Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, Bath Road, Slough. View directions
\n\t\tContact: Teresa Clark \n\t\t01753 875018\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\n\t\tItems\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\tNo.\n\t\t\tItem\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tOpening of Meeting
\nMinutes:
\nThe meeting was opened\nand the Chair advised that the meeting would adjourn for ten\nminutes to allow members an opportunity to read the amendment sheet that was tabled at\nthe meeting.
\nDeclarations of Interest
\n(Members are reminded of their duty to declare\npersonal and personal prejudicial interests in matters coming\nbefore this meeting as set out in the Local Code of Conduct).
\nMinutes:
\nIn relation to agenda\nitem 5, P/14696/000 – 58, Norway Drive, Slough, Councillor\nMacIsaac advised that he was a member\nof Wexham Court Parish Council which\nhad objected to the planning application. He advised that he would approach\nthe matter with an open mind.
\nMinutes of the Last Meeting held on 14th October 2009 PDF 56 KB
\nMinutes:
\nThe minutes of the Planning Committee held on\n14th October 2009 were approved as a correct record.
\nPlanning Applications
\nMinutes:
\nWith the agreement of\nthe Chair, the order of business was varied to ensure that\napplications where objectors had indicated a wish to address the\nCommittee were taken first.
\n\n
Oral representations\nwere made to the Committee by objectors and applicants or their\nagents under the public participation scheme and members under Rule\n30, prior to the planning applications being considered by the\nCommittee as follows:-
\n\n
P/14696/000 –\n58, Norway Drive, Slough – a member addressed the Committee\nunder Rule 30.
\n\n
P/09912/008 –\n27, Stoke Road, Slough – an objector and the\napplicant’s agent addressed the Committee.
\n\n
P/14664/000 –\n97-99 and 58-60, Beechwood Gardens and,\n58, High Street, Slough – 2 objectors addressed the\nCommittee.
\n\n
Details were tabled in\nthe amendment sheet of alterations and amendments received to\napplications since the agenda was circulated, together with further\nrepresentations.
\n\n
Resolved – That the decisions be\ntaken in respect of the planning applications as set out in the\nminutes below, subject to the information, including conditions and\ninformatives set out in the report of\nthe Head of Planning Policy and Projects and the amendment sheet\ntabled at the meeting, and subject to any further amendments and\nconditions agreed by the Committee.
\nP/14696/000- 58, Norway Drive, Slough PDF 210 KB
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\n\nApplication
\n\n
\n\n\n\nDecision
\n\n\n\n\nP/14696/000- 58,\nNorway Drive, Slough – Erection of a 2 storey side extension\nwith hipped and pitched roof and part single/part double storey\nrear extension with pitched and hipped roof (single storey rear\nextension with mono-pitched roof).
\n\n
(Councillor\nSwindlehurst did not take part in the\ndiscussion or vote on the above application as he was not in\nattendance when the Officer introduced the report to the\nCommittee).
\n\n\n\n
Approved with\nconditions
\n\n\n\n\n
P/09912/008- 27, Stoke Road, Slough PDF 268 KB
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\n\nApplication
\n\n
\n\n\nDecision
\n\n\n\n\nApplication Ref:\nP/09912/008 – 27, Stoke Road, Slough – Erection of a\nsingle-storey rear extension with pitched roof and installation of\na compressor unit.
\n\n\n\n
Approved subject to conditions.
\n\n\n\n\n
P/14664/000- 97-99 & 58-60, Beechwood Gardens and, 58, High Street, Slough PDF 290 KB
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nApplication
\n\n\n\n
Decision
\n\n\n\n\nP/14664/000 - 97-99\n& 58-60, Beechwood Gardens and, 58,\nHigh Street, Slough – Demolition of No. 58, 60, 97 and 99\nBeechwood Gardens and No. 58 High\nStreet and erection of 2 No. three-bed apartments and 16 two-bed\napartments with associated landscaping and parking.
\n\n
(It was agreed that in\nthe event that the Applicant submit an appeal to the Planning\nInspectorate, that Cllr P Choudhry\nwould attend the hearing on behalf of the Planning Committee).
\n\n\nRefused for the following reasons:-
\n\n
\n\n1. \nHaving regard to the\nlocation of the site in a visually prominent position within a\nstreet scene strongly influenced by the character and scale of\nBeechwood Gardens, the development\nfails to provide a design which handles the transition between the\ndomestic scale and character of Beechwood Gardens and nearby buildings located in\nSlough Town Centre to a satisfactory degree. The height, scale and\nmassing of the development are not sufficiently compatible with the\nscale and character of Beechwood\nGardens to provide adequate respect for its surroundings. As such\nthe development is contrary to Core Policies 1 and 8 of the Slough\nLocal Development Framework Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 and\nPolicy EN1 of the Local Plan for Slough and the aims of PPS1 and\nPPS3 relating to the achievement of a design that respects its\nlocal context.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n2. \nIn the absence of the\ncompletion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure financial\ncontributions towards education and highways, the proposed\ndevelopment would be contrary to the advice contained within\ncircular 05/05: planning obligations, Core Policy 10 of the Slough\nLocal Development Framework, Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 and\nDeveloper Contributions and Affordable Housing (Section 106)\nDeveloper’s Guide Part 2, Interim Document November 2008\nwhich seek to ensure that development proposals provide all\nreasonable levels of infrastructure, services and amenities made\nnecessary by the development to ensure the proper planning of the\narea.
\n\n\n\n\n
P/00322/017- Part of, Southern Electricity Plc, High Street, Chalvey, Slough PDF 223 KB
\nMinutes:
\nApplication
\n\n\n\n
Decision
\n\n\n\n\nP/00322/017- Part of,\nSouthern Electricity Plc, High Street, Chalvey, Slough – Details of 10 Zero carbon\nhomes (5 three-bedroom houses; 3 two-bedroom houses; 2 flats),\nmeeting room and plant room (reserved matters application re. first\nphase of outline permission for 48 homes).
\n\n\n\n
Delegate to HPPP.
\n\n\n\n\n
Update on Planning Application:- P/12720/006- 307-311 Colnbrook By Pass, Colnbrook PDF 56 KB
\nMinutes:
\nThe Officer advised\nthat following the deferral of the application P/12720/006- 307/311\nColnbrook By Pass, at the Committee\nmeeting on 8th September 2009, consultations with the\napplicant and legal advisers had taken place.
\n\n
The Committee was\nreminded that the purpose of the deferral was to enable gaps in the\ninformation accompanying the application to be addressed and to\nobtain legal advice on the procedures to be followed in the event\nthat the Committee may wish to either refuse or approve the\napplication. It was\nintended that the application be brought back to the Committee in\nNovember 2009.
\n\n
A Committee visit to\nthe site in question had recently been held.
\n\n
The Officer advised\nthat in the last couple of days the applicant had withdrawn the\nsubject application with the intention to resubmit at a later\ndate.
\nUpdate on Performance regarding speed of determination of planning applications PDF 108 KB
\nMinutes:
\nThe Officer outlined a\nreport to update members on the performance of the planning section\non national performance indicators relating to the speed of\ndetermination, major, minor and other planning applications, which\nincluded household applications.
\n\n
The Committee was\nadvised that once again, in the case of minor and other categories,\nperformance had been maintained at a standard higher than the\nrequired target. It was\nnoted that 90% of other applications were dealt with within the\neight week period and this figure was the same as that for the\nprevious year. In the\ncase of the minor applications, the current year to date figure was\n48%, which was similar to the previous year’s final figure of\n85% and well above the government target of 65%.
\n\n
The performance for\nmajor applications was 74% which exceeded the government target of\n60%. It was recognised\nthat the continued good performance was due in part to the\nsuccessful co-operative working of members and the decisions made\nat Planning Committee.
\n\n
Resolved – That the report be noted and\nthat the Committee wishes to place on record its congratulations to\nthe Planning Team for their continued high standard of achievement\nin this area.
\nNew Planning Legislation- Proposal to amend Delegation of Functions to Officers PDF 116 KB
\nMinutes:
\nThe Officer outlined a\nreport to inform members of the changes to planning legislation and\nrecommend changes to the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.
\n\n
The Committee was advised that the\nGovernment had introduced amendments to planning legislation which\ncame into force on 1st October 2009. These would provide\nLocal Planning Authorities with the power to consider the extension\nof time limits on the validity of unimplemented planning\npermissions granted on or before 1st October 2009, and\nminor small scale changes to planning permissions (described as non\nmaterial changes requiring a decision to be made within 28\ndays).
\n\n
The powers on extension of time limits\nhad been introduced to allow a simplified procedure when the only\nissue was the extension of time on an unimplemented planning\npermission. It was noted that the standard time limit on planning\npermissions was 3 years, dating from the Planning and Compulsory\nPurchase Act 2004 and was 5 years prior to this\nlegislation.
\nThe simplified procedure removed the\nneed for a fresh application but the details of the application,\nsuch as the plans, must remain the same. The Council was not precluded from\nrefusing a planning application to extend time limits but there\nwould need to be must be some material change in planning policy or\nguidance.
\n\n
\nIt was not considered that the existing\nScheme of Delegation to Officers covered a decision to extend time\nlimits on applications made for this purpose. The Officer proposed that\ndecisions on the extension of time limits be delegated to Officers\nand the Scheme of Delegation be amended accordingly. This would\napply to all applications including those previously considered by\nthe Planning Committee. \nIf the scheme was altered in this way arrangements for Member call\nins to the Planning Committee and for Officer’s to refer any\napplication to Planning Committee would not be affected\nand applications could\nbe brought to Committee for decision if there had been\na material change in\ncircumstances since the original decision.
\n\n
\nThe Officer advised that the Council\nhad dealt with minor amendments following the grant of planning\npermission in an informal manner and there was no provision for the\ncharging of fees. The Government had decided to address the absence\nof any formal procedure within legislation and the subsequent\nchanges would enable the Council to charge prescribed fees for\nminor changes. The new\npowers fell within the scope of Sec 101 of the Local Government Act\n1972 and could be construed as enabling all subsequent non\nmaterial changes to be made after planning permission had been\ngranted.
\n\n
The Committee was advised that it would be prudent to\nsimplify arrangements to make a specific amendment to the Scheme of\nDelegation to delegate to Officers all decisions under the new\nSection 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any\nregulations relating to the implementation of this\nsection. It was noted\nthat Decisions under this power must be made within 28\ndays.
\n\n
\nIn relation to other matters, it was thought prudent\nto make other changes to the existing Scheme of Delegation\nfor clarification purposes.
\n\n
\nThe Committee was advised that in relation to\napplications to notify the Council about the demolition of\ndwellings, which did not benefit from a planning permission which\nincluded their demolition, the planning controls did not prevent\ndemolition but enabled the Council to control the method of\ndemolition and site restoration. In these cases a decision was\nrequired within 28 days. It was suggested that the Scheme of\nDelegation be amended accordingly.
\n\n
\nThe Officer advised that in the case of\nadvertisements, the wording within the Scheme of Delegation was\npoor and did not explicitly cover all the types of advertisements\nthat were within planning control nor the enforcement powers\navailable under the Advertisement Regulations. It was suggested that the wording\nbe revised to cover all types of advertisement.
\n\n
The Committee noted that the proposal\nto amend the Delegation of Functions to Officers had been referred\nto the Member Panel on the Constitution on 12th November\n2009. The Panel was concerned that the delegation did not refer to\nany time limit on the extension to be agreed and that there should\nbe mention of how many times an application could be\nextended. There were\nalso concerns that a distinction should be made between domestic\nand commercial properties when considering an extension of time\nlimits and that there should be a notification process to\nneighbouring properties, once an extension of permission was\napproved.
\n\n
The Committee noted the report and\nmade a number of\ncomments as follows:
\n\n
\n\n· \nIt was felt that the\namendments were welcome and would require minimum\nimplementation.
\n\n\n· \nThe majority of Members did\nnot share the concerns of the Member Panel on the\nConstitution.
\n\n\n· \nA Member felt that there\nshould be a limit on the number of times that a permission could be\nrenewed at this may require an eventual referral to the\nCommittee.
\n\n\n· \nA Member felt that there\ncould be problems with renewals on commercial\nproperties.
\n\n
Resolved - That the Council be recommended to\napprove the proposed amendments set out below subject to there\nbeing a suitable limit on the number of extended permissions in\neach case, and the provision of different time limits for domestic\nand commercial extensions of time limit, to be decided on the merit\nof each case.
\n\n
\n\n(a) \nThat the Scheme of\nDelegation, Development Control Functions, Appendix 2, be amended\nto include:
\n\n
\n\n‘Applications to\nextend the time limits on planning permissions made in accordance\nwith the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure\n(Amendment No 3) (England) Order 2009’.
\n\n
\n\n\n(b) \nThat the Scheme of\nDelegation, Development Control Functions, Appendix 2, be amended\nto include:
\n\n
\n\n‘Applications made pursuant to\nSection 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act for non material\nchanges to planning permission in accordance with\n the Town and Country Planning\n(General Development Procedure (Amendment No 3) (England) Order\n2009 and any other regulations and guidance relating to this\nprovision’.
\n\n
\n\n(c) \nThat item 5, Development Control Functions, Appendix\n2 be updated to refer to Article 3(2) of the Town and Country\nPlanning General Development Procedure Order\n1995.
\n\n
\n\n(d) \nThat Development Control Functions, Scheme of\nDelegation, Appendix 2, be amended to include:
\n\n
\n\n‘Applications for the prior notification of the\ndemolition of buildings pursuant to Part 31 of Schedule 2 of the\nTown and Country Planning General Development Order\n1995’.
\n\n
\n\n(e) \nThat item 42 in the Scheme of Delegation be replaced\nwith:
\n\n
\n\n‘Determination of applications for\nadvertisement consent made in accordance with the Town and Country\nPlanning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and\nin consultation with the Borough Secretary and Solicitor the powers\nin these regulations relating to the discontinuance of deemed\nconsent’.
\nPlanning Appeal Decisions
\nMinutes:
\nThe Committee noted\nthe receipt of various planning appeal decisions. A Member questioned whether costs\nhad been awarded against the Council on any recent successful\nplanning appeals. The\nOfficer advised that he understood that costs had been awarded but\nhe would confirm this with the Member.
\n\n
Resolved – That the report\nbe noted.
\nAuthorised Enforcements and Prosecutions PDF 87 KB
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nThe Committee noted\nthe status of various ongoing enforcement and prosecution\ncases.
\n\n
Resolved – That the report\nbe noted.
\n