of the meeting held on 23 May 2012 (ENCLOSURE).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2012 were approved as a correct record, and signed by the Chair.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a wire mesh ball guard fence on metal posts above the existing 1.8 metre high fence to a total height of three metres; and the provision of rubber, cellular, safety ‘grass mat’ over the existing grassed school playing field, filled with topsoil and grass seeded.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (8)                Councillors Mary Burstow, Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Edward Joyce, Hamish Pollock, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. A2012/65529/3FR, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a timber shelter to provide an outside classroom area.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (8)                Councillors Mary Burstow, Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Edward Joyce, Hamish Pollock, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2012/65704/3FR, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a part two, part three storey building incorporating a mezzanine and part lower ground floors, comprising a 74 bedroom care home over part of the ground, first and second floors, with a sensory roof garden, amenity space, ancillary staff and resident facilities, and plant accommodation and laundry on the lower ground floor; the provision of 20 car parking spaces accessed from Kingsley Avenue; and the provision of 325.1m² of retail floor space on the ground floor with provision of eight car parking spaces fronting Cowper Avenue.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Jill Whitehead.

In response to questions officers explained that the application site had been vacant for some time and they were satisfied that reasonable efforts had been made to market it; that there were a number of empty office buildings in the Borough; that it was not a site identified for retention as part of an industrial area; and that there was no specific information about the size of existing care homes in the Borough.

Mr Paul Hennessey, Ms Sarah Bitmead and Mr John Bryan, objectors, and Councillor Jill Whitehead, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and Mr Michael Russell and Ms Mandy Thorne replied for the applicant.

The principal issues raised by Mr Hennessey were:-

·         The proposed building would be taller than the existing one, excessive and incongruous

·         The sensory garden and some units would overlook existing houses

·         The use would change dramatically

·         Kingsley Avenue would cease to be a quiet suburban road

·         The proposed use would continue all day, every day

·         There would be inadequate parking

·         The parking provision made no allowance for ambulances and mini-buses

·         There would be an increase in the number of accidents at the junction of Kingsley Avenue and Ringstead Road

·         Smokers would congregate at the Kingsley Avenue entrance

The principal issues raised by Ms Bitmead were:

·         There would be insufficient space for staff car parking

·         The proposed retail unit was not needed

·         Retail premises in the area had failed and closed

·         Lorries already blocked the public highway

The principal issues raised by Mr Bryan were:-

·         The application paid no regard to local people

·         The application represented an over-development of the site

·         The proposed development would be detrimental to local shops

·         The proposed development would be unsympathetic in height and design

In response to questions Ms Bitmead said that the proposed development would be an eyesore and incongruous amongst mostly Victorian houses; that parking in the area had been incredibly bad when the existing building was occupied; that the proposed retail element was unnecessary; and agreed that her main objections concerned the design, density and lack of parking.

The principal issues raised by Councillor Whitehead were:

·         The application represented an over-development and intensification of use

·         The proposed development was on the edge of a residential area

·         Residents expected the front of the development to be residential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 548.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a first floor and external staircase to the Jubilee building to provide additional classrooms and toilet accommodation.

Officers reported an amendment to recommended condition 3 to require the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted construction method statement.

Mr Alex Clark, the School’s Headteacher, responded to questions under Standing Order 31on behalf of the applicant.

Mr Clark explained that the school had met the needs of an additional intake of two classes in September 2011 by utilising existing specialist accommodation and the current proposal would replace that accommodation.  If the School expanded again then further buildings would be required to accommodate the additional pupils.  The School’s travel plan was being updated to reflect the expansion in 2011.  The majority of the School’s pupils lived locally – within less than 600 metres of the School – and it was expected that any further expansion would be to accommodate local children.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To grant (8)                Councillors Mary Burstow, Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Edward Joyce, Hamish Pollock, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2012/65644/3FR, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the retention and completion of a single storey detached classroom building for a temporary period.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 32.4, when there voted:

To grant (8)                Councillors Mary Burstow, Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Edward Joyce, Hamish Pollock, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2012/65774/3FR, subject to the conditions, reasons and informatives set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.

Report of the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation (ENCLOSURE).

The Committee considered a report seeking the confirmation of the above tree preservation order made on 2 December 2011, which had had immediate effect under section 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  The order protected two mature Beech trees, each of which was considered to have high public amenity value, located in the front garden of 1 Elgin Road and on the area of land immediately adjacent.

The order had been served following the submission of planning application No. D2011/64877/FUL for the erection of a detached three-bedroom, two storey house and the provision of two car parking spaces.  The application had been refused on the grounds that the proposed parking bays would result in the removal of a protected Beech tree and would be located within the root protection area of a protected Beech tree.

The owner of 1 Elgin Road had objected to the order on the grounds that in pre-application discussions the issue of the Beech trees had not been raised by officers and the order rendered the development of the site unviable; and that tree roots were already lifting the pavement and would become more pronounced and present a trip hazard in the future.

It was reported that damage to the footpath caused by tree roots appeared to be relatively light, could be remedied and was not considered sufficiently serious to warrant the removal of the entire tree.  Regardless of whether or not the issue of the Beech trees had been discussed with officers prior to the submission of the planning application, the Council had a duty to assess any existing trees affected by the application for possible inclusion in a tree preservation order.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to confirm the order without modification was held in accordance with Standing Order 31.4, when there voted:

To confirm

the order (8)              Councillors Mary Burstow, Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Stephen Fenwick, Edward Joyce, Hamish Pollock, Tony Shields and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That tree preservation order No. 2011/17 be confirmed without modification.