pitched roof along the entire projection. 

The proposal as it stood had been revised following refusal of planning application reference 12/01547/FUL which sought planning permission for the construction of a first floor rear extension, including alterations to the existing two storey 'wing' to form a single mono-pitched roofline with raised eaves height. 

The Group Manager Development Management provided an overview of the proposal and advised that a letter of objection had been received from the immediately adjoining neighbour; the points raised being summarised within the update report. A further exempt letter had been received from the Applicant and circulated to the Committee Members for consideration. The recommendation was one of refusal.

Ward Councillor Nazim Khan addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·      The proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the neighbouring property;

·      The proposal would have an impact on Taveners Road, with a big blank wall facing the residents;

·      It was understood that the Applicant did not live at the property, why was an extension required?

·      Councillor Khan supported the officer recommendation.

Mrs Zahida Azam, the neighbour and objector, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary key points highlighted included:

·      Mrs Azam and her sister had owned the neighbouring property for the last 18 to 20 years, so she was fully aware of the improvements made to the property over the years;

·      The dining room on the side of the property, which had been there for many years, was already detrimental to Mrs Azam’s courtyard and obscured light into her lounge. The height of the wall had also been increased a number of times;

·      The proposal would also obscure light into the bathroom and the kitchen;

·      No complaints had been made by Mrs Azam about the increase in size to the wall and Mrs Azam had been accommodating in the past by removing trees  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The application site comprised a two storey semi detached dwelling of brick and tile construction.  A low rise brick wall flanked the blocked paved front garden. This area provided off road parking for 2 vehicles. The rear garden was fully enclosed by close boarded timber fencing. The surrounding character was residential in nature comprising a mixture of two storey semi detached and detached dwellings. It was noted that a number of the nearby properties had two storey side extensions.

Planning permission for a two storey side, two storey rear and single storey rear extension was granted under application number 12/00383/HHFUL. The development had been built out on site. However, the development had not been constructed in accordance with the approved permission and a subsequent application reference 13/00240/HHFUL was submitted in an attempt to regularise the development as built. This application was refused under delegated authority for two reasons;

·      The negative impact of the development on the character of the area; and

·      The adverse impact of the development on neighbour amenity.

The Applicant had submitted an appeal against the refusal of 13/00240/HHFUL on 20 June 2013. The outcome of which was awaited at that time.

The retrospective application presented before the Committee remained exactly the same as the earlier refused application reference 13/00240/HHFUL.

Retrospective permission was sought for the erection of a two storey and single storey rear extension. The two storey rear extension projected 4.7 metres from the rear of the dwelling house, with a width of 8.1 metres and a dual pitch roof 5.2 metres above ground level at the eaves and 8.1 metres at the apex. The single storey rear extension measured 5.5 metres deep by 4.7 metres wide with a dual pitch roof measuring 2.3 metres above ground level at the eaves and 4.2 metres at the apex.

The differences from the approved application reference 12/00383/HHFUL were:

1)   The two storey rear extension had been built approximately 700 mm longer than shown on the approved plan;

2)   The total ground floor projection as built was approximately 10.1 metres long, approximately 1.1 metre longer than shown on the approved plan;

3)   The roof on the side extension had been built higher so that it was flush with the existing ridge line, rather than being subservient to the existing roof, as shown on the approved plans;

4)   The introduction of a front canopy that extended across the full width of the property; above the bay window, front door and French doors; and

5)   The use of different fenestration including the introduction of French doors to the front of the side extension rather than the garage doors shown on the approved plans.

The Group Manager Development Management provided the Committee with an overview of the proposal and the main issues for consideration. It was also advised that comments had been received from Ward Councillor Ed Murphy in agreement with the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

Ward Councillor Gul Nawaz, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members.  In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Committee was advised that in the committee report, Bourges Boulevard was referred to “Old Bourges Boulevard” and the dual carriageway to the west of the site was referred to as “New Bourges Boulevard”.

The site was a long strip of land between Bourges Boulevard and New Bourges Boulevard.  It was about 80 metres wide at the widest point, tapering to 15 metres wide at the southern end.  The site was 320 metres north to south, with a further 100 metres or so of Gladstone Park beyond to the north.  Part of the site was on Gladstone Park.  The park overall, including the part which formed the application site, was fairly open, with trees to the sides and along some of the paths.  Most of the park was a flat playing field, but the part at the northern end, which was outside the application site, was contoured and included tables and seats.

The site included the existing community centre building (to be retained) and Veranda Centre (currently used as a nursery), the car parking area to the south of the community centre, and an equipped children’s play area.

The east side of Bourges Boulevard was residential, mostly Victorian terraces and semi-detached houses, with one small modern flatted development (Berry Court) and one corner development known as Marcus House which had recently been granted consent for use as student housing.

There was an existing cycleway which ran along the west side of the site/park.  This was part of the city-wide cycle network and formed a key part of the route into the city centre from areas to the north.

          The proposal included the following key elements:

·      A new two-storey teaching block set across the site, between the existing Veranda Centre and the playing field;

·      This would provide an additional 480 school places, to take 8-11 year olds from Gladstone School.  5-7 year olds would remain at the existing Gladstone Street site;

·      Conversion of the Veranda Centre to school use;

·      Two new single storey links, one between the community centre and the Veranda Centre, one between that and the new teaching block.  A joint entrance/reception would be provided leading to the community centre and to the school.  The enclosed playing field/sports facilities would be access-controlled from this point;

·      Some internal works to the Community Centre, to allow part of the existing hall to be used by the school for dining and inside activity during school hours.  The remainder of the Community Centre would be available for community use at all times;

·      An extension to the Community Centre to provide a dedicated school kitchen and storage;

·      Enclosure of part of the existing playing field to provide for school sports facilities, with community use outside school hours;

·      Additional car parking spaces within the existing car park and an extension to it. There were currently 48 parking spaces and an additional 42 would be provided;

·      Relocation of the existing children’s play area from the south of the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

A report was presented to the Committee which highlighted the Planning Service’s performance at appeals.

The number of appeals lodged had increased during the last three months from three to eight, compared to the three months previous. A total of seven appeals had been determined, which was six fewer than the previous three months.

During the past three months the Council’s decision had been upheld in 67% of the cases. A breakdown of the cases was given and a commentary highlighting scope for service improvement.

         RESOLVED:

The Committee noted the past performance and outcomes of appeals during the last three months.