of the meeting held on 18 July 2012 (ENCLOSURE).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 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 provision of four classrooms in two single storey buildings for a temporary period.

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 Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Peter Geiringer, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Hamish Pollock, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2012/66147/3FR, 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 replacement of four first floor obscure glazed windows on the front elevation with clear glazed windows.

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 Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Peter Geiringer, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Hamish Pollock, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2012/65914/3FR, 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).

                                                                                                                        (to follow)

The Committee considered a report on the above application for extensions and alterations to the School, incorporating a two storey infill extension to provide two additional classrooms and toilet facilities, a two storey classroom/staff room extension, a single storey plant room at the rear and a new lobby at the front of the nursery; the provision of solar panels to the rear and side, roof lights and extract flue to the kitchen; the formation of decking to provide a play area for the nursery; the re-grading of land levels to create a level access and increase the play area of the Infants’ School; the relocation of two sheds, bicycle store and car park entrance; amendments to the car parking layout; and the provision of a new boundary fence and gates.

Officers reported that the Council’s Principal Tree Officer did not have any objections to the proposal and submitted an amended condition relating to approved plans.

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 Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Peter Geiringer, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Hamish Pollock, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. A2012/66073/3FR, 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 single storey demountable classroom with ancillary facilities and canopy.

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 Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Peter Geiringer, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Hamish Pollock, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2012/66120/FUL, 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 single storey rear extension to provide a replacement bathroom.

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 Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Peter Geiringer, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Hamish Pollock, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. C2011/65340/3FR, 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 part one, part two storey side and rear extension.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Lester Holloway.

Officers reported additional comments relating to traffic and parking and submitted a relevant additional recommended condition.

In response to questions officers said that there would be a distance of one metre between the north-east wall of the proposed extension and the rear boundary of gardens in Lymescote Gardens; that a further planning application would be required if the applicant wished to convert the completed dwelling into two separate dwellings; that there would be at least two parking spaces, and possibly a third could be achieved; and that the turning head in Broomloan Lane was restricted but sufficient.

Mr Colin Janes and Ms Dionne Voller, objectors, and Councillor Lester Holloway, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31, and the applicant, Mr Russell Day, replied.

The principal issues raised by Mr Janes were:-

·         He had moved to Lymescote Gardens in 1954

·         The application was inconsiderate of neighbours

·         Loss of sunlight and daylight because of the roof design

·         The external height and design would mean that adjoining gardens would lose light earlier in the day

·         Loss of privacy because of the bay window

·         Over-looking of adjoining gardens

·         Effect on trees

·         Noise from open windows and the use of the side access

·         Depreciation in property values

In response to a question Mr Janes said that his property in Lymescote Gardens had been built in 1932 and the application property had been built later.

The principal issues raised by Ms Voller were:-

·         Objectors had collectively lived in Lymescote Gardens for 150 years

·         There would be a two storey brick wall at the end of gardens that were less than 35 feet long

·         The right to light would be breached

·         It was a needless application

·         There would be a loss of light in adjoining gardens

·         Loss of privacy

·         The proposed first floor bay window would look into three gardens

·         The loss of privacy, security and light would ruin the use of neighbouring gardens

·         The application house would double in size

·         The proposed extension would dominate and over-shadow adjoining gardens

In response to questions Ms Voller said that the existing flank window was obscure glazed; and the Chair confirmed that the proposed flank access would be one metre wide and the existing garage already abutted the boundary of adjoining gardens that were 18 metres long.

The principal issues raised by Mr Day were:-

·         The proposed extension would be in keeping with the existing design

·         The existing building ‘footprint’ would not be exceeded

·         There would be no over-looking windows

·         There would be no loss of privacy

·         There would be no loss of light because of the size of the adjoining gardens

·         A close-boarded fence would be provided on the boundary

·         Some neighbours supported the application

In response to a question Mr Day explained that the proposed extension would be used to provide a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 740.

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

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the erection of a new roof to the front entrance to provide storage accommodation; re-positioning an external staircase to provide access to the first floor flat; erection of a first floor extension fronting Woodstock Road to enlarge the first floor flat; alterations to the external elevations; and alterations to the Ruskin Road frontage to provide a new ramped access to the building.

Officers reported the receipt of three further letters of objection, subsequent to the circulation of their report, and submitted an additional recommended landscaping condition.

Officers also reported that three dormer windows on the east side of the building, provided as part of the previous planning permission, were not fixed shut as required to prevent over-looking and would be the subject of enforcement action.

In response to questions officers explained that the use of the flat was not conditional.  The rest of the building was non-residential and any use as temporary accommodation would have to be considered on the basis of the circumstances if it arose.  If it was ancillary to the non-residential use then it would not constitute a material change of use.  The recommended condition to screen the external staircase could be amended to allow officers to determine the height of any screening or to require its enclosure if practical or necessary.  The recommended condition regarding the access ramp could be amended to require compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.  Any installation of mechanical ventilation would require a further planning application.  There were no restrictions on the hours of use because the pre-existing use was lawful.  The provision of tree planting could be taken into account in conjunction with the recommended condition requiring the approval of landscaping.

The applicant, Mr Lal Hussain, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.

The principal issues raised by Mr Hussain were:-

·         Members had not visited the application site (which was challenged)

·         The application was for minor amendments to the existing permission

·         The external staircase had been moved to avoid over-looking

·         The proposed screening of the external staircase would be acceptable

·         The dormer windows referred to above were two metres above floor level

·         The building must have ventilation

·         The proposed work had been over-shadowed by bad publicity

In response to questions Mr Hussain explained that the dormer windows could be fixed shut or opened; the name of the Hall had not been changed; there were no restrictions on the opening hours of the premises but lettings beyond midnight were not accepted; the area at the front of the building could be used for soft landscaping now that parking had been precluded; and the flat would be used by a caretaker, Imam or employee of the applicant’s Association.

One member expressed concern about the need to adopt best practice when complying with the Disability Discrimination Act and that the closed dormer windows would result in insufficient ventilation, and suggested that the external staircase should be enclosed.  However not all members were convinced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 741.

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

The Committee considered a report on the above application for the variation of condition 13 of application No. B2009/61594/FUL to allow for a post-construction certificate from the Building Research Establishment to be submitted within 12 months of initial occupation in place of submission prior to occupation; variation of condition 23 of application No. B2009/61594/FUL to allow details to be submitted of how the development will connect to the combined heat and power unit approved by application No. B2010/62866/FUL within 12 months of initial building implementation in place of being submitted prior to occupation; and variation of condition 29 (drawing numbers) of application No. B2009/61594/FUL to retain two acoustic screens at roof level.

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 Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Peter Geiringer, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Hamish Pollock, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

            Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2012/65960/FUL, subject to (a) the completion of a deed of variation of the ‘section 106’ agreement dated 15 September 2010 by 20 August 2012, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the Executive Head of Planning and Transportation, after which time the decision to grant planning permission will be rescinded; and (b) 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 provision of a new gas boiler container adjacent to the new translational research facility.

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 Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Peter Geiringer, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Hamish Pollock, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. B2012/65962/FUL, 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 part one, part two storey side extension.

A Council employee had an interest in the application.

The applicant, Ms Hazel Woolley, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 31.

The principal issues raised by Ms Woolley were:-

·         There were seven double storey extensions in Raleigh Avenue

·         Some extensions in Raleigh Avenue had been built up to the flank boundary

·         Any shadow would occur before midday and be over the adjoining garage

·         The kitchen door looked directly into the kitchen of the adjoining property and the proposal would avoid that

·         The existing window that over-looked the adjoining property would be removed

·         The size of the proposed extension had been reduced to comply with Council policy

·         It was believed that the proposal was not unreasonable

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 Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Peter Geiringer, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Hamish Pollock, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. D2012/65838/HHA, 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 removal of four temporary classrooms and their replacement with two new single storey classroom blocks.

Officers reported the receipt of an objection subsequent to the circulation of their report and submitted comments thereon.

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 Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Peter Geiringer, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Hamish Pollock, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be granted for application No. A2012/66049/FUL, 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 confirmation of the above tree preservation order made on 22 February 2012, which had had immediate effect under section 201 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  The order protected one Beech tree in the grounds of Wallington Methodist Church.

The Beech tree was within an area of hard standing approximately eight metres from the main church building.  It was a mature specimen measuring approximately 15 metres in height and appeared to be in a satisfactory condition, exhibiting no serious signs of disease or structural defect.  The tree was visible from Beddington Gardens, was considered to have high public amenity value and its loss would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The Council had received an objection on behalf of the Church that it was intended to demolish the church and re-develop the site, and the tree preservation order could restrict that development and its quality.  However, officers believed that the retention of the Beech tree would not be incompatible with any future redevelopment of the site.

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

To confirm

the order (8)              Councillors Anisha Callaghan, Monica Coleman, Peter Geiringer, Edward Joyce, John Leach, Hamish Pollock, Stan Theed and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That tree preservation order No. 2012/04 be confirmed without modification.