Agenda and minutes

Councillor Fletcher welcomed everyone to the meeting. Members of the Committee and officers introduced themselves and the Chair outlined the procedures for the meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Chowdhury and Spall.

Councillor Gantly substituted for Councillor Spall and Councillor Ismail substituted for Councillor Chowdhury.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a)     Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

Councillor Poyser declared that the Whitehall Park Residents’ Association had objected to Item B3 and he was a member of the Association although he had not been involved with the objection. He would take part in the consideration of this item.

The order of business would be:

B6, B2, B5, B3, B4, B1, B7 and B8.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2015 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Construction of a roof extension to provide an additional floor of B1(a) office space and associated roof terrace, with a plant area and associated air conditioning equipment; and replacement of existing windows with double glazed timber sash windows and a new entrance at ground floor level.

(Planning application number: P2015/2193/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer reported that the floorspace created would be 118m and not 123m as stated in the report and that most of the development had been approved in March 2015. The applicants had submitted the current application for a roof terrace.

Following suggestions for amendments to conditions from the objector, Councillor Gantly proposed that there should be no external lighting and the top of the roof of the new extension should not be used as a balcony at any time. This was seconded by Councillor Khan and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the case officer’s report as amended above.

Substantial demolition of existing residential dwelling with retention of street façade and construction of 3 dwellings comprising 1 x 5 bedroom townhouse with rear garden and 2 x 2 bedroom residential flats.

(Planning application number: P2015/2564/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer confirmed that the semi public space referred to in the report was private communal gardens for Silver Court.

·         A previous scheme had been refused under delegated authority in March 2015 and improvements had been made to the scheme since then.

·         The distance between the proposed development and Silver Court was 31 metres.

·         There was a need to balance the design and conservation aspect with the need for housing.

·         Some of the objections raised related to the previous scheme.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in the case officer’s report.

Erection of new-build, 3 bedroom single family dwelling house accommodated over 3 levels including provision of private amenity space and associated refuse and cycle storage facilities in the rear garden of 55 Whitehall Park, which fronts Fitzwarren Gardens. Removal of the existing boundary fence which fronts onto the existing pavement facing the roadway to Fitzwarren Gardens. The removal of existing tree(s) was also proposed together wit replacement tree and shrub planting.

(Planning application number: P2015/2281/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer advised that the proposed development was on a large plot and was considered proportionate in the site context.

·         There was no objection from the conservation officer.

·         There was a need to balance the loss of a garden with the provision of family sized accommodation.

·         The design of the proposed development was considered.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in the case officer’s report.

Extension to the existing building comprising a single storey extension above roof and 4-storey, stepped side extension with lower ground floor to create 8 residential units (7 x 2 bed and 1 x 4 bed). Provision of cycle storage and refuse facilities.

(Planning application number: P2015/0362/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         As enforcement issues related to works under prior approval for the existing development, there were no conditions to be enforced. However the noise team dealt with these matters. The current application would have conditions which could be enforced.

·         The green roof would largely be self maintaining. Maintenance would be undertaken by a contractor who would usually visit once or twice a year. The roof would be a visual and ecological feature and would not be accessible to residents.

·         It was agreed that a letter should be sent to the applicant advising them that there was an expectation they would behave in a neighbourly way and follow both the text and the spirit of the construction management plan.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under section 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in the case officer’s report and that a letter be sent to the applicant advising them that there was an expectation they would behave in a neighbourly way and follow both the text and the spirit of the construction management plan.

Basement enlargement with front and rear light wells.

(Planning application number: P2015/1904/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer advised that the Party Wall Act meant that neighbours could employ a surveyor at the expense of the applicant.

·         This was one of three applications submitted by the applicant. One for a single storey extension had been approved under delegated powers and a certificate of lawfulness in connection with the erection of a rear dormer and the installation of three roof lights to the front roof slope had been approved under delegated powers.

·         In response to a question about which parts of the proposal required planning permission and which parts could be completed under permitted development, the planning officer explained that the basement was under the footprint of the building so could be completed under permitted development but the front light well and possibly the rear light well required planning permission.

·         Discussion took place on the differing points made by the objector and applicant in relation to flooding. The applicant advised that bore holes drilled to a depth of 6 metres had been dry. The planning officer advised that officers were unable to comment on the reasons the neighbour’s basement had flooded as they did not know the circumstances. As the property was not in a flood risk zone, it would not be reasonable to require the applicant to undertake further work.

·         A robust construction management plan was required.

·         The Party Wall protected neighbours.

·         The applicant was asked to consult residents as much as possible during construction.

·         There were other front light wells in this part of Mercers Road.

·         The application was policy compliant.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the case officer’s report.

The erection of seven residential units: three 2-storey courtyard houses, one 2-storey semi-detached pair of houses and 2 two-storey units bridging over the entrance to the mews, all with private garden areas. Retention of one lock up garage and one parking space. This was a reconsultation as the previous letter circulation omitted a number of properties adjacent to the site.

(Planning application number: P2015/0040/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer reported that the application was in Holloway ward and that there were currently 18 rented garages rather than the 8 specified in the report.

·         Additional daylight/sunlight information had been submitted which provided further details relating to the two windows which did not meet BRE guidelines. Both of these windows were to kitchens and the windows exceeded the average daylight factor and had other windows servicing the kitchens.

·         The planning officer confirmed that as this was a minor application, it had not been to the design review panel.

·         In response to a question about policy in relation to undercrofts and archways, the planning officer advised that policy advised against them where they could lead to anti social behaviour. However in this case, it would create access and the design officer was content.

·         In order to minimise disruption to residents, a robust access plan was necessary.

·         Consideration was given to the daylight and sunlight impacts.

·         Overall the application met the policy framework.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in the case officer’s report.

Erection of a terrace of four three storey houses with associated garden areas and cycle parking.

(Planning application number: P2015/2147/FUL)

In the discussion the following point was made:

·         The crime prevention officer had been consulted and with the conditions proposed,  was satisfied.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the case officer’s report and subject to the prior completion of a Director’s Agreement securing the heads of terms as set out in the case officer’s report.

Installation of 12 heat pump units at roof level. One heat pump unit at fifth floor balcony level, two heat pumps at fourth floor balcony level and associated visual/acoustic screening.

(Planning application number: P2015/0634/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         In response to a question from the objector about whether noise readings should be taken at the weekend when background noise was quieter, the planning officer advised that this was not required. Readings were taken at face value and the noise officer knew the area well and had knowledge of the background noise. Conditions 3 and 4 related to noise.

·         There had been much discussion with the applicant on the scheme since the withdrawal of the previous scheme.

·         Heat pumps were needed for Zinc House.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.