Agenda and minutes

At this point Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting, any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

None were declared.

To approve and sign the minutes of the last meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 9 July 2009.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on the 9 July 2009 be approved as a correct record by the Chair and signed by the Chair.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Sub-Committee’s remit can do so. Anyone who wishes to register or requires further information is requested to contact the Democracy Officer on the contact details listed at the foot of this agenda. The deadline for registering is Wednesday 22 July 2009 at 5 pm.

It was reported that nobody had registered to speak under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme, on general issues within the remit of the Sub-Committee.

To determine the following planning applications related to the East Area.

Members considered a schedule of reports of the Assistant Director (Planning and Sustainable development), relating to the following planning applications, outlining the proposals and relevant policy considerations and setting out the views and advice of consultees and Officers.

A full application for the erection of an extension to the existing Sainsbury’s store together with the reconfiguration of the existing car park and internal alterations.

Members considered a full application for the erection of an extension to the existing Sainsbury’s store together with the reconfiguration of the existing car park and internal alterations.

The Officer circulated an update to Members which included certain corrections to the written report in the agenda. Firstly, the location of the site on the plan attached to the agenda was incorrect.  Secondly, the figure agreed by Sainsbury’s in a unilateral undertaking towards highway works identified by the Monks Cross Masterplan Highways Network Management, was £12,300 not £12,500 as stated in Paragraph 5.3 of the Officer’s Report.  The Officer explained that a unilateral undertaking was a legal agreement submitted by the applicant to pay the required amount and would not need to be covered by a condition.

The Officer explained that the architect had agreed to the planting of additional trees within the car park and that this requirement could be incorporated into a landscaping condition for the whole site.  A condition was also required to ensure that the Framework Travel Plan submitted with the application was expanded into a Full Travel Plan. The Officer also commented on a previous application for the redevelopment of the existing petrol filling station which included a car wash within the existing car park.  The car wash proposal could still be implemented and would involve the loss of 8 car parking spaces.  However, the applicant is now examining the alternative locations for the car wash as they had no wish to lose any further car parking.

Members commented on the briefing note delivered to Members by Sainsbury’s and questioned the decision to have this document presented in a non recyclable plastic folder.

Members questioned the Officer on the type of trees that were to be planted in and around the car park and wished to ensure that substantial specimens are planted whilst not restricting visibility within the car park.

Members remarked that they had noticed on the site visit that the location of the disabled parking spaces was not particularly convenient and asked the applicant’s agent whether any changes could be made.

The agent for Sainsbury’s, answered the Members’ query by saying that the car parking for disabled customers will be located in their current position in the new car park.  She added that there will be an additional eight spaces regardless of location within the car park, and pointed out that the larger dimensions required by the disabled spaces made them difficult to move without compromising the car parking layout as a whole. If the spaces were to move closer to the area occupied by the ATM machines this could also cause potential conflict due to the narrowness of the path in this area.  She reiterated that Sainsbury’s had a good record of reviewing customer feedback and would continue to do this should any specific issues arise.

Some Members commented  that mobile disablement is not the only form of disability and this meant that it was not always necessary to locate disabled parking spaces  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15a

A full application to erect a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension to a semi-detached house at 18 Brentwood Crescent.

Members considered a full application to erect a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension to a semi-detached house at 18 Brentwood Crescent.

The Officer provided an update for Members in which it was noted that there had been;

·        two further letters of objection to the application received from neighbours, mainly regarding the loss of privacy

·        information that the applicant owns and lets other properties within the area

·        that internal alterations that were due to be made were not included in the plan

A written representation in opposition of the application was circulated amongst Members from two neighbours at number 15 Brentwood Crescent.  The main objection contained in the submission was that of parking issues should there be an increase in the number of car users at the application site.

Further representations against the application were heard.  The first was from a neighbour who lived at number 19 Brentwood Crescent who commented on the angle and proximity of the extension and her view that its dominant nature will negatively affect her property.  She added that the terracing effect of the extension would block out light from her son’s bedroom and the hallway. She added that there were major parking issues that needed to be addressed as numbers 15, 16, 19 and 20 Brentwood Crescent do not have road frontages to allow parking. The neighbour stated that currently the residents of number 21 have four cars and that she has been blocked from leaving her property by these cars.  The neighbour also added that she did not think that the extension would fit in with the already existing buildings on the cul de sac.

The second representation in opposition of the application was from a neighbour who lived at number 17.  He told Members that he had lived there for seventeen years and was devastated that developers could spoil the area again.  He commented that the application site will house four students this coming academic year, but that with the extension could house two additional people, taking the occupancy up to six. He suggested that the additional numbers of student residents in the area have caused the current parking problems. He added that on a previous application for a conservatory the applicant had incorporated a glass panel on top of the brick wall to reduce the loss of light.  He was concerned that the proposed structure was a more solid construction with a tiled roof and would reduce light to his property.  He remarked that this conservatory and an existing en-suite had not been shown on the site plan.

The third representation in opposition to the application was from the Ward Member, Councillor Pierce. He urged refusal of the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and the adverse impact on the streetscene. He suggested that if the application was not refused then he recommended that it be deferred and delegated to the Assistant Director in order to obtain assurances from the applicant that no more than two cars are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15b