Agenda and minutes

There were no apologises for absence.

Councillor Allan Kaufmann declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to item 6, South Ruislip Years Centre, and left the room for the duration of this item.

These were agreed to be an accurate record.

None.

Items marked part 1 were considered in public and items parked part 2 were considered in private. Item 14 was considered in private and all members of the press and public left the room for the duration of this item.

67607/APP/2011/1122

Erection of a part two, part three storey block comprising 7, one-bedroom and 5, two-bedroom flats, together with associated car parking and landscaping (involving demolition of existing buildings).

Recommendation: Approval

Councillor Allan Kaufmann declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to this item and left the room for the duration of this item.

Erection of a part two, part three storey block comprising 7, one-bedroom and 5, two-bedroom flats, together with associated car parking and landscaping (involving demolition of existing buildings).

67607/APP/2011/1122

Planning  permission  was  sought  for  the  erection  of  a  part  two,  part  3  storey  building  to accommodate 7 one bedroom and 5  two bedroom  flats. The proposal  included parking for  13  cars,  secure  cycle  spaces  and  landscaped  amenity  areas  and  would  involve  the demolition  of  the  existing  single  storey  building,  last  occupied  by  South  Ruislip  Early Years Centre, which had recently been relocated to Queens Walk, Ruislip.

The site was now vacant for redevelopment and there were no plans to provide an alternative community use at the site. None of the current facilities that used the site were being displaced due to the proposed  development. 

Refusal of the proposed scheme would therefore not lead to the continued use of a community facility. There were therefore no  objections  in  principle  to  the  loss  of  the  previous  community  use  and  the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes.

14 letters of objection had been received, raising concerns primarily on the grounds of loss of sunlight, loss of outlook, increased traffic congestion, impact on the street scene, lack of parking and loss of privacy. A petition had also been received requesting that any replacement building should have fewer dwellings and be no higher than 2 storeys.

The  scheme  had  been  revised  to  address  residents  concerns,  reducing  the  number  of dwellings by one and the height of the building to 2 storeys adjacent to Bourne Court to the east.

It  was  considered  that  the  layout,  siting and  scale of  the development  was  compatible with surrounding  built  form  and would  respect  the  established  character  of  the  area. There would be no material loss of residential amenity to surrounding occupiers and highway and pedestrian impacts were considered to be acceptable.

The application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions and a S106 Agreement/Statement of Intent.

Members felt this was a good development and had no issues with it.

The recommendation for approved was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be approvedas per the agenda.

17423/APP/2011/57

Demolition of existing detached store to rear, erection of single storey side/rear extension and alteration to first floor side elevation

Recommendation: Approval

Demolition  of  existing  detached  store  to  rear,  erection  of  single  storey side/rear extension and alteration to first floor side elevation

17423/APP/2011/57

Deferred on 4th August 2011 for further information on the accuracy of the submitted plans and an overshadowing assessment.

The  application  site  was  located  on  the  north  side  of  Pavilion Way  and  comprises  a  two storey  semi-detached  property  finished  in  red  brick, with white  render  and white UPVC windows and a wooden door. The property had a detached garage  to  the  rear which  was used as a store, an area of hardstanding to the front and had been extended to the rear with a single storey extension. A loft conversion involving the formation of a gable end  and  the  construction  of  a  rear  dormer  had  recently  been  undertaken  as  Permitted Development.

The street scene was residential  in character and appearance and  the application site  was within the developed area as identified in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

This petition had been previously heard at the Planning Committee meeting on 4 August 2011 and the plans had since been amended. The petitioners had emailed to state that they no longer objected to the application as the issues had been clarified.

The size of the extension had been reduced. The overshadowing diagram showed that there would be very little overshadowing to adjoining properties. The highways engineer had carried out a site visit to check the issues regarding parking standards. 

The recommendation for approved was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be approvedas per the agenda and addendum.

11448/APP/2011/238

Erection of a two storey detached building with additional level in roofspace for use as Class B1 Office.

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of a two storey detached building with additional level in roofspace for use as Class B1 Office.

11448/APP/2011/238

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a two storey building with a second floor within the  roof  void.  The  proposed  development  was  larger  in  size,  scale  and  bulk, compared to the previous scheme approved on appeal and was considered to result in an over dominant and visually intrusive form of development and would result in overlooking and loss of privacy.

The application site comprises land to the rear of 17 to 21 The Close, Eastcote. The site area was approximately 350m² and fronts onto an access  lane  that  runs along  the  rear of shops that front Field End Road. The access lane also provided access to two large public car  parks, which  were  accessed  from  either Abbotsbury Gardens  to  the  north  and North View to the south. The site was located almost adjacent to the smaller of the two car parks.

The  surrounding  area  contained  a  range  of  land  uses,  with  the  Eastcote  Minor  Town Centre,  immediately  to  the west  (including part of  the access  lane), a public car park  to the north, which was also within the Eastcote Town Centre, and residential uses to the south (fronting North View), and  to  the east  (fronting The Close). The Eastcote  (Morford Way) Conservation Area boundary lies close to the western boundary of the site.

The application site lies within the developed area as identified in the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007).

29 adjoining owner/occupiers had been consulted and  the application had been advertised as a development  that  affects  the  character  and  appearance  of  the  adjoining  Eastcote/Morford Way Conservation Area.  4  letters  of  objection  and  a  petition with  33  signatories  had  been  received

Members requested clarification on who was responsible for the road way. Officers would check this. If it was a private road then responsibility would lie with the occupier.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

·        Ms Sarah West spoke on behalf of petitioners.

·        The petitioner wished to re-iterate the objection.

·        The application was over dominant and visually dominant.

·        The proposed plans were substantially different to those in the original plans.

·        The proposed footprint of the application was an increase of 42%.

·        The proposed height of the application was an increase of 55%.

·        It was 1.5metres from the boundary line.

·        Subsistence issues could occur.

·        There could be an impact on flood and water in the area.

·        The existing road was in poor condition and was narrow. There were concerns regarding access for emergency vehicles. 2 cars could not pass at the same time and it was difficult for buggies and wheelchairs. 

·        There was no demand in Eastcote for additional office space and the benefits to residents for such a development was very limited.

The agent was not present.

Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

52580/APP/2011/1462

Porch to front, installation of decking and fencing to side/front, installation of ramp to front and alterations to side of existing club house.

Recommendation: Approval

Porch to front, installation of decking and fencing to side/front, installation of ramp to front and alterations to side of existing club house.

52580/APP/2011/1462

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a brick built porch extension to the front of  the  club house,  together with  the  installation of decking  to  the  front and  side of  the building, to be partly enclosed by a 1.5m to 1.8m high fence and new soft landscaping.

The  proposed  development  was  acceptable  in  design  and  amenity  terms  and would  not result  in any  significant  increase  in activity on  the  site  that would be detrimental  to  the amenities of surrounding properties.

This  application  related  to  the  Eastcote  tennis  clubhouse  building  located  on  the  south east  side of Kaduna Close at  the end of  the  cul de  sac. The  club house  was a detached building  located  to  the north west of  the  Imada Health Club building, near  to  the access with Kaduna Close.

To the north east lies the tennis courts, with a residential block to the north and a pair of semi-detached  houses  to  the  north  west,  both  fronting  Kaduna  Close.  To the east lie parking spaces for club patrons.

The surrounding area was residential in character and appearance and the application site lies within the Eastcote Village Conservation Area, as identified in the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007). The site was also subject to Tree Preservation Order Nos 20 and 278.

28 adjoining owner/occupiers and the Eastcote Residents Association had been consulted. The application had also been advertised as a development that affects the character and appearance of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area.

In response 1 letter of objection had been received. Objections were raised in relation to the club's intention to increase membership and have functions which will put more demand on parking in the area,  the development  fails  to provide an assessment of existing and proposed parking demand, the  identified  parking  spaces  shown  on  the  plans  are  incorrect  and  not  under  the  applicants  ownership,  increased  parking  over  the  years  has  caused  problems,  previous  applications  by  the objector have been  refused on parking grounds and  so  the  same  rules  should be applied  in  this instance, the fence would obscure the adjoining business from view, and there would be noise and nuisance arising from the use of the decking.

2 petitions had also been submitted objecting to the application on the grounds of intensification of use, increased parking, noise pollution and loss of privacy.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

·        Ms Dasgupta spoke on behalf of petitioners; she was an owner of Imada.

·        It was highlighted that there were existing parking issues in the area. That cars were being parked in the Imada car park and these people were using the Tennis club.

·        This resulted in people coming to visit Imada thinking there was no parking for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

64909/APP/2011/1165

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension, single storey front extension and conversion of existing integral garage and store into habitable space involving the installation of 2 rear rooflight and 1 front rooflight.

Recommendation: Approval

Part  two  storey,  part  single  storey  side/rear  extension,  single  storey  front extension and conversion of existing integral garage and store into habitable space involving the installation of 2 rear rooflight and 1 front rooflight.

64909/APP/2011/1165

The application site was located on the west side of Raisins Hill and comprises a two storey semi-detached  dwelling with  a  fully  hipped  roof  and  bay window  detail  to  both  the  front and rear elevations. An original attached garage with store room behind was located on the north west elevation. The garage was set 0.6m from the boundary with the adjacent property no.43 and flush with the front elevation of the main house. The house was set back 8m from the  road with a 5m wide  front driveway and  lawned area with hedge separating  the site from the adjoining semi (No.39). A 22m garden runs to the rear. The adjoining property, No.39,  had  recently  carried  out  a  hip  to  gable  loft  conversion  with  rear  dormer,  under permitted  development,  and  was  currently  completing  a  single  storey  side,  front  and  rear extension approved  in September 2010. The street scene  was  residential  in character and appearance  and  the  application  site  lies within  the Developed Area,  as  identified  in  the Adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

Planning permission was sought to demolish the existing garage and store to the side and construct  a  two  storey  side  extension  and  a  part  two  storey/part  single  storey  rear extension.

To  the  rear,  the proposed single storey extension would measure 3.6m deep with a 3m high flat roof. The two storey element would commence 3.1m from the boundary with the adjoining  property  (No.39)  and  measure  2.6m  deep.  The  two  storey  extension  would measure  4.9m wide  projecting  out  from  the  side  elevation  by  1.5m,  stopping  1m  away from the boundary with No.43 and wrapping around the side elevation stopping 1m short of the front elevation of the house. To the side of the house, the roof of the proposed two storey extension would be at 0.5m below the ridge.

24  neighbouring  properties  and  the  Northwood  Hills  Residents  Association  had  been consulted.  16  individual  letters  and  a  petition  with  46  signatories  had  been  received objecting to the proposal

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

·        Mr Winscom spoke on behalf of the petitioners.

·        He spoke about the history of the application which had been discussed previously.

·        A previous application had been rejected and on appeal.

·        The new application was basically the same as previous so residents had signed a new petition.

·        The dark alleyway would have an effect on residents and the application would have an effect on the neighbouring garden.

·        It was a significant and overbearing development.

·        The petitioner raised points that were brought up in the planning inspectors report.

·        It was detrimental to the appearance of dwellings and character of the area.

·        It failed to harmonise with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

1113/APP/2011/1020

Detached storage building to be used for the processing and storage of bio fuel and compost

Recommendation: Refusal

Detached storage building to be used for the processing and storage of bio fuel and compost

1113/APP/2011/1020

The  application  related  to  the  construction  of  a  detached  storage  building  within  the curtilage of an existing waste facility in the Green Belt. It was stated that this building would be used for the processing and storage of bio fuel and compost. As the site was located in the Green Belt and waste facilities were not one of the essential uses of land and buildings which  were  specified  as  acceptable,  this  building  and  its  intended  use  was  considered inappropriate development within the Green Belt and no very special circumstances had been put forward by the applicant.

No details had been supplied to show that the site is suitable for the proposal in terms of its  proximity  to  the  source  of  waste;  ability  to  use  transport  sources  other  than  road haulage; the nature of the proposed use and its scale; and the full transport impact of all collection and transfer movements and therefore fails to satisfy the criteria of Policy 5.17 of the London Plan 2011.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in support to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

·        Mr Butterworth spoke on behalf of the petitioners.

·        During discussions with the case worker the question of Green Belt was raised.

·        The petitioner asked the Committee to consider that the application was within the existing area of which it sympathised with.

·        The compost did not compromise the Green Belt.

·        The application would help to preserve the five jobs that existed already.

·        It would help in reducing noise, and protect machinery and staff.

·        There would be better compost to supply, and better fuels.

·        It would generate renewal energy.

·        They were not proposing to expand the site but the application was on the existing site which was used for processing and storage of bio fuel and compost.

·        The application was related to better products and to secure jobs.

Members asked for clarification on whether composting already existed on the site. Officer explained to Members that there was unauthorised use for composting on the site and since 2002 policies had been updated. There was an emphasis on locating these sites and improving them to comply with policy. Officers accepted the use already existed on the site but Members needed to consider if the Council allowed a new build for this usage.

Members felt they lacked sufficient evidence on whether it was justified or not. That the applicants had failed to justify to officers that this was appropriate use of Green Belt. Members agreed that it was up to the applicant to justify the usage. Members asked that this item be deferred to give the applicant an opportunity to provide this information.

The recommendation for a deferral for additional information and justification to be provided was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

18371/APP/2011/1271

Erection of two storey, five-bedroom, detached dwelling with conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 2 rear dormers and 5 rooflights involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of two storey, five-bedroom, detached dwelling with conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 2 rear dormers and 5 rooflights involving demolition of existing dwelling.

18371/APP/2011/1271

This  application  was  for  the  demolition  of  the  existing  house  and  its  replacement with  a larger house. The site lies within the Copse Wood Area of Special Local Character and consideration had  to be given  to  the  impact  that  the development has on  this area,  in addition  to  the normal  planning  considerations  relating  to  the  impact  on  the  streetscene,  impact  on neighbours, impact on trees and vegetation and the parking and highway implications.

The proposal was for a detached dwelling. It is considered that due to the bulk, design, and roof form, the development was overly bulky in relation to its surroundings, resulting in an incongruous feature and an over-development of the  site  to  the detriment of  the  street scene and the Area of Special Local Character of which it forms part.

22 occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties had been notified of the application. One letter of representation had been received  commenting  that  there  was no objection  to  this application other than to understand the steps they propose to take to ensure no damage to the adjoining property, the  need  for  a  surveyor  to  avoid  damage  and  to  ensure  that  any  windows  that  overlook  the adjoining property are within the rules established by the council.

Members thanked officers for a detailed report. This was a big house which was requesting a larger development. Members agreed with the officer’s recommendation.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the agenda.

33988/APP/2011/684

Single storey front extension

Recommendation: Refusal

Single storey front extension.

33988/APP/2011/684

The application site was located within a residential area of Northwood comprising a variety of substantial two storey detached dwellings of pre and inter war design and more modern apartment buildings. The application site was located on the east side of Kewferry Road at its  junction  with  Harrison  Close  and  was  bordered  by  a  substantial  two  storey  detached dwelling  to  the  south  and  faces  two  storey  detached  dwellings  to  the  west.  The  Holy Trinity COE Primary School was located to the southwest.

The  application  site  comprises  an  attractive  two  storey  detached  dwelling  of  traditional design and features a hipped roof, front two storey gable and a more recent side double garage  addition.  The  property  included  front  and  rear  gardens  with  a  1.8  metre  high hedgerow  along  the  front  elevation with mature  tree  planting  and  hedgerows  along  the side  and  rear  boundaries. The  dwelling  was  faced with  red  brick  to  the  ground  floor, with white render and red clay roof tiles. The existing front porch was modest in size, open sided and an attractive feature  in  its own  right,  consisting of a  flat  roof,  two plain arches with three decoratively unadorned pillars.

This planning application proposed the construction of a single storey  front extension  to form WC/  shower  room  and  porch.  The  proposed  single  storey  hipped  roof  extension would  measure  4.9  metres  in  length  by  1.5  metres  in  depth  and  would  extend  to  3.5 metres in height and would be faced with materials to match the existing dwelling.

Members had carried out a site visit and agreed that it would not be detrimental to the street scene.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be approved and the officers recommendation as per the agenda be overturned with standard conditions T8, OM1, M2.

The enforcement report was presented to Members.      

It was moved, seconded and approved that enforcement action be agreed as per the report.

Resolved

1.                  That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed.

Erection of a new cow shed.

4729/APP/2011/1600

Erection of a new cow shed.

4729/APP/2011/1600

This  application  sought planning  permission  for  a  new  open  sided  cow  shed  within  an existing farm complex located within the open countryside which forms part of the Green Belt. The applicant advised that the building was needed to comply with new legislation that required  a  5  month  capacity  for  slurry  storage  on  the  farm.  The  shed  would  prevent rainwater mixing  with  animal  waste  in  the  feeding  area  and  prevent  seepage  into the ground. There would be no increase in cattle numbers or deliveries to the farm.

There  was  no  objection  in  principal  as  it  represents  appropriate  development  within  the Green  Belt.    The  shed  was  considered  to  be  satisfactorily  related  to  surrounding  farm buildings  so  that  it  would  not  extend  beyond  the  built  envelope  of  the  existing  farm complex. The design and materials of the shed also reduced its impact. The siting of the building would also not harm the setting of two Grade II Listed granaries within the farm complex. The Environment Agency initially objected to the scheme on grounds of lack of information, although they did agree that the scheme would benefit groundwater supplies in this sensitive area.  They have now withdrawn their objection.

The recommendation for approved was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be approvedas per the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.