Minutes Planning Meeting 15 January 2018

MINUTES

MINUTES of the Meeting of the Planning Committee held on Monday 15 January 2018 at 7.30pm in the Lionel Rigby Room at the Village Centre, Rogers Lane, Stoke Poges

 

Present:- Cllr Carter (Chair), Cllr Crocker, Mr Duncombe, Mr Harris and Cllr Hoskins.

In Attendance:- Mrs J Simmonds                                                                                                                  

 

 

075/PL/18       Items by Members of Public Present.

The meeting is open to the public and press and the first 15 minutes will be reserved, if required, for public comment.

None

 

076/PL/18       Apologies for Absence

APOLOGIES were received from Cllr Taylor.

 

077/PL/18         Declarations of Interest

Members to declare any personal interest in any item of business as defined in the Code of Conduct 2007.  If that interest is a prejudicial interest as defined in the Code, the member should withdraw from the meeting for that item.

None

 

078/PL/18       Minutes

RESOLVED to approve the Minutes of the Planning Meeting held on 11 December 2017 which were signed by the Chairman.

 

079/PL/18       Planning Applications

(i) RESOLVED to approve delegated decisions submitted for Planning Applications for which the response date was prior to this Committee Meeting.   See Appendix 1.

(ii) RESOLVED to consider and formulate a response to new Planning Applications received. See Appendix 2. Plus amended plans for information only.

 

080/PL/18       NOTED Planning Decisions, Enforcements and Appeals.

District Decisions made since the last Planning Committee Meeting.  See Appendix 3.

 

081/PL/18       NOTED Outstanding Enforcements See Appendix 4.

                                   

082/PL/18       Correspondence.

 

083/PL/18       Exclusion of the Press & Public

Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960  RESOLVED to exclude the press and public from the following business because publicity would prejudice the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business.  Part two items:- To discuss any possible unlawful buildings or business’s which have not been granted enforcement notices and therefore are not public.

 

NOTED Next meeting date:  19 February 2018

 

Meeting ended at 8.20pm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signed/Chairman                                                                    Dated

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 1

DELEGATED DECISIONS

 

APPENDIX 2

 NEW PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED

 

17/02344/FUL                    Mayflower, 4 School Lane, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4QA    

Part two storey/part first floor front/side/rear extension.

Parish Comments:-  No objection subject to the 50% Green Belt rules.

 

17/02340/FUL                    Firs Field, Duffield Lane, Stoke Poges, Bucks, Sl2 4AJ

Detached single storey dwelling.

Parish Comments:-  Object. This application does not comply with and is contrary to policies GB1 & GB2.  

 

We do not believe this proposed dwelling constitutes exceptional circumstances. Section 3.9 of the local plan makes the point that land that has been built on will be lost forever.

 

This site also backs onto a SSSI.

 

The NPPF makes reference to adverse impacts to building on the Greenbelt, this application does not conform to paragraph 87.  

 

We have had concerns (reported to Planning Enforcement) as fencing has been erected which is contrary to policy GB2 (c) & (d)

 

We support the SBDC reasons for refusal of the last application 17/00179/FUL points 1 & 2.

 

This proposal, if permitted, would be likely to act as a precursor of further applications for similar types of development within this part of the Green Belt, which the District Planning Authority would find increasingly difficult to resist and which, cumulatively, would further seriously prejudice the openness of the Green Belt and the aims and objectives of the Green Belt Policy.

 

17/02329/FUL                    East Lodge, Keens Acre, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4QA

Conversion of existing outbuilding into annexe.

Parish Comments:-  Object, contrary to Policies H12 and GB1.  This proposal, if permitted, would be likely to act as a precursor of further applications for similar types of development within this part of the Green Belt, which the District Planning Authority would find increasingly difficult to resist and which, cumulatively, would further seriously prejudice the openness of the Green Belt and the aims and objectives of the Green Belt Policy.

 

17/02326/CAN                    The Stoke Poges School, Rogers lane, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4LN

Various Tree Works (Stoke Poges Conservation Area)

Parish Comments:-  No objection subject to the arboriculturalists report.

 

17/02309/FUL                    25 Hazell Way, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4DD

Two storey rear extension and fenestration alterations.

Parish Comments:-  No Comment

 

17/02411/CAN                    East Lodge, Park Road, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4PG

(T1) Prunus – Crown reduction by 25% (1-1.5m in height and 1.5-1.75m off lateral branches) (Stoke Park Conservation Area).

Parish Comments:-  No objection subject to the arboriculturalists report.

 

17/02255/FUL                    Palm Villa, 6 Stoke Court Drive, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4LT

Single storey side and rear extension.

Parish Comments:-  Object Policies EP3 (a) and H9 (a) apply.

 

17/02245/FUL                    120 Rogers lane, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4LN

Single storey rear extension incorporating roof lantern.

Parish Comments:-  No Comment

 

17/02246/LBC                    120 Rogers Lane, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4LN

Listed Building Application for:- Single storey rear extension incorporating roof lantern and loft conversion incorporating front and rear rooflights.

Parish Comments:-  No Comment

 

 

AMENDED PLANS FOR INFORMATION

 

APPENDIX 3

PLANNING DECISIONS

 

 

 

17/02020/FUL                    36 Freemans Close, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4ER

Two storey front extension with front canopy, first floor side extension and single storey rear extension.

Parish Comments:-  No Objection.

Full Planning Permission

 

17/01996/OUT                    Brockhurst Park, Rickmans Lane, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4AF

Outline application for: Redevelopment of the site to provide three detached dwellings with detached garages.

Parish Comments:-  Object.  Overdevelopment by adding more buildings in place of one existing building.  This doesn’t comply with the 50% rule because the mezzanine does not actually exist.

Outline Planning Permission

 

17/02128/TPO                    Building A, Sefton Park, Bells Hill, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4HD                      

T678 Salix Caprea – Goat Willow (T678) – Pollard Tree to 1 meter from ground level and encourage re-growth.

Parish Comments:-  No objection subject to the arboriculturalists report.

Consent Granted

 

 

 

APPEALS

16/02437/FUL                    3 Clevehurst Close, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4EP

Replacement dwelling and construction of vehicular access.

Parish Comments:- 

  1. Object previous comments still apply which were:-

 

‘Object, this whole application contravenes the following policies:-  EP3 (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e), H9 (a) & (b), H10 (a), (b), (c), (d), & (e), EP5 (a) & (b)

The east elevation to number 5 Clevehurst Close will suffer a complete loss of light into their ground floor bay window, the window is not shown on the applicants plans!!!  The living accommodation over the garage at number 5 Clevehurst Close will also suffer loss of light issues due to the 60 degree rule not being applied. 

The applicant has quoted policies EP6 TR5 and TR7, we do not believe that these are relevant to application. 

We do not believe that this development fits or enhances the street scene in any way, it is over dominant and not in scale with the surrounding houses and does not respect or harmonise with surrounding houses, and will prevent loss of daylight to neighbours. 

 

Contrary to the NPPF paragraph 60 we believe that this does not reflect local distinctiveness.

If minded to approve we believe that this will act as a precursor for further inappropriate redevelopment and over development of this distinctive road’

 

  1. Additional Comments on Revised Scheme.

 

Looking at the amendments of this application we do not believe that the slight reduction of 500mm on each side of the development is enough to address the obtrusiveness of this proposal. 

 

The comments from SBDC’s previous refusal (shown below) still, in our view, apply and we do not believe that the minor amendments made to this proposal can in anyway be considered as satisfying the previous objections. There is no doubt that this new proposal will have an adverse impact on the street scene and the character and visual amenities of the area.

 

 

  • The South Bucks Townscapes Character study part A.

 

 

The proposed development is contrary to observations in section 3.3 Woodland Roads, which we believe in general can apply to Clevehurst Close.  Styles are described as being generally asymmetrical and informal. We believe that in Clevehurst Close this development is totally out of character being of formal and regular design and showing none of the characteristics recommended by the Townscape study.

 

 

  • The Basement.

 

 

The basement is considerably larger than the footprint of the actual house and there are concerns about the water table which is very high in this particular area. There is no method statement as yet that addresses the construction of the basement which would describe how the basement is to be constructed without disruption and damage to adjacent properties.  There are also concerns around dewatering the site because Clevehurst Close is drained using low capacity soakaways and not main surface water drains. How the dewatering will be undertaken is therefore of considerable concern to the residents.

 

Additionally, there is concern that this basement development may increase the risk of flooding to the property or surrounding properties and the road in general. This part of Stoke Poges is very close to the Common (SSSI) and it is acknowledged generally that the water table is very high in this area.

 

National Planning Policy Framework states that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere and that the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk, also any development within flood risk areas should be accompanied by a site-specific flood risk assessment. National Planning Practice Guidance classifies ‘basement dwellings’ as ‘highly vulnerable’ therefore any basement dwellings proposed in areas of high risk of flooding are likely to be refused.

 

Please see the attached photographs.

Refusal

Written Reps

Appeal Dismissed

 

17/00298/FUL                    29 Decies Way, Stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4EF

Detached chalet bungalow.

Parish Comments:-  Our previous comments still apply which were:-

We are concerned about the access for vehicles from the point of view that Decies Way is already overstretched with parked cars.  We also have concerns around the public access from other neighbouring houses who currently use the rear access for wheelie bins to and from the rear of their properties. We highly recommend that SBDC do a site visit!!

If the conifer/cypress hedge remains it would cause no problems to any neighbours, but removing it would be a loss of an amenity.

Refusal of Planning Permission

Written Representations.

 

16/02067/FUL                    29 Decies Way, stoke Poges, Bucks, SL2 4EF

Detached chalet bungalow.

Parish Comments:-  We are concerned about the access for vehicles from the point of view that Decies Way is already overstretched with parked cars.  We also have concerns around the publics access from other neighbouring houses who currently use the rear access for wheelie bins to and from the rear of their properties. We highly recommend that SBDC do a site visit.

If the conifer/cypress hedge remains it would cause no problems to any neighbours, but removing it would be a loss of an amenity.

Refusal of Planning Permission

 

Both Appeals Dismissed

 

 

 

 

TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS