Demolition of existing workshop (Use Class B1) to erect a two storey yoga workshop (Use Class D2). Provision of cycle spaces.(Amended description).

The Committee considered an application (19/00249/FUL) for planning permission for the demolition of the existing workshop (Use Class B1) to erect a two storey yoga workshop (Use Class D2) and provision of cycle spaces (amended description).

The application had been called-in by Councillors Pressel, Fry, Tanner and Hollingsworth on the ground that there is a massive concern locally about the possible change of use to D2 in the middle of a residential area and the design of the proposed building.

The Council’s Planning Lawyer addressed the Committee on the points raised in the Counsel’s Opinion which had been circulated by Mr Orr a local resident, to the Planning Officer and members the Committee prior to the meeting.

The Planning Lawyer informed the Committee that the arguments in the opinion were not, in her view, persuasive and she did not consider that they could form the basis of a successful legal challenge to any decision to grant permission based on the content of the Planning Officer’s report.

The Planning Officer presented the report and reported that:

• an additional 8comments had been submitted in relation to the application (7 objections and 1 supporter) since the publication of the agenda but all of the material planning considerations raised were addressed in the Planning Officer’s report;

• paragraph 10.5 of the report should refer to policy CS28 not CS18;
• the wrong certificate of ownership had been submitted with the application; a  revised certificate had been now been submitted but this would require a 21 day consultation period. To address this it was proposed that the first bullet point at paragraph 1.1.2 of the report should be revised as follows (additional text in italics):

“Consider and deal with any new material planning considerations that may be raised through public consultation, which expires on the 11th April 2019 and consider and deal with any representations that may be made as a result of the notice which has now been served on the ownerwhich expires on the 29th April 2019, including deciding whether it is necessary to refer the application back to the committee prior to issuing the permission”.

Vernon Orr and Bianca Elgar spoke against the application. 

In discussion the Committee noted the following points:

·       that the Article 4 Direction did not apply to the application site as it was not a residential dwelling

·       that the proposed restriction to D2 use only as a yoga studio (proposed Condition 10) would prevent the use of any permitted development rights to change the use of the site

·       the concerns raised by local residents about potential increase in footfall and/or traffic were not limited to the proposed change of use to D2; the existing B1 designation could also result, without the need for any further planning permission, in a use of the site within that Use Class which could involve increased footfall and/or traffic

·       advice from the Conservation Officer that the heritage significance of the application site related primarily to its use as a light industrial and local business and to the fact that it created a visual break in the streetscene.

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered all the information put before it including the officer’s report and presentation; the speakers’ presentations; answers to questions put to the officers and officers’ professional advice.

After debate and on being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application subject to the inclusion of the revised wording to 2a) below shown in italics.

The West Area Planning Committee resolved to:

1.     approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report and grant planning permission; and

2.     delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning Services to:

a)    consider and deal with any new material planning considerations that may be raised through public consultation, which expires on the 11th April 2019 and deal with any representations that may be made as a result of the notice which has now been served on the owner which expires on the 29th April 2019, including deciding whether it is necessary to refer the application back to the committee prior to issuing the permission;

b)    finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

c)     issue the planning permission.

Sub-division of existing building to create 4 x 2-bed and 2 x-1 bed flats (Use Class C3). Demolition of existing rear extension and erection of a three storey extension to north elevation with external staircase and bin and cycle store (amended plans).

The Committee considered an application (18/03322/FUL) for planning permission for the sub-division of the existing building to create 4 x 2-bed and 2 x-1 bed flats (Use Class C3); the demolition of the existing rear extension and erection of a three storey extension to north elevation with external staircase and bin and cycle store (amended plans).

This application had been called in by Councillors Harris, Roz Smith, Landell-Mills, Wade and Goddard due to concerns about overbuilding and damage to the character of the Conservation Area.

The Planning Officer presented the report and referred the Committeeto a dormer window proposed to be located on the rear elevation of the existing building as it was not referred to explicitly within the assessment in paragraphs 10.17 and 10.28 of the report. The Planning Officer explained that the dormer was considered to form a visually appropriate relationship with the property, would be in keeping with the design of the existing dormers on the building, and would not give rise to unacceptable levels of overlooking or loss of privacy.

James Wyman, local resident, spoke against the application. 

Mark Utting, agent, spoke in favour of the application.

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered all the information put before it.

The Committee acknowledged that this was a sensitive site within the conservation area but on balance agreed with the Planning Officer’s judgement that the application would lead to less than substantial harm due to the position of the extension to the rear of the site and the relationship with the existing Church extension. The Committee concluded that the less than substantial harm was outweighed by the benefits of the proposal, in particular the removal of the garage to the front and the staircase to the side, the provision of an additional dwelling and improved quality of space for future occupiers of the site. 

After debate and on being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

The West Area Planning Committee resolved to:

1.     Approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report and grant planning permission; and

2.     delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning Services to:

finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary.