Agenda and minutes

Councillor Kay 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 Councillor Khondoker.

Councillor Poyser substituted for Councillor Khondoker.

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 he had publicly supported Unit 8, Roman Way Industrial Estate, 149 Roman Way (Agenda Item B6) and therefore he would not take part in the decision making on this item. He also declared that he had been a school governor of St Joan of Arc Primary School (Agenda Item B5) many years ago but this would not preclude him from taking part in this item.

The order of business would be B5, B3, B1, B6, B2 and B4.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2018 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Erection of four storey building (appearing as a pair of semi-detached properties) containing 9 self-contained residential units (C3 use) (4x1 bed, 3x2 bed, 1x3 bed and 1x4 bed) together with ancillary private patios to rear elevation and communal rear garden and front boundary wall and railings (following demolition of existing buildings on site).

(Planning application number: P2018/2649/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer stated that Condition 26 should be amended to state “Notwithstanding the details shown in the approved plans, prior to any superstructure work commencing on site for the hereby approved development, full details of a lift as a means of access to the upper floors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of the development”.

·         In response to a member’s question, the planning officer advised that the demolition was unauthorised. However the issue had now been resolved and there had been a successful prosecution.

·         The planning officer confirmed that it would be possible to require the developer to pay for a new section of pavement outside the development. However the applicant had already signed the agreement so this would have to be added to the heads of terms and re-signed.

·         Given the site history, members asked whether a project manager and other professionals could be conditioned. The legal advisor stated that if it was considered necessary, reasonable and enforceable, this could be conditioned.

·         The chair asked the developer to become a good neighbour to residents and suggested paying for a street party and giving a donation to the residents’ association. The legal advisor stated this was not a planning matter and could not be conditioned. The applicant stated that he was happy to make a donation to the residents’ association.

·         In response to a request from the chair that the developer should leaflet the whole road with contact details of the architect, structural engineer and project manager, he stated that he would do this.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to amend Conditions 3, 4 and 5 requiring that all bricks used should be reclaimed stock to match the existing brick throughout the development. The wording of this would be delegated to officers. This was seconded by Councillor Chapman and carried.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to attach a condition requiring a chartered member architect, structural engineer and project manager be appointed to work on the development and for them to be recognised by their recognised bodies and to be a point of contact for residents. This was seconded by Councillor Chapman and carried.

Councillor Kay proposed that the S106 be amended to require the developer to pay for a new section of pavement outside the development. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Creation of a basement extension under the footprint of the existing house including the formation of light wells to the front and rear of the property. Conversion of the existing single-family dwelling house into 2 self-contained flats (1 x 3 bedroom unit and 1 x 2 bedroom unit).

(Planning application number: P2017/1670/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer advised that since the addendum report had been published, an additional objection letter had been submitted by an objector (unable to attend on the night). This letter was passed to the Chair to consider during deliberation.

·         The planning officer stated that the consideration of the application had been deferred for work on the structural method statement, structural drawings and a groundwater report. These had now been provided and did not raise concerns. The scheme was compliant with policy including the Basement SPD.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to updated and additional conditions set out within the addendum report and recommendations contained within Appendix 1 of the original committee report (attached as appendix A to the officer report).

Erection of a timber clad outbuilding located to the end of the rear garden.

(Planning application number: P2018/2871/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer stated that Paragraph 4.3 of the officer report should refer to 34sqm as being the size of the proposed outbuilding and not 33.6 sqm. This represented 15.1% of the garden and not 14.9% as stated. The garden was within the Aberdeen Park Conservation Area.

·         The planning officer advised that the garden could be accessed from a side entrance through a gate.

·         The chair asked the planning officer to set out what could be built under permitted development rights and the officer advised that the applicants would be able to build on up to half of their garden if it was solely being used in connection with the main building as a single family dwelling. The size of the building the applicants could build under permitted development would be greater than the one being sought but it would be limited to 2.5m in height rather than 2.8m which was currently being sought.

·         In response to members’ questions, the planning officer stated that there was no plumbing for a toilet but there would be drainage for a sink.

·         Members discussed how to add more weight to the existing drawing to ensure the building did not become a separate self-contained residential unit.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion that a condition be added to ensure that the proposed layout be in accordance with the drawing as the approved plan.  This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried.

Councillor Kay proposed a motion for Condition 7 to be revised such that theoutbuilding not be used for overnight sleeping. The wording of this would be delegated to officers. This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried.

Councillor Poyser proposed a motion that a further condition be added to ensure that the trees removed as a result of the development should be replaced elsewhere in the garden with suitable replacement trees, details (including suitable species) to be agreed with by Officers. This was seconded by Councillor Woolf and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informative set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and the amended and additional conditions above.

Change of use from Sui Generis (Betting Office) at ground and basement levels, to A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) at Ground Floor Level and A4 (Drinking Establishments) at basement level.

(Planning application number: P2017/1262/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer advised that an appeal for non-determination had been submitted to the planning inspectorate and therefore the sub-committee no longer had the power to determine the application. The recommendation should be changed to recommend that the appeal should not be contested. The legal advisor stated that the sub-committee could still decide what decision would have been made had the appeal not been submitted.

·         In response to an objector’s concerns about smells and noise, a member stated that the extractor flues had been secured in order to prevent smells and licensing consent would be required which had controls to control objector’s concerns. If any more plant was required, further planning consent would need to be sought.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, the appeal for non-determination would not be contested by officers and this decision would be communicated to the Planning Inspectorate.

Proposed single storey extension to the south east corner of the existing school building as an expansion of the existing after school facilities including a Reception Office, Library, Meeting Rooms, Teaching Kitchen and WCs and store rooms including new separate accessible entrance (following demolition of existing single storey building).

(Planning application number: P2018/1231/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer advised that additional comments had been received from residents in relation to the use of existing facilities, the pedestrian gate and queries about the management plan of those using Rosa Alba Mews.

·         In response to members’ questions, the planning officer advised that the new extension was flat roofed.

·         The times that children were dropped off by parents for breakfast club and after school club was discussed as were the number of children that used the clubs.

·         In response to a members’ suggestion that the hours could be term time only, the planning officer stated that the council’s policies encouraged community use.

·         The headteacher explained that the design of the school had made the provision of breakfast and after school clubs difficult. The current design was not ideal and this proposal would enable a proper entrance to be provided.

·         The gate that would be used and which presented difficulties for objectors was discussed. Hours of opening, operation and safeguarding were considered.

·         Officers clarified that Condition 9 be amended so that WC’s, storage and office facilities be excluded from the restriction on hours of use.

Councillor Kay proposed a motion that the construction management plan (condition 7), management plan (condition 11) and Community Use Agreement (condition 12) should be amended to ensure that the details are finalised in consultation with the school and residents of Rosa Alba Mews, so as to demonstrate how future occupiers would be actively encouraged not to use Rosa Alba Mews as a route. The approval of such details should be delegated to officers in consultation with the chair. This was seconded by Councillor Woolf and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report as amended above.

Change of use of the ancillary storage function to the brewery to a mixed B1(c) (Light Industrial) and A4 (Drinking Establishment) use, with limited hours of operation.

(Planning application number: P2018/3090/FUL)

Councillor Poyser who had declared an interest in this item, did not take part in the consideration of this item.

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         In response to members’ questions about whether there had been any reports of anti-social behaviour, the planning officer advised that there had been one report of noise and urination; a door had been added to the building to reduce noise and the premises would have to obtain licensing consent for the external area.

·         The chair suggested to the applicant that more engagement work could be done with neighbours.

Councillor Kay proposed a motion for Conditions 5 and 6 to be amended to require outside furniture to be cleared away at 9pm, the wording of which was delegated to officers. This was seconded by Councillor Chapman and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report as amended above.