Agenda item

PLANNING APPLICATIONS (DECISION)

To consider the Head of Planning’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 at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/pam/search.jsp.

 

Minutes:

The Panel considered the Head of Planning and Development’s report on planning applications and received updates in relation to a number of applications, following the publication of the agenda.

 

NB: *Updates were received in relation to planning applications marked with an asterisk.

 

The Panel unanimously voted to change the order of the agenda and hear item 5 first due to the number of people who had attended the meeting for this item.

 

*Item 1

 

18/01579/FULL

 

The Chequers

Dean Lane

Cookham

Maidenhead

SL6 9BQ

Single storey extension with glazed link and alterations to fenestration on existing outbuilding. Change of use

of extended outbuilding to cookery school (D1).

 

Councillor Smith proposed a motion to APPROVE the application, subject to an additional condition requiring landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the patio doors on properties opposite the site, as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Love. A separate motion to REFUSE the application was proposed by Councillor Kellaway but this was not seconded and the motion fell. Four Councillors (Bullock, Love, Smith and Wilson) voted in favour of the motion to approve, Councillor Kellaway voted against the motion and Councillor Hunt abstained.

 

The Panel VOTED to APPROVE the application, as per the officer recommendation, subject to the conditions listed in section 9 of the main report and subject to the additional condition requiring landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the patio doors to the properties opposite.

 

The Panel was addressed by Daniel Lightwood and Susan Ferguson, objectors, and by Dick Scarff on behalf of the Cookham Society.

Item 2

 

18/01580/LBC

 

The Chequers

Dean Lane

Cookham

Maidenhead

SL6 9BQ

 

Consent for a single storey extension with glazed link for new cookery school and alterations to fenestration on existing outbuilding.

 

Councillor Smith proposed a motion to APPROVE the application, as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Love. A separate motion to REFUSE the application was proposed by Councillor Kellaway but this was not seconded and the motion fell. Four Councillors (Bullock, Love, Smith and Wilson) voted in favour of the motion to approve, Councillor Kellaway voted against the motion and Councillor Hunt abstained.

 

The Panel VOTED to APPROVE the granting of listed building consent , as per the officer recommendation, subject to the conditions listed in section 9 of the main report.

 

The Panel was addressed by Daniel Lightwood and Susan Ferguson, objectors, and by Dick Scarff on behalf of the Cookham Society

*Item 3

 

18/01601/VAR

 

49 Switchback Road North

Maidenhead

SL6 7QX

Variation of condition 3 (hard and soft landscaping), condition 4 (access), condition 6 (parking and turning), condition 7 (pedestrian visibility), condition 8 (visibility splays) and condition 11 (approved plans) of planning permission 17/03904/VAR to provide amended access to plot 2.

 

Councillor Smith proposed a motion to APPROVE the application as per the officer’s recommendation, as amended by the submission of an amended landscaping plan and consequent amendment to proposed condition 2 as set out in the Panel Update. This was seconded by Councillor Love.

 

The Panel UNANIMOUSLY VOTED to APPROVE the application as per the officer’s recommendation.

 

The Panel was addressed by Mary Salvage, objector, and Richard Crane, on behalf of the applicant.

Item 4

 

18/01777/OUT

 

Desborough Bowling Club

York Road

Maidenhead

SL6 1SF

Outline application for Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale only to be considered at this stage with

landscaping matters to be reserved for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of a building comprising 8, 7 and 6 storey blocks with two 4 storey linking elements to provide 149 apartments with associated access and servicing, landscaping, 169 car parking spaces and 149 cycle spaces.

 

Councillor Love proposed a motion to defer and delegate to the Head of Planning to approve the application, as per the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Kellaway.

 

The Panel VOTED to DEFER AND DELEGATE the decision to GRANT planning permission to the Head of Planning, subject to the conditions listed in Section 11 of the officer report; the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure matters to make the development acceptable in planning terms; and ensuring a suitable resolution on matters regarding refuse and servicing to enable the recommended condition to secure an appropriate strategy, as per the officer recommendation. Councillor Hunt did not participate in the vote, all other Members voted in favour of the motion.

 

Members also confirmed that the Reserved Matters submission for the proposed landscaping of the site need not be determined at Panel but could be appropriately considered under the delegated authority of the Head of Planning.

 

The Panel was addressed by Kevin Scott, on behalf of the applicant.

*Item 5

 

18/02105/FULL

 

Temporary RBWM Car Park

Vicus Way

Maidenhead

Erection of five storey split-deck multi-storey car park with access and associated landscaping following removal of existing slab and hardstanding (Regulation 3 application).

 

Councillor Hunt proposed a motion to defer the application whilst more information on traffic flow and measures to prevent antisocial behaviour was sought. This was seconded by Councillor Smith.

 

A named voted was carried out. Three Councillors (Bullock, Hunt and Smith) voted in favour of the motion to defer, two Councillors (Kellaway and Love) voted against the motion and Councillor Wilson abstained. An alternative motion to approve the application was proposed by Councillor Kellaway and seconded by Councillor Love; as the first motion was approved, this motion fell.

 

The Panel VOTED to DEFER the application whilst officers sought more information on traffic flow and measures to prevent antisocial behaviour. It was agreed that the application would be returned to Panel as early as practically possible.

 

The Panel was addressed by Antigoni Konig and John Adkins, objectors, Matthew Blythin, on behalf of the applicant, and by Councillor Majeed, the ward Member.

 

Supporting documents: