Agenda and minutes

The Chairman revised the running order, as reflected in these minutes.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2016, be agreed as a correct record.

Apologies were received from Councillor Patel, with Councillor Coakley Webb as her substitute.

Items contained within the addendum were considered under individual agenda items.

The Committee considered the report.

Representations were heard from John Ireton, Janet Daley and the applicant.

Members were concerned that accurate measurements were not available.

It was moved by Councillor Sowerby and seconded by Councillor Roberts that the application be deferred, so that accurate measurements can be reported back to the Committee in respect of the distance between the habitable rooms in the block and the existing residential properties opposite the site in Rosslyn Avenue, prior to a decision being taken.

RESOLVED that the application be deferred for the reason detailed above.

The Committee received the report.

Representations were heard from Jeffrey Cronick, Marese Walmsley and the applicant’s agent.

A vote was taken with regard to approving the application:

It was moved by Councillor Cornelius and seconded by Councillor Sowerby that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development by reason of its size, siting, height, design and number of units proposed would represent an over intensification of use and overdevelopment of the site  which would be inappropriate and out of context with the prevailing character of the area, contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (Adopted October 2016)

2. The proposed development would result in the loss of a 4 bedroom dwelling house, contrary to policy DM08 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012)  and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012)

3. The proposed development by reason of its size, siting, height, depth and relationship with adjoining neighbouring properties would have an overbearing appearance and would adversely affect the light received to the top floor kitchens of neighbouring Falcon Court flats, contrary to CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012) and policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed above.

The Committee received the report.

Representations were heard from Olivia Ellah and the applicant’s agent.

A vote was taken on approving the application:

It was moved by Councillor Cornelius and seconded by Councillor Sowerby that the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.         The proposed development by reason of its size, siting, design, massing, bulk, height and depth would have an overbearing appearance when viewed from the adjoining properties, nos. 42 and 46 Holden Road which would adversely affect the outlook from these properties and loss of light, detrimental to the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers  contrary to  CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012) and policy DM01  of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012).

2.         The proposed development would also result in the loss of the existing building which contributes to the overall character of the area without a suitable replacement building contrary to policies CS NPPF, CS1 and CS5 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012), policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (Adopted October 2016)

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED for the reasons detailed above.

The Committee received the report.

A representation was heard from the applicant’s agent.

RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and subject to the addendum.

The Committee received the report.

RESOLVED that the application be approved, subject to the conditions detailed in the report and subject to the addendum.

The Committee received the report.

RESOLVED that the Planning Enforcement Quarterly Update for the period October to December 2016 be noted.

None.