MINUTES of the PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD on THURSDAY, 5Th AUGUST 2010 at the TOWN HALL, BEACONSFIELD
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BEACONSFIELD TOWN COUNCIL Action s MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD ON THURSDAY, 5th AUGUST 2010 AT THE TOWN HALL, BEACONSFIELD Present: D.A. Sanders (DS), (Chairman), S. Akther (SA), F. Armstrong (FA), K.M. Brown (KB), G. Grover (GG), A.S. Hardie (AH), R.H. Keith (RK), J.L. Simmonds (JS), A.M. Walters and H.A.V. Wilson Apologies: Cllrs. Corney, Davies, Johnson, Jones and Sacchetti Absent: Cllr. Lowen-Cooper Minutes taken by Maeve Scanlon ITEM 1. Apologies for absence These were as set out above. ITEM 2. Minutes and Observations of Last Meeting The Minutes of the Planning Meeting held on 22 nd July were received, confirmed and DS recommended for approval and signed. ITEM 3. Matters Arising There were no matters arising. ITEM 4. Plans (1) This list of applications has been recommended as applications to be considered by the Committee 10/01046/FUL 3 Burgess Wood Road South – (Mr Coyle – Michael V S Hardiman & Assoc Ltd) Replacement detached dwelling and construction of vehicular access. OBSERVATIONS No objection 10/01053/FUL 110 Gregories Road – (Mr/s Figuero – Heighway Assoc) First floor front extension and part in-fill front extension. OBSERVATIONS No objection 10/01120/FUL 110 Gregories Road – (Mr/s Figuero – Heighway Assoc) Single storey rear extension. OBSERVATIONS No objection 10/01089/REM Oakwood (Plot 1), 50 Ledborough Lane – (Mr & Mrs Warburton – Robin Bretherick Associates) Redevelopment of site (Plot 1) detached dwellinghouse with integral garage, construction of vehicular access and landscaping. OBSERVATIONS Plots 1,2 & 3 were considered together. The Committee objected as the proposed development by virtue of its height, scale, siting and design would appear unduly prominent and obtrusive in this location. As such it was considered that the dwellings would appear cramped and out of keeping with the surrounding area to the detriment of the character and amenities of the locality and contrary to policies H9(a), (b) and EP3(a), (b), (c) & (d) of the SBDC Local Plan (adopted March 1999) and the guidance set out in the PPS3 ‘Housing’. Also the second reason for the refusal by SBDC under 08/01262/FUL being the height, siting and design of plots 2 & 3 would be unduly obtrusive and dominant when viewed from the rear of 50a Ledborough Lane is still relevant. The Committee believed that there was minimal change to the designs compared to those refused under 08/01262/FUL and therefore objected strongly to this application. 10/01092/REM Oakwood (Plot 2), 50 Ledborough Lane – (Mr & Mrs Warburton – Robin Bretherick Associates) Redevelopment of site (Plot 2) detached dwellinghouse with integral garage, construction of vehicular access and landscaping. OBSERVATIONS Plots 1,2 & 3 were considered together. The Committee objected as the proposed development by virtue of its height, scale, siting and design would appear unduly prominent and obtrusive in this location. As such it was 1 considered that the dwellings would appear cramped and out of keeping with the Actions surrounding area to the detriment of the character and amenities of the locality and contrary to policies H9(a), (b) and EP3(a), (b), (c) & (d) of the SBDC Local Plan (adopted March 1999) and the guidance set out in the PPS3 ‘Housing’. Also the second reason for the refusal by SBDC under 08/01262/FUL being the height, siting and design of plots 2 & 3 would be unduly obtrusive and dominant when viewed from the rear of 50a Ledborough Lane is still relevant. The Committee believed that there was minimal change to the designs compared to those refused under 08/01262/FUL and therefore objected strongly to this application. 10/01093/REM Oakwood (Plot 3), 50 Ledborough Lane – (Mr & Mrs Warburton – Robin Bretherick Associates) Redevelopment of site (Plot 3) detached dwellinghouse with integral garage, construction of vehicular access and landscaping. OBSERVATIONS Plots 1,2 & 3 were considered together. The Committee objected as the proposed development by virtue of its height, scale, siting and design would appear unduly prominent and obtrusive in this location. As such it was considered that the dwellings would appear cramped and out of keeping with the surrounding area to the detriment of the character and amenities of the locality and contrary to policies H9(a), (b) and EP3(a), (b), (c) & (d) of the SBDC Local Plan (adopted March 1999) and the guidance set out in the PPS3 ‘Housing’. Also the second reason for the refusal by SBDC under 08/01262/FUL being the height, siting and design of plots 2 & 3 would be unduly obtrusive and dominant when viewed from the rear of 50a Ledborough Lane is still relevant. The Committee believed that there was minimal change to the designs compared to those refused under 08/01262/FUL and therefore objected strongly to this application. 10/00977/FUL Beaconsfield SYCOB Football Club, Slough Road – (SYCOB – Shorne Tilbey Assoc Ltd) Detached first aid and wc block OBSERVATIONS No objection 10/01067/ADV Lloyds Bank, 3 Burkes Parade, Station Road - (Lloyds – DRW Architects Ltd) Internally illuminated marketing unit and ATM Tablet. OBSERVATIONS No objection 10/01085/LBC Hall Barn House, Windsor End – (The Hon Jenefer Farncombe – No agent detail) Listed building application for the construction of solar panels and internal alterationis including replacement boilers. OBSERVATIONS No objection. 10/01106/LBC Drummers Yard, Amersham Road – (Mr deVilliers – Evans & Crawley Chartered Surveyors) Listed building application for infill of existing and relocation and construction of enclosed swimming pool. OBSERVATIONS No objection 10/01012/ADV Old Mulberry House, 22 London End – (Mulberry’s of Beaconsfield Ltd – Tugman-Architects & designers) Backlit identification sign to front entrance wall. OBSERVATIONS No objection 10/01132/FUL Westbury, 6 Burkes Road – (Mr/s Ollis – Aves Architectural) Replacement detached dwelling. OBSERVATIONS No objection 10/01062/TEMP Old Mulberry House, 22 London End – (Mulberry’s of Beaconsfield Ltd – Tugman Architects & Designers) Change of use from Offices (Class B1) to use of premises for beauty and 2 hairdressing/healthcare facilities (Renewal of 04/01283/TEMP). Action s OBSERVATIONS The Committee asked that this be brought from List 2 in to List 1 as they were unhappy with the continuation of a temporary planning issue being allowed to continue for such a long time. They believed that at this stage, this should have been a full application and therefore the Committee totally object to this application on the basis presented. (2) This list of applications has been recommended for no objection 10/01035/FUL 17 Waller Road – (Mr Colwill – no agent detail) OBSERVATIONS Single storey front extension. No objection 10/01097/FUL 71 Lakes Lane – (Ms O’Mahony – Penn Planning) OBSERVATIONS Replacement roof to existing garage. No objection (3) This list of applications concerning all trees There were no applications to consider under this heading. ITEM 5. Planning Appeals : 26 Burgess Wood Road South and Land to rear of No’s 24, 28 and 30 : 09/01374/OUT : APP/NO410/A/10/2122027: Three detached dwelling-houses, ancillary garage and access. The Committee noted that SBDC had informed them that this Appeal had been Allowed. ITEM 6. South Bucks Local Development Framework: Submission of Core Strategy Development Plan Document for Examination It was noted that SBDC had now informed the Town Council that the Core Strategy Document had been submitted for examination to the Secretary of State. It was further noted that these documents needed to remain for inspection by the public in the Town Hall until March of 2011. ITEM 7. SBDC : Application for a Premises Licence : Beaconsfield High School : The Committee were concerned and therefore objected to the 11.00pm to midnight extension for each Friday, Saturday and Sunday because of the resultant noise and disturbance levels in such a residential area. The Clerk to write to SBDC accordingly. MS (Post Meeting Note: email sent to SBDC Licensing on 09.08.10 and acknowledgement received). ITEM 8. Chilterns Conservation Board : Training It was noted that the Board wanted feedback regarding their training sessions. The Clerk was asked to write to the Board to explain that as Beaconsfield only just touched in to the Conservation area, and MS because of other immediate commitments, none of the Town Councillors had attended their course. (Post Meeting Note : email sent 11.08.10 and acknowledgement received). ITEM 9. BCC : Section 278 Agreement : Fernhurst Close It was noted that BCC had confirmed by final certificate that the road works necessary at Fernhurst Close had been completed to their satisfaction and that the road was now adopted. ITEM 10. BCC : Area 4 : Post Implementation (Speed Limit) Review It was noted with regret that because of budget cuts the speed limits in this adjacent area of Beaconsfield would only be installed within the next Financial Year i.e. April 2011 onwards. ITEM 11. BCC : Street Lighting Initiative It was noted that Transport for Buckinghamshire would use a small number of notification slips to notify adjacent properties when there were street lighting electricity faults, street lights being tested, damaged lights and/or faulty street lights. The Committee however believed that the effort and energy used in this task would be better applied to fixing the problem rather than delaying the solution. The Clerk was MS asked to convey this message to BCC. (Post Meeting Note: email sent to Chris Schweir on 09.08.10). ITEM 12. BCC : Transforming Day Services Consultation 2010 : Response 25.08.10 As a response was needed by 25.08.10 a draft response was discussed at this meeting. Although this draft was commended, a separate paragraph stating that Seeleys House was also a Respite Centre needed to be added. DS to add paragraph before despatch by the Clerk together with completed DS/MS response form.