Agenda and minutes

None.

None.

Agreed with the changes set out in the addendum.

None.

The Chairman noted that Item 12 had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Items marked part 1 were considered in public and items parked part 2 were considered in private. There were no part 2 items to consider.

Conversion of existing dwelling into 2 x 2 bed self contained flats with associated amenity space and parking involving 2 storey side extension, single storey rear extension and conversion of roof space into habitable use to include roof dormer and demolition of existing attached garage to side

Recommendation: Approval

Conversion of existing dwelling into 2 x 2 bed self contained flats with associated amenity space and parking involving 2 storey side extension, single storey rear extension and conversion of roof space into habitable use to include roof dormer and demolition of existing attached garage to side.

The proposal was for the extension and conversion of one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings to two, two bedroomed flats.  This revised proposal was  a  reduced  size  and different  design  and  layout  from  earlier  schemes  that  were  withdrawn  and  refused planning permission. The current scheme proposed horizontal, flatted division rather than houses.

Traffic and acoustic reports had been submitted with the application.  The  proposal  complied with HDAS  requirements  for  two  storey  side  and  single  storey rear extensions, internal and external space standards and also those in the London Plan (2011) and the car parking provision and other policies set out in the Hillingdon Unitary Development  Plan,  Saved  Policies  September  2007.  Planning permission was thus recommended subject to conditions.

The  application  site  was  on  the  north  side  of  Hoylake  Gardens  and  comprised  a  semi-detached property with a wider than average frontage (compared with other properties in Hoylake Gardens). The existing property was the end 1930's dwelling in the street, before a group of more modern 1980's properties begin. Hoylake Gardens originally comprised a small cul-de-sac of 16-18 dwellings, although this had now been extended to include an area of 1980's terraced properties with shallow rear gardens, some of which back onto the side of the application site. The site was within a short walk of Eastcote shopping centre, Eastcote underground station, main road, bus, and transport connections providing it with a PTAL rating of 3. The application site lies within the Developed Area as identified in the Adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (Saved Policies, September 2007).

43 Neighbours and the Eastcote Residents Association were consulted. A petition with 33 signatures and 7 letters of objection and one letter of support had been received.

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:

• The road was a small cul-du-sac.
• A previous application had been refused on reasons to do with the parking implications and the changes in the street scene.
• The space was an important part of the developments in the 1930’s and 1980’s.
• The development had improved a lot since the original application had been made.
• The issue the petitioners had were around parking and the implications would be extensive.
• The appearance of the application looked to be fine.
• The plans submitted showed 2 car parking spaces plus 2 behind those. This showed a ‘pinch point’ and the cars in front would have to move to let the cars behind out.
• The minimum distance requirements submitted were enough to object to this application.
• The application was an overdevelopment in a small area.

The agent spoke on behalf of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Change of use of site from Class C3 (Dwelling House) to mixed use Classes C3 (Dwelling house) and D1 (Non-Residential Institutions), involving the erection of a single storey building to rear for the D1 use as a meeting room with associated parking. Single storey side extension to the existing dwelling house (involving demolition of part of existing garage), new access road involving demolition of existing single storey side extension and the installation of 2 vehicular crossovers, new wall to front boundary and new fence to side.

Recommendation: Refusal

Change of use of site from Class C3 (Dwelling House) to mixed use Class C3 (Dwelling house) and Class D1 (Non-Residential Institutions), involving the erection of a single storey building at the rear for use as a meeting room (Use Class D1) with associated parking. Single storey side extension to the existing dwelling house (involving demolition of part of existing garage), new access road involving demolition of existing single storey side extension and the installation of 2 vehicular crossovers, new wall to front boundary and new fence to side.

The  application  seeked  permission  to erect  a  meeting  room  building,  to  be  used  for  D1 purposes  (worship),  together  with  associated  access  road  and  car-park,  involving  the sub-division  of  the  site  and  a  replacement  single  storey  side  extension  to  the  original dwelling, alterations to the front wall of the site and the provision of a new public footpath extending to the Cricket Club Grounds.

There was no objection to the single storey extension to the dwelling or to the alterations to the front boundary  wall.  However, there  was  concern  relating  to  the  proposal  for  an independent meeting room/church which would not be ancillary to the existing residential use of the site. Due to the additional activities that would be generated, as a result of this use, this would fail to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential properties.

In addition  it  was  considered  the proposed  formation of  the access  road and  car-parking area with associated  increase  in  traffic, would be out of keeping and detrimental  to  the surrounding  residential  area  and  character  and  appearance  of  the  conservation  area.

There  was  further  concern  regarding  what  measures  were  in  place  to  prevent  any intensification of use if a permission were to be issued or if/how these matters could be reasonably controlled.

23  neighbours  and  interested  parties  were  consulted  and  20  responses  and  a  petition  of  49 signatures had been received

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/applicant:

• The purpose of the application was for the local congregation of Christians for families in the area.
• It was proposed that there would be 2 or 3 meetings a week at specific times.
• The group and meetings were there to promote values.
• The applicant initially approached Hillingdon in 2008.
• They had engaged with professional consultants who liaised directly with planning officers about the application.
• The applicants had consulted with residents and the project had been approached very carefully.
• The initial concerns had been overcome and there was little objection or concerns.
• The noise issues raised could be addressed. There would be no noise that would be heard from the outside. An amplifier was not going to be used.
• The impact on the environment was minimal as the meeting room would be inconspicuous.
• The application would benefit the village.
• The rear garden was very large, and large enough to accommodate the meeting room.
• There was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Variation of conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref. 13701/APP/2004/193 dated 30-04-2004 to allow the private care hire/ chauffer business to operate 24 hours a day (retention of part of shop as private car hire/chauffeur business)

Recommendation: Refusal

Variation of conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref. 13701/APP/2004/193 dated 30-04-2004 to allow the private care hire/ chauffer business to operate 24 hours a day (retention of part of shop as private car hire/chauffeur business).

The  application  was  for  the  variation  of  condition  1  (Hours  of  Operation  of  Private  Car Hire/Chauffeur Business)  and  condition  2  (Opening Hours  for  the Office  of  the Private Car Hire/Chauffer  Business)  of  planning  application  reference  13701/APP/2004/193  to allow for 24 hour operation.

It was considered that the proposed variation of condition would result in an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to  the neighbouring  residential dwellings and was, therefore, recommended for refusal.

The application related to a ground floor commercial unit located at the junction between Harvil Road and Moorhall Road. The upper  floor of  the property  was  in use as  residential flats, with  the adjacent properties  in use as  retail at ground  floor  level and  residential at first floor.

The application property and  the adjacent  retail parade was set back  from  the highway by the slip road and parking area, which ran parallel to Harvil Road and Moorhall Road. The  site  was  situated within  a  developed  area  as  identified  in  the  policies  of  the Adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007).

30 neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development. Two responses had been received, one in objection to the proposal and one in support. One petition had been received in support of the application.

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/applicant:

• The owner of the care hire firm explained how they had been operating since February 2011 and that in that time no complaints had been made directly to them.
• A petition had been signed by local businesses and people to ask that they be allowed 24 hour operation. This showed the demand for it.
• The applicant was not asking for cars to be allowed to be parked in front of the shops.
• The business had the use of 3 cars and requested that the office could be manned for 24 hours.
• In order to minimise noise and disruptions to others they did not allow cars to park in front of the office outside of hours.  The drivers did not park or drive into the office often unless it was required.
• The business did operate after hours but this was not from the office but by the use of a mobile phone.
• A sign was on the office door so that customers could call a number to book a taxi if they needed one outside of the operating office hours.

Members discussed the application and agreed with the officers reasons for refusal as stated in the report.

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.

Change of use from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and Class B1 (Business) to Class C3 (Dwelling Houses) to include 3 x 1-bed, 1 x bedsit and 1 x 2-bed self-contained flats involving conversion of roof space of rear building with a dormer to front and alterations to elevations of front building

Recommendation: Refusal

Change of use from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and Class B1 (Business) to Class C3 (Dwelling Houses) to include 3 x 1-bed, 1 x bedsit and 1 x 2-bed self-contained flats involving conversion of roof space of rear building with a dormer to front and alterations to elevations of front building.

This application seeked full planning permission for the change of use of an existing A2 and B1 use to additional  residential units. The application site was within the boundary of Ickenham Local Centre as designated in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies  (September  2007). 

The applicant had failed  to  provide  sufficient  marketing history of the properties to show the use as offices was no longer required. The offices were presently occupied by 5  local businesses. The evidence submitted showed  that some of the  units  were  unoccupied  however  this  was  insufficient  to  justify  the  loss  of  office  space within  the  Core  and  Secondary  Shopping  Areas  of  Ickenham  Local  Centre.  It  would therefore be contrary to Policy H8 of the UDP.

Furthermore, the accommodation would provide an inadequate standard of living for future occupiers due to the residential units size and layout and was therefore considered contrary to  Policies  H8  and  BE19  of  Hillingdon  Unitary  Development  Plan  Saved  Policies (September 2007), Policy 3.5 of the London  Plan  (2011)  and  guidance  within  Section  4  of  the  Council's  Supplementary Planning Document on Residential Layouts. It was therefore recommended for refusal.

37 local owner/occupiers were consulted, 2  replies  were received objecting  to  the proposal. A petition  had  also  been  received  with  over  200  signatures  against  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:

• The petitioner ran a business in the building where the application was proposed.
• If approved the business would be forced out of the property.
• They employed 4 local people at that site, 3 of which walked to work.
• The plan did not support local businesses and employers.
• The site was the only business space in the village.
• The application would bring cramped flats which would add nothing to Ickenham.
• New flats were already being built nearby.
• The site was a valuable resource for local businesses in the area.
• The plans were damaging to Ickenham.
• The petition contained over 220 signatures.
• Ickenham Residents Association had objected to the proposal.
• Virtually ever shop space in the area was full.
• If it was lost then it would be lost for good, and would also result in a loss of jobs which was not good in this economic climate.

The agent spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

• The majority of the space was vacant and therefore the loss of existing use was minimal.
• 3 vacant units were marketed for over a year with no interest, others were similar.
• The prices were competitive but they had no offers, some interest.
• There was a high level of surplus office  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Erection of 2 five-bedroom, two storey detached dwellings with habitable roofspace, associated parking and amenity space

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of 2 five-bedroom, two storey detached dwellings with habitable roofspace, associated parking and amenity space.

Planning permission was sought for the erection of 2 five-bedroom houses on a backland site to the rear  of  Nos.  51 and 53 Pembroke  Road.  The scheme was considered unacceptable in terms of the principle and the layout and design of the proposal. As such the proposal was recommended for refusal.

The  application  site  comprises  land  located  to  the  north  of  Nos.  51  and  53  Pembroke Road  and  was  formed  from  the  rear  parts  of  the  gardens  of  these  properties. The site was some 0.15 hectare in area. To the north, the site was bound by the rear gardens of Nos. 5, 6 and 7 Green Walk. These properties on Green Walk were within the Ruislip Manor Way Conservation Area. The site was bounded to the east by the  rear garden of 55 Pembroke Road  and  to  the west,  by  the  side  boundaries  of  32  Brickwall  Lane  and  49  Pembroke Road.

The  land  slightly  undulates  and  there were mature  trees  and  hedges  to  the  north, east and west boundaries.  The surrounding area was  residential  in  appearance  and  character. The site was within  the developed area as identified in the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007).

Planning permission was refused in September 2010  for  the erection of 2  five-bedroom, two storey detached dwellings.

The occupiers of 61 neighbouring properties and the Ruislip Residents Association were consulted. 2 petitions were received, one in favour of the proposal and one against.

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:

• They were meeting again, for the 9^th time, to speak on an application to build on a back garden.
• The petitioner was speaking on behalf of the 97 neighbours who would be affected but the proposals.
• Many more signatures could have been collected for the petition against the application.
• There was total opposition against the plans which was bricks, concrete and tarmac replacing gardens.
• Urban areas were rapidly being overdeveloped.
• Gardens were places for children to play and families to relax.
• An almost identical plan was submitted last year and refused.
• It would overlook and dominate neighbouring properties.
• Consideration needed to be given to wildlife and plants.
• The petitioner asked that we keep our gardens as gardens and green spaces as green spaces.

The agent/applicant spoke on behalf of the application and petition in favour  submitted:

• A petition submitted by the applicant in support of the application.
• The applicant explained how the previous application which was refused, and appeal lodged and refused did not reject a residential development of some sort.
• The inspector did not give a reason for refusal as the effect on adjoining properties.
• The applicant had met with planning officers, and with the inspector’s report and discussed new plans and drawings with amended detailed requirements.
• It was a 2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Single storey side/rear extension.

Recommendation: Refusal

This item had been withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning.

Single storey side extension to existing property

Recommendation: Approval

Single storey side extension to existing property.

The application property was an end of terrace, two storey dwelling situated on the south-eastern side of Whitby Road.  It was sited adjacent to a vehicular access that  leads  to  the rear garages of the properties in the road, and an area of open space beyond.

6  adjoining  and  nearby  properties  notified  of  the  application and The Eastcote Residents Association had been consulted. No responses or comments had been received.

This application was reported to committee as the applicant was an employee of the Council.

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

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda.

Single storey rear extension with habitable roofspace to include a gable end window and 1 side roof light, involving demolition of existing lean-to extension to rear.

Recommendation: Refusal

Single storey rear extension with habitable roofspace to include a gable end window  and  1  side  roof  light,  involving  demolition  of  existing  lean-to extension to rear.

The application property was a detached chalet brick built bungalow with two large dormer extensions on both sides of the roof slope which had been constructed under permitted development.

The  application  site  was  situated  in  a  residential  area  comprising  detached  and  semi detached bungalows. The properties on this street had varying styles, many had been altered through planning permission or under permitted development rights.

The  application  seeked  planning  permission  for  the  erection  of  a  rear  extension  with habitable roof space.

The extension would extend 3.6m from the rear elevation of the property. It would result in the continuation of the roofslope of the existing property above the extension, and would have a gable end on the rear elevation. The eaves height would be 2.4m and the ridge height would be 5.65m (the same as that existing).

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.

Erection of a pair of linked part 2 part, 3 storey blocks with accommodation in the roof space, to provide, 12 two-bedroom and 1 three-bedroom apartments, involving demolition of 103, 105 and 107 Ducks Hill Road (Outline application)

Recommendation: That the application be approved subject to a Unilateral Undertaking or S106 Agreement.

Erection of a pair of linked part 2 part, 3 storey blocks with accommodation in the roof space, to provide, 12 two-bedroom and 1 three-bedroom apartments, involving demolition of 103, 105 and 107 Ducks Hill Road (Outline application).

The application seeked outline planning permission for the erection of a pair of linked part 2,  part  3  storey  blocks  with  accommodation  in  the  roof  space,  to  provide  12  x  two bedroom  and  1  x  three  bedroom  flats.  The proposal involved  the  demolition  of  the existing three detached dwellings and all other associated structures on the site. Access, scale, appearance and layout  were  to  be  determined,  with  landscaping matters reserved.

Members and officers discussed the parking provision. The application set out 26 spaces with 4 disabled bays. This provision included visitor parking, for the 13 flats proposed.

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

Resolved –

That the application be approved with the changes set out in the addendum and subject to a unilateral undertaking/S106.