Minutes for Planning Committee meeting, Nov 18 2009, 4.15PM official page

To confirm the minutes of a meeting held on 21 October 2009.

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 October 2009 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

(a)              To consider the reports of the Director of Services (as attached - if any) under

Part A - Committee decision required following a site visit and/or public speaking – Green pages

Part B - Committee decision required without a site visit or public speaking – Yellow pages

Part C - Committee observations required on applications to other Authorities – Pink pages

(b)              To receive FOR INFORMATION a list of applications already determined under delegated powers by the Director of Services –

Part D – white pages.

Key to the following decisions:

ADV - Consent to Display Adverts; ARM - Approval of Reserved Matters; CI - Certificate of Lawfulness Issued; CON - Conservation Area Consent; D - Deferred; D (INF) - Deferred for Further Information; D (SV) - Deferred for Site Visits; D (PO) - Deferred for Planning Obligation; D (NEG) - Deferred for Negotia­tions; FCG - Consent for Tree Work; LBC - Listed Building Consent; OP - Outline Planning Permission;  P - Application Permitted; R - Refused or Rejected;  R (AO) – Refused against Officer recommendation;  RC - Removal of Condition;  TC - Temporary Consent; TP - Temporary Permission;  ULBC - Unconditional Listed Building Consent;  UP - Unconditional Permission;  VG - Variation Granted;  W - Application Withdrawn.

(A)                     APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER PLANNING ONLY:-

1.

09/01115/FUL

Runwood Homes PLC

Redevelopment of site to provide a residential care home.  French Horn, Oxford Road, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 7DP. 

p

2.

09/01127/FUL

Frontier Estates Ltd

Partial site redevelopment to provide retail (A1) use on ground and first floor, 22 new residential units, retention of 6 existing residential units and associated basement car parking.  Retention and change of use of 44 Oak End Way to office (B1) use and construction of vehicular access.  31 – 37 Station Road & 44 – 54 Oak End Way, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire SL9 8ES. 

D(PO)

(Note: Prior to consideration of this application, Mr Geoffrey Hoare on behalf of the objectors, and Mr Tony Tapley the agent, addressed the Committee).

RESOLVED that the application be deferred and the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the Director of Services subject to:

(a)    completion of a legal agreement relating to a parking remediation sum;

(b)    an amendment to condition 8 – replace “no other part of the development shall commence” with “The retail store hereby approved shall not be opened”;

(c)    an additional informative to protect the roots of a tree situated in the neighbouring property

(d)    changing informative 9 to a condition; and

(e)    an amendment to condition 11 – delivery hours restricted to Monday – Saturday 6:30 to 21:00 and Sundays and Public/Bank Holiday 8:30 to 18:00 hours.

3.

09/01145/FUL

St James Group

Retention of Butlers Court House for B1 purposes and redevelopment of site for 49 residential dwellings, garaging, landscaping, parking, cycle and refuse stores.  Land at Butlers Court, Wattleton Road, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire HP9 1RT

D(PO)

(Notes:

(1) Mr Walters as ward member, (but not in attendance at the meeting) supplied a letter of support for this application to the Committee.

(2) Mr Brown declared a personal interest in this matter, as a member of the Beaconsfield Town Council Planning Committee).

RESOLVED that the application be deferred and the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the Director of Services subject to:

(a)    completion of a legal agreement for affordable  housing, education and highway contributions; and

(b) an addition to condition 18 - “Thereafter the Local area for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

To consider clarification of wording to ensure consistency between delegated authority and public speaking criteria relating to the 10 letter of objection threshold.

The Committee received a note that explained the difference between Parts A and B of the Committee Agenda.

Officers also asked for clarification of wording to ensure consistency between the delegated authority and public speaking criteria relating to the 10 letters of objection threshold. 

RESOLVED that the word “sources” be replaced with “households (not petitions or duplicate letters)” in para A (1) (i) of the Planning Committee officer delegations in the Constitution Part 3 – Responsibility for Functions.

To receive FOR INFORMATION the report of the Director of Services.

The Committee noted a report of the Director of Services, outlining enforcement performance monitoring information. The following figures were reported for the period October 2008 – September 2009:

Oct –

Dec

08

Jan -

Mar

09

year

(08/

09)

Apr –

Jun

09

Jul-

Sep

09

No. of enforcement cases (allegations) open at 1.10.08

773

774

706

715

633

No. of enforcement cases (allegations) open at 31.12.08

774

715

715

633

583

No. of enforcement cases (allegations) closed during the quarter

57

108

246

127

128

No. of new enforcement cases opened during the quarter

58

49

255

45

78

Age distribution of cases open at period end

            – less than one year

              1 – 4 years

              More than 4 years

                                           TOTAL                       

173

315

227

715

173

315

227

715

154

298

181

633

153

310

120

583

Members thanked Mr Ralphs, The Enforcement & Conservation Officer for his great efforts in achieving the above results.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider report of the Director of Services.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Services requesting authority to issue an enforcement notice in relation to unauthorised development consisting of the erection of a single storey side and rear extension approximately 12.5 metres x 6.5 metres in size at Benrath, Park Road, Stoke Poges.

In 2006 a complaint was received by the Council concerning various developments taking place on the land. A site visit was undertaken and the owners written to, informing them that a breach of planning control had taken place and inviting them to submit a retrospective planning application.

A planning application was received on 16 October 2007 for a replacement detached dwelling with basement and detached double garage and was refused on 27 November 2007.

A further site visit concluded that the breaches were still ongoing, and the owner was written to requesting that the breach be rectified.  A revised application was submitted on 10 April 2008 for a replacement detached dwelling with basement and detached double garage, which was refused on 2 June 2008.

On 17 November 2008 a Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Development application was submitted for a smaller single storey side and rear extension, and was refused on 24 December 2008.

At further site visit on 29 September 2009, it was noted that the breach, namely the single storey side and rear extension still remained in situ.  The owners had been further written to, with a view to remedying the breach of planning control, but the breach remains.  No appeal had been lodged in relation to the refusal of the Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Development application, but there was still time to lodge an appeal. 

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised members that the owner wished to submit an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use (CLU) for the development based on a 4 year immunity claim.  The owner has been informed that Committee authority was to be sought for enforcement action (as our evidence disputes the proposed claim) – however an extended period before the notice would take effect would be requested – without prejudice to a CLU application. 

The reason for expediency was that the extension when considered cumulatively together with previous extensions that have been carried out to the building, by virtue of the resultant size and scale of the building when considered in relation to the original building and its intrusive impact upon its setting in the landscape, contributes to the erosion of the Green Belt which, individually and when considered in the context of an accumulation of similar proposals, detrimentally affects the aims and objectives of the Green Belt. As such the development is contrary to Policy GB10 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999).

RESOLVED that an Enforcement Notice be issued and served pursuant to Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, (as amended) in relation to the unauthorised development consisting of the erection of a single storey side and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

To consider report of the Director of Services.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Services requesting authority to issue an enforcement notice in relation to the above dwelling in the terms set out below:

 Alterations and extensions to the roof including:-

(i)             an increase in the height of the main roof by 0.7 metres and the roof above the garage by 1.1 metres;

(ii)           the extension of the central portion of the main roof to align with the roof above the west side of the dwelling;          

(iii)          the insertion of a crown in the main roof and

                        Alterations and extensions to the front and rear elevations of the dwelling including:-

(i)      increased height of all external walls of the main dwelling by 1.1 metres and an increase in the height of the flank wall of the garage by 0.4 metres;

(ii)     the erection of a first floor extension in the east side of the central portion of the front elevation, to align with the west side of the front elevation, increasing the projection by 0.5 metres and

Alterations and additions to the fenestration of the front and rear elevations of the dwelling including:-

(i)           the insertion of 2 roof lights in the west side of the front elevation and insertion of 2 dormer windows in the front elevation of the garage;

(ii)         the insertion of 5 roof lights in the middle and west section of the rear elevation  and insertion of 2 dormer windows in the rear elevation of the garage;

(iii)       the insertion of 4 windows located on the first floor of the rear elevation in the west flank wall of the two storey rear extension and

The stationing of an external air conditioning unit situated on the wall of the 1^st floor of the rear elevation of the dwelling.

The report went on to detail the history of the case.  Authority was now been sought for the issue of one Enforcement Notice accepting that the planning permission ref 06/00777/FUL was capable of implementation, in the knowledge that the dormer windows had the benefit of the 06/00777/FUL planning permission and the roof lights would have been Permitted Development, however both were still unauthorised as they had been added to/inserted within an unauthorised roof. 

Legal warning letters dated 26 October 2009 were sent to the owners (copied to their solicitor and agent) and the occupier to inform them that in light of the refusal of planning permission references 09/01146/FUL, 09/01148/FUL and 09/01150/FUL Planning Committee authority would be sought for the issue of an Enforcement Notice. Representations were invited.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services drew attention to recent correspondence between the owners agent and officers. The agents had informed officers that a revised planning application was intended to be submitted on 24 November 2009 and had requested deferral of the enforcement action on this basis – and had also indicated that if such a deferral was granted then appeals against the refusal of the earlier 3 applications would not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

To receive FOR INFORMATION.

The Committee received for information a progress report which set out the up-to-date position relating to Enforcement Notices.

To receive FOR INFORMATION the report of the Director of Services.

The Committee received details of planning and enforcement appeals lodged and determined. 

A.         Appeal Statistics for the period 1 April 2009 – 31 October 2009

Planning appeals allowed (Planning application only as defined in BV204):

28.9% (13 out of 45) against a target of 30%

Total appeals allowed (Planning, tree, enforcement and other appeals):

30.6% (15 out of 49). No target set.

Percentage of appeals allowed in accordance with officer recommendation, despite decision to refuse by Members:

100% (2 out of 2).No target set.

B.         Appeals Lodged

(1)    Planning Appeals Lodged

Date

Received

(a)

09/01065/FUL

Banner Homes Limited

Redevelopment of site to provide six flats, surface car parking and construction of vehicular access.

1 Blyton Close, Beaconsfield

19/10/2009

(b)

09/01188/FUL

Mr P Van Der Merwe

Detached garage.

21 Crispin Way, Farnham Common

02/11/2009

C.         Appeal Decisions

(1)        Planning Appeal Decisions

Date

Received

(a)

09/00670/FUL

Dr N Bruyniks

Retention of first floor rear extension.

Crowther Lodge, Cherry Tree Lane, Iver Heath

Appeal dismissed – D

6/10/2009

(b)

09/00640/FUL

Mr J Crockett

Retention of front boundary wall and gates.

South End Cottage, Middle Green, Wexham

Appeal dismissed – D

8/10/2009

(c)

09/00416/FUL

Abbeyfield Maidenhead Society Ltd

Replacement care home consisting of 26 rooms. Associated car parking.

Dewstraw, 147 Lent Rise Road, Burnham

Appeal allowed – CC

20/10/2009

(d)

09/00349/FUL

Mr N Heslop

Attached single garage and construction of vehicular access.

Hogback Cottage, 33 Woodside Avenue, Beaconsfield

Appeal dismissed – D

28/10/2009

(e)

09/00922/FUL

Mr & Mrs I Barrow

Single storey front/side extension.

Sundown Cottage, 42 Hedgerley Lane, Gerrards Cross

Appeal allowed – D

28/10/2009

(f)

09/00679/FUL

Mr Ajit Rihal

Two storey and first floor side extensions, incorporating increased ridge height to accommodate loft space.

Pypers Lea, 25 Manor Lane, Gerrards Cross

Appeal dismissed – D

28/10/2009

D.         Appeals Withdrawn

Planning Appeal Withdrawn

Date

Received

(a)

08/01597/FUL

LS Taplow

Application to Discharge and Modify Planning Obligations in the Section 106 Agreement dated 16th April 1997 'To permit the sale of food and drink'.

The Bishop Centre, Bath Road, Taplow

02/11/2009

Note:  The letter(s) shown after the decision indicate:-

            CO        -           Committee decision to refuse permission on officer recommendation

CC        -           Committee decision to refuse permission contrary to officer recommendation

            D          -           Delegated officer decision to refuse permission

            ND        -           Appeal against non-determination of application

To note:

The Consultative Body considered a report in respect of South Bucks District Council Tree Preservation Order No 31, 2009 relating to an Ash tree at 10 Church Walk, Burnham, Buckinghamshire, SL1 7AR.  AGREED that the Order be revoked on the grounds that the tree can be removed in pursuance of a valid planning permission (reference 08/00496/FUL)

To note the following decision taken in consultation with the Consultative Body:

South Bucks District Council Tree Preservation Order No. 31, 2009: Ash Tree at 10 Church Walk, Burnham

AGREEDthat the Order be revoked on the grounds that the tree can be removed in pursuance of a valid planning permission (reference 08/00496/FUL)

The meeting terminated at 6.30 p.m.