Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Robert Boyle, Rob Henry and Nigel Williams.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 March 2026.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning & Development Committee held on 12 March 2026 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider an application for Planning Permission for demolition of existing care home and erection of 15 no. flats, extended dropped kerb, associated parking and ancillary works

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing vacant care home and the erection of 15 flats on land at the bottom of Pound Avenue, adjacent to Astonia Lodge and nearby residential dwellings.

The Planning Officer presented the site location, photographs of the existing building, surrounding area, and proposed elevations. The proposed development was described as slightly taller than No. 4 Pound Avenue but lower than Astonia Lodge. Floor plans, parking provision (5 spaces), cycle storage, and waste arrangements were outlined. CGI images were also shown to illustrate the proposed scheme.

The Committee was advised that the site constituted previously developed land in a sustainable location with good access to services and transport links. The principle of residential development was considered acceptable and compliant with relevant planning policies.

The design, scale, and massing were considered acceptable within a varied streetscape. The use of appropriate materials and architectural features was expected to enhance the appearance of the currently derelict site.

The Committee noted concerns regarding overlooking and proximity to neighbouring properties. Separation distances of 19–22 metres were considered acceptable in an urban context. Conditions were proposed requiring obscure glazing to protect privacy. While the building represented an increase in scale, no significant harm to outlook was identified.

It was noted that one flat fell below nationally described space standards; however, this was balanced by larger bedroom provision and was considered acceptable overall.

The proposal included 5 parking spaces, below policy requirements (9 spaces). This was identified as a policy conflict. However, the site was considered highly sustainable, and a recent appeal decision was noted where lack of parking did not justify refusal. Highways officers raised no objections on safety grounds. Members discussed concerns about overspill parking and local congestion. Revised cycle storage provision (21 spaces) was accepted following earlier concerns, with secure and accessible facilities proposed.

The Local Lead Flood Authority raised no objections subject to conditions, and an acceptable drainage strategy was secured. The scheme could not deliver on-site biodiversity net gain; however, the applicant committed to achieving the required 10% gain off-site through credits. This would be secured by condition. Waste and recycling arrangements were considered acceptable and sustainable construction measures would be secured by condition.

Members raised concerns regarding:

• Lack of affordable housing
• Insufficient parking provision and potential overspill
• Substandard size of one unit
• Loss of care home use

Members also highlighted the benefits of redeveloping a vacant brownfield site and delivering much-needed housing.

Members were informed that policy required 25% affordable housing (4 units). However, the applicant submitted a viability appraisal demonstrating that the scheme was not financially viable with affordable housing or contributions. This was independently reviewed, and both assessments concluded the scheme would result in a deficit. It was therefore accepted that no affordable housing or Section 106 contributions could be secured. The development would remain liable for Community Infrastructure Levy payments.

Concerns regarding the loss of the care home were noted; however, the building had been vacant since 2020 and was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To consider the erection of first floor side extension.

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a first-floor side extension at 60 Uplands, located within the Chells Manor Ward. The proposal related to an extension above an existing garage and dining room of a two-storey linked detached property.

Members were advised that the property currently benefitted from a front driveway laid in block paving, providing space for two vehicles. It was noted that the existing garage had internal dimensions of approximately 2.25 metres by 5.02 metres, which fell below the Council’s standard of 3 metres by 6 metres and therefore was not counted as a formal parking space.

The proposed development comprised a first-floor extension to provide a study, storeroom, and ensuite bathroom. Officers advised that the design was proportionate in accordance with relevant Council policies.

Photographs of the site and surrounding context were presented, including front and rear elevations. Members noted the relationship of the property to neighbouring dwellings, including Nos. 59 and 63.

The Committee was informed that the application had been brought before Members because the applicant was a member of staff. Officers confirmed that the proposal was considered acceptable and recommended approval.

In response to a question from Members, officers clarified that the extension was intended solely for use as part of the existing single household. It was confirmed that the development did not involve subdivision or use as separate accommodation.

The Council has acted Pro-Actively for the following reason:-

1. Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. Discussion with the applicant to seek an acceptable solution was not necessary in this instance. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015

A recorded vote* was taken on the application and it was RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out below:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan; P1; P2; P3

2.The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

3.The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match the materials used in the construction of the original building to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

*Recorded Vote

For – Councillors Julie Ashley-Wren, Stephen Booth, Forhad Chowdhury, Peter Clark, Lynda Guy, Claire Parris, Ellie Plater, and Carolina Veres

Against – 0

Abstentions – 0

Absent – Councillors Robert Boyle, Kamal Choudhury, Coleen De Freitas, Akin Elekolusi, Rob Henry & Nigel Williams

To note a report on decisions taken by the Assistant Director Planning and Regulatory in accordance with his delegated authority.

Members raised a question regarding an application which was granted planning permission.

Officers advised that planning applications could be determined under delegated powers, and that members were able to make representations or request a call-in only during the statutory consultation period.

Members were advised to review the weekly planning applications list to ensure they were aware of relevant submissions.

It was RESOLVED that the Information Report – Delegated Decisions be noted.

To note a report on decisions taken by the Assistant Director Planning and Regulatory in accordance with his delegated authority.

It was RESOLVED that the Information Report – Appeals / Called In Decisions be noted.

To consider any Part I Business accepted by the Chair as urgent.

There was no Urgent Part I Business.

To consider the following motions that:

1.    Under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in paragraphs 1-7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act as amended by Local Government (Access to information) (Variation) Order 2006.

2.    That Members consider the reasons for the following reports (if any)being in Part II and determine whether or not maintaining the exemption from disclosure of the information contained therein outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

It was RESOLVED: 

1. That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in paragraphs1 – 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act as amended by Local Government (Access toInformation) (Variation) Order 2006. 

2.That Members consider the reasons for the following reports being in Part II and determine whether or not maintaining the exemption from disclosure of the information contained therein outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

To consider any Part II Business accepted by the Chair as urgent.

There was no Urgent Part II Business.