To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bateson.

To receive any Declarations of Interest.

Cllr L. Evans – Declared a personal interest in item 2 as she is a Member of the Parish Council that considered and commented on the application. Cllr Evans was not sure if she was present at the meeting when the application was discussed and she had not voted on the item. Cllr Evans confirmed she had attended the meeting with an open mind.

Cllr Hilton – Declared a personal interest in item 2 as he was at the meeting of the Parish Council when the application was considered. Since then, considerable changes to the application had taken place. He also stated his Wife was the Chairman of the Parish Council Planning Committee and had registered to speak on the item. Councillor Hilton confirmed he had attended Panel with an open mind.

Cllr Lenton – Declared a personal interest in the Enforcement item as his wife was the Chairman of the Parish Council and had registered to speak. Clle Lenton confirmed he had come to Panel with an open mind.

Cllr Luxton – Declared a personal interest in item 1 as she knew the manager of the restaurant personally. She confirmed she attended Panel with an open mind.

To confirm the Part I Minutes of the meeting of the previous meeting

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Part I minutes of the meeting held on 3 May 2018 be approved.

To consider the Director of Development & Regeneration / Development Control Manager’s report on planning applications received.

Full details on all planning applications (including application forms, site plans, objections received, correspondence etc.) can be found by accessing the Planning Applications Public Access Module by selecting the following link. http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/pam/search.jsp or from Democratic Services on 01628 796251 or democratic.services@rbwm.gov.uk

17/02204       N/A: Construction of a building to provide x8 two bed flats, together with access to London Road and landscaping, following demolition of the existing buildings at Bluebells Restaurant and Bar, London Road, Sunningdale, Ascot SL5 0LE – THE PANEL VOTED UNANIMOUSLY to grant planning permission with the conditions listed in Section 10 of the Main Report, as per the Head of Planning’s recommendations and following satisfactory amendment to the secured Section 111 for mitigation to the SPA. Also with the following amendments:

·         Remove condition 7

·         Amend condition 11 to state: Prior to the commencement of development a landscape management plan including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for a minimum period of 5 years shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority . the plan shall cover any areas of existing landscaping, including woodlands, and all areas of proposed landscaping. Reason: To ensure the long term management of the landscaped setting of the development and to ensure it contributes positively to the visual amenities of the area. Relevant Policies – Local Plan DG1.

                        (The Panel was addressed Mr Douglas Bond, the agent).

18/00346*      Ashton Hawthorne: Two storey front/side extension, single storey rear extension and new first floor and side windsows, alterations to entrance and fenestration at 3 Hermitage Drive, Ascot SL5 7LA – THE PANEL VOTED to approve the application with the conditions listed in Section 9 of the Main Report, in accordance with the Head of Planning’s recommendations.

                        Five Councillors voted in favour of the motion (Cllrs M. Airey, Beer, Luxton, C. Rayner and Yong), two Councillors voted against (Cllrs Hilton and Sharpe), and two Councillors abstained from the vote (Cllrs L. Evans and Lenton)

                        (The Panel was addressed by Denise Keane and PCllr Barbara Hilton in objection and Ashton Hawthorne the applicant in support of the application).

To consider the above report.

Land East of Hythe End Road, Wraysbury, Staines-Upon-Thames, Middlesex TW19 5AW

Members considered enforcement action following legal advice sought by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The Panel noted it was necessary to consider if lawful development certificate 97/75746 should be revoked and if it was expedient to give further consideration to the alleged intensification of the use of the site. There were two options Members had to choose from which were:

i.              Not to pursue the revocation of the Lawful Development Certificate dated 9 September 1998 and granted under reference 97/75746.

ii.             Not to give further consideration to the case of intensification in the use of the site and thus not to serve an Enforcement Notice in relation to that allegation.

Members voted in favour of Option two which was not to give further consideration to the case of intensification in the use of the site and thus not to serve an Enforcement Notice in relation to that allegation.

A vote was taken to defer the decision for one cycle so that Members could have more time to digest the information prior to making a decision. The motion was proposed by Councillor C. Rayner and seconded by Councillor Beer. However, the motion was not successful. Five Councillors voted against the motion (Cllrs M. Airey, L. Evans, Hilton, Luxton and Yong), and four Councillors voted in favour of the motion (Cllrs Beer, Lenton, C. Rayner and Sharpe).

Councillor Hilton proposed a motion in support of the officers recommendations not to give further consideration to the case of intensification in the use of the site and thus not to serve an Enforcement Notice in relation to that allegation. The motion was seconded by Councillor M. Airey. Six Councillors voted in favour of the motion (Cllrs M. Airey, Beer, L. Evans, Hilton, Luxton and Yong. Two Councillors voted against (C. Rayner and Sharpe) and one Councillor abstained from the vote (Cllr Lenton).

The Panel then considered two further options which were set out on page 60 of the agenda pack. They were listed as option 3 and option 4 and made up the second part of the enforcement action.

Option 3: To further consider the case of intensification in the use of the site with a view to serving an enforcement notice in relation to that allegation. Paragraph 7.10 of the report explained to pursue option 3, officers would need to build a case to demonstrate that a material change of use had occurred since the enforcement appeal decision. That was because the inspector detailed that the use of the site between 2003 and 2012 compared to the use in 2016 was not of a different definable character. Officers were not aware of any evidence that would substantiate such a claim.

Option 4: Not to give further consideration to the case of intensification in the use of the site and thus not to serve an Enforcement Notice in relation to that allegation. Paragraph 7.11 of the report explained that it was open  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

To consider the Essential Monitoring Reports.

All details of the Monitoring Reports were noted.

To consider the following resolution:-

“That under Section 100 (A)(4) of the Local Government Act, the public should be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on item 8 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 1 and 3 of Part I Schedule 12A of the Act”.

To consider passing the following resolution:-

“That under Section 100 (A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public should be excluded from the remainder of the meeting whilst discussion takes place on item 8 on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act”.

To consider the above report.