There was a change to the Committee at this meeting: Councillor Connal replaced Councillor Joynes.  

Councillor Brandon had sent apologies prior to the start of the meeting.

There were no Disclosures of Interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2014 to be submitted and signed.  (All minutes are available on the Council’s website.)

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2014 were submitted and signed.

A total of 2 application reports are included on this agenda for decision, of which 2 will be within the Government’s target dates for determination of applications. 

On 28^th May 2014 there were no applications over 8 weeks not yet determined but under consideration by the Development Management Section Head.

RESOLVED –

that the report be noted.

An application for change of use from vacant shop unit (A1) to massage treatment studio (D1) with 2 x treatment rooms

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of seven responses objecting to the application. 

The Senior Planning Officer drew the meeting’s attention to the Update Sheet which included an additional condition regarding the shop front glazing.

The Chair invited Mr Michael No to speak to the Committee. 

Mr No explained that he was the leaseholder of the shop at 70 Euston Avenue and that his intention was to offer Chinese therapies to residents.  These therapies would include health care and acupuncture as well as muscle pain relief through traditional Chinese massage. 

Mr No advised that he intended to offer oriental health care to the local community and had not anticipated that there would be any opposition to this objective.  Believing that approval for the change of use would be forthcoming, he had redecorated the premises at some cost and had not anticipated any form of rejection. 

Mr No’s intention was to offer a range of traditional Chinese treatments.  He stated that he had lived in England for some time and would welcome the opportunity to provide this service to the local community. 

The Committee then discussed the application.

Councillor Bell advised that residents had expressed concern regarding this proposal.  He said that the shop had been vacant for some time and was not attractive in its present state.  He noted that the premises were sited between a betting shop and a newsagent which sold alcohol and had been the subject of vandalism in the past. 

Councillor Bell further advised on problems connected to parking in the area.  He noted that the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) operated until 6.30 p.m. but that Mr No hoped to remain open until 9.00 p.m.  Were customers to arrive by car this would cause additional problems for residents in an area where parking places were already at a premium.  Councillor Bell said that his worries were mainly on highway grounds. 

Councillor Derbyshire said that he recognised that the concerns of residents had been driven by the description of proposed activities as stated in the original application.  He referred to the perception of the general public to the term ‘massage parlour’ but noted that the current application proposed a therapy centre with physiotherapy treatments; this, he felt, would be acceptable in this location. 

Councillor Derbyshire added that, as a precaution, it would be wise to ensure that time limits be imposed on opening times.  He considered that there should be no requirement for late opening and that the imposition of a limit on operating times would be of reassurance to local residents.

The Chair asked the Senior Planning Officer to comment on the change of name.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the term ‘massage parlour’ had featured in discussions between the Applicant and the Council’s Enforcement Officer as a result of which the applicant was under the impression that this was the appropriate planning description to use on his application. However,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

An application to demolish existing buildings and to redevelop the site to provide 2,220 sqm of office (Class B1a) floorspace and 34 residential flats with associated surface car parking, cycle and bin storage and landscaping

The Committee received a report of the Development Management Section Head including the relevant planning history of the site and details of six responses raising objections to the application. 

The Major Cases and Enforcement Manager drew attention to the Update Sheet.  He advised that additional representations had been received from Councillor Lynch, the vicar of St John’s Church, part of which had been reproduced in the Update Sheet, as well as four further letters of objection from residents. 

The Chair invited Mr John Berrisford to speak to the Committee. 

Mr Berrisford considered that insufficient alterations had been made to the design of the application.  He noted that whilst the number of flats had decreased, the floor area of the residential units was proportionately larger than the office space. 

Mr Berrisford explained that the main concern of residents was the number of windows and balconies which would dominate the back gardens of surrounding houses to the detriment of residents’ privacy.  He added that the design of the development would not blend in with the adjoining conservation area.

Mr Berrisford then noted the wall which was proposed between the electricity substation and no. 4 Gartlet Road which, he said, had been reduced in height from three and a half metres to 2 m.   He suggested that the construction of the substation could be altered.

The Chair then invited Mr Douglas Bond to address the Committee.

Mr Bond advised that the scheme was similar to that which had come to the Development Control Committee in March 2014.  He noted that at that meeting the application had been refused solely for reasons of its height, massing and bulk having a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the Estcourt Conservation Area. 

Mr Bond pointed out that no issues other than those connected with massing had been considered as grounds for refusal and noted that changes to height, mass and bulk had been addressed within the current application. 

Mr Bond affirmed that the Applicants wished to work with local residents on the scheme; they had listened to their concerns and had addressed these in a positive manner.  The results were apparent in the current application: the loss of the former top floor, fewer residential units, alterations to windows and lower ‘steps’ to lessen the bulk and mass of the building.  Mr Bond added that the facing material had been changed, giving a softer appearance which harmonised with the surrounding homes.

Mr Bond reiterated that the concerns expressed at the previous meeting had all been addressed and that the changes represented significant improvement and reflected the area in which the development would be set. 

Mr Bond then referred to the issue of the building currently on the site.  He reminded the meeting that English Heritage had rejected two proposals that the house should be designated a ‘listed’ building.  He noted that the house was not regarded as being of ‘listable’ quality but said that the Applicant would be willing to prepare an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.