Apologies were received from Councillor Edwards.

RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2016 be approved and signed by the Chair as a true record.

None.

Senior Planner, Mrs Meppem, presented this report on the change of use from A1 vacant premises to Mixed Use comprising B1 – Business consisting:- (B1(a) Office and B1(c) light industrial), and A1 - Retail.

Members were informed that there were no external alterations proposed, only internal alterations to the layout.  As per the report, 6 letters of objection had been received raising concern regarding the lack of consultation; impact on residential amenities from noise; dust etc, an increase in traffic/parking from additional vehicles; inappropriate use within a residential area; and inappropriate use of building with historic interest. She explained that the workshops were located closer to the rail line to minimise the impact on neighbouring residents.  Members were shown plans and photographs of the application site.  Having regard to the representations received, appropriate conditions have been imposed to address concerns. 

Councillor Wincott proposed a motion to approve the application as set out in the resolution below.  This was seconded by Councillor Scott.

RESOLVED - (unanimously) that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:-

The Planning Services Manager, Mrs Evans, presented this report for the installation of a single conservation velux to the front roof on the front elevation. 

Members were advised that this application was brought before the committee because the properties in Old Humphrey Avenue are protected by an Article 4 Direction which restricts permitted development rights, including alterations of this type which normally would not require a planning application.

One update to the report had been received since the publication of the agenda:-

·       The applicant has confirmed the proposed materials for the velux as follows:- Grey power coated aluminium flush frame with vertical glazing bar.

·       Condition 3, which required submission of materials, was therefore suggested to be removed from the recommendation.

Members were shown plans and photographs of the application site.

Although the roofline of the property is not clearly visible from the streetscene, the adjoining properties will be able to view the proposed rooflight from their upper floor window, of these views where the rooflight would be visible it is not considered to have a detrimental impact upon the street scene and surrounding conservation area due to the sensitive material proposed and its restricted site.  The proposal for a rooflight is intended to provide a light source and not a window to look out of.  Because the rooflight has been angled and views are limited and are mainly of the sky and adjoining roofs, it will not cause harmful overlooking onto nearby properties and therefore the application is considered to be acceptable.

After discussion, it was proposed to amend the wording of Condition 3 to include details of the materials rather than remove the Condition. 

Councillor Scott proposed a motion to approve the application as set out in the resolution below with the amendment to Condition 3. This was seconded by Councillor Beaver. 

Reasons:

Having declared her prejudicial interest, Councillor Beaney left the Chamber and took no part in the discussion or debate.

Senior Planner, Mrs Meppem, presented this report on the change of use from non-residential institution (D1 use) in connection with a language school to a single family dwelling house (C3 use). The site had been operating as a language school since 1992.

Members were advised that the applicant is a member of the council and therefore the application can only be determined by the Committee and not under delegated powers in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.  They were also informed that there were no internal or external alterations proposed, only changes to the use of the rooms.

Members were shown plans and photographs of the application site.

Members discussed the loss of the language school building which they felt was regrettable, however they said it will be beneficial to have decent size family accommodation in use.

Councillor Rogers proposed a motion to approve the application as set out in the resolution below.  This was seconded by Councillor Roberts. 

The Planning Services Manager reported that five planning appeals had been received and no planning appeals had been dismissed or allowed.  She also reported on the number of delegated decisions. 

All matters had arisen between 3 December to 22 December 2016.

The report was noted.