Agenda and minutes

North Planning Committee - Tuesday, 7th December, 2010 7.00 pm

Venue: Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre. View directions

Contact: Charles Francis 

Items
No. Item

52.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies had been received from Cllr Michael Markham with Cllr Pat Jackson substituting and also Cllr Jazz Dhillon with no substitute.

53.

Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

Minutes:

Councillor David Payne declared a prejudicial interest in items 6, 7, 8 and 9 –RAF Eastcote, Lime Grove, Ruislip by virtue of having been involved as a Ward Councillor of the application site. Councillor Payne withdrew from the room and did not take part in the decision of the applications.

 

Councillor Edward Lavery declared a non-prejudicial interest in items 10, 11 and 12 ’Former Kings Arms Garage Site, Rickmansworth Road, Harefield’ as he knew the petitioner.

 

54.

To sign and receive the minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 189 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 18th November 2010 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

55.

Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent

Minutes:

None

56.

To confirm that the items of business marked Part 1 will be considered in public and that the items marked Part 2 will be considered in private

Minutes:

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in Part 1.

57.

RAF Eastcote, Lime Grove, Ruislip - 10189/APP/2010/1094 pdf icon PDF 305 KB

Erection of 17 one-bedroom and 42 two-bedroom flats and 8 three-bedroom houses with associated car parking and landscaping (modification of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 and reserved matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/ 3046 to provide a further 5 two-bedroom apartments and 2 houses.)

 

Recommendation: REFUSAL

 

Minutes:

At the start of the item, the Chairman explained that the five petitions which had been submitted enabled a representative of the petitioners to speak on agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 in three cases and on items 6 and 7 in 2 cases. All these items were related. The Agent was not present at the meeting.

 

The petitioners were informed that that they had the right to address the Committee up to three times (should their petition apply to items 6, 7 and 8 and twice when it related to items 6 and 7). The petitioners waived this right and chose to speak on Item 6 only.

 

In introducing the report, officers drew the Committee’s attention to the amendments in the Addendum and summarised the letter in support of local residents which had been received from a Ward Councillor. Officers also referred to a further letter which had been received from Nick Hurd MP in support of local residents.

 

A representative of the five petitions received in objection to the application addressed the Committee. The following points were raised:

  • The proposal would adversely affect the privacy of residents due to the increased amounts of overlooking (especially from blocks C,D and W). In some cases due to land rises, the first floors of some developments would overlook the bedrooms of opposite properties.
  • The proposal did not incorporate sufficient amenity space
  • The proposal was an over development of the site
  • The proposal did not include a sufficient number of footpaths and so there was a danger to pedestrian safety
  • The proposal was out of keeping with Eastcote and Hillingdon
  • The design was out of keeping with the street scene
  • The infrastructure of Eastcote was already at breaking point and there were already significant pressures on local services such as schools and medical facilities
  • The proposal lacked sufficient car parking spaces. Relatives and visitors would be forced to park on adjacent local roads
  • The height and scale of proposal was out of keeping with the southern half of the development
  • The application would increase roof heights and so the design would become more visually intrusive
  • The proposal would increase traffic congestion on local roads
  • The proposal would adversely affect the special character of old Eastcote
  • The overdevelopment of the site would cause access problems for service vehicles, such as refuse collection and emergency services.
  • The proposal would not comply with government guidance which had reduced the number of units from 50 to 30 per hectare.
  • The developers had not worked in partnership with the community during the consultation period.
  • The proposal would cause drainage difficulties

 

In discussing the application, Members agreed the development site was already full and any additional development would have significant impact on amenity space. In relation to car parking facilities, Members agreed that the proposal did not have sufficient capacity for visitors, which would lead to additional parking in surrounding roads. When summarising the discussions, the Chairman drew the petitioner’s attention to reason for refusal 3 which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

58.

RAF Eastcote, Lime Grove, Ruislip - 10189/APP/2010/1099 pdf icon PDF 282 KB

Erection of  8 one-bedroom and 2 two-bedroom flats, 14 three-bedroom, 3 four-bedroom and 5 five-bedroom houses with associated car parking and landscaping (modification of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 and reserved matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 to provide a further 7 houses.)

 

Recommendation: REFUSAL

Minutes:

In introducing the report, officers drew the Committee’s attention to the amendments in the Addendum.

 

The petitioners chose not to speak on this item.

 

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

 

Resolved – That the application be Refused as set out in the officer’s report and Addendum and for the addition of Block T to the list of plots to reason for refusal 4.

 

 

59.

RAF Eastcote, Lime Grove, Ruislip - 10189/APP/2010/1100 pdf icon PDF 184 KB

Erection of a pair of semi-detached three storey townhouses, with associated car parking and landscaping.(modification of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 and reserved matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 to provide a further 1 house.)

 

Recommendation: REFUSAL

 

Minutes:

In introducing the report, officers drew the Committee’s attention to the amendments in the Addendum.

 

The petitioners chose not to speak on this item.

 

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

 

Resolved – That the application be Refused as set out in the officer’s report and Addendum.

 

 

 

60.

RAF Eastcote, Lime Grove, Ruislip - 10189/APP/2010/1901 pdf icon PDF 202 KB

Provision of glazed conservatories to plots 222-224 and 259-261 (Application to vary parts of the approved layout under Reserved Matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 Dated 13/03/2008) (Details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping in compliance with condition 2 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 Dared 21/02/2008: Residential development.)

 

Recommendation: APPROVAL

 

Minutes:

Officers drew the Committee’s attention to changes in the Addendum.

 

The Committee noted that only 3 of the 6 plots complied with the Council’s guidance on amenity space and having taken the measurements into consideration, the Committee decided to overturn the officer recommendation.

 

The recommendation for approval with the amendments on the Addendum was overturned. It was moved and seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed that the application be refused for the following reason:

 

The proposal would result in the reduction of private amenity space available to the dwellings below a level which is considered acceptable for the size of dwellings proposed, particularly in relation to plots 222, 223 and 260. As a result a cramped appearance would arise, with inadequate amenity space for the dwellings to the detriment of the amenity of future occupiers. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to policy BE23 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007) and to the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Documents HDAS: Residential Layouts.

 

Resolved That the officer recommendation be overturned and the application be refused

 

 

61.

Former Kings Arms Garage Site, Rickmansworth Road, Harefield - 3877/APP/2010/2200 pdf icon PDF 328 KB

Conversion of existing listed building incorporating two storey extension with habitable roofspace comprising 3 one-bedroom flats and part use as Class A1 (Retail) for use as convenience goods store, to include associated parking, involving demolition of existing single storey detached building and extension to listed building.

 

Recommendation: REFUSAL

Minutes:

At the start of the item, the Chairman explained that the petitions which had been submitted enabled a representative of the petitioners to speak on agenda Items 10, 11 and 12 which were all related. If the petitioners did so, then the agent would have a right to reply on each occasion.  The petitioners waived this right and chose to speak on Item 10 only.

 

A representative of the two petitions received in objection to the application addressed the Committee. The following points were raised:

  • The officer recommendations for refusal were supported.
  • Harefield village was already very congested and the number of deliveries required would cause traffic problems
  • There was a need to protect the historic village centre, the landscape and ‘the pace of life’ in Harefield
  • If Tesco were to operate in Harefield,  it would overpower local small traders
  • The design, scale and setting of the proposal was out of character with the village
  • The proposal was  an overdevelopment of the site in terms of scale and mass
  • The proposed number of parking spaces would be inadequate for the site and 4 of the 6 parking spaces would need to be closed when deliveries took place
  • The proposal would encourage vehicles to park on the pavement and there would be a danger to pedestrian safety
  • Concerns were raised about the tidiness of the site should the proposal be approved
  • The proposed development would be about four times the size of other local businesses

 

Points raised by the agent:

  • One of the reasons for refusal related to the high levels of management intervention required when deliveries took place. The applicant had addressed these concerns and agreed to use lorries no larger than 8 metres.
  • Deliveries would only take place within the site rather than on the kerb side.
  • There would only need to be two delivery vehicles on site occasionally
  • When deliveries took place, four parking spaces would not need to be closed and residential car parking spaces would not be affected.

 

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and raised the following points:

  • The agent was thanked for acknowledging that two delivery vehicles would need to be on site.
  • Recent road works had required a single lane of traffic to be used and this had highlighted the levels of congestion in Harefield. The anticipated number of deliveries for the proposal would exacerbate this situation.
  • This was the third or fourth time the application had been considered by Committee and as such was deemed to be an abuse of resources (to try and drive the application through).

 

Members asked officers for further clarification about the number of parking spaces. Officers explained that the proposal included residential car parking spaces but did not include parking spaces for retail use. It was noted that the Inspector had not highlighted the lack of parking to be an issue in this case.

 

In response to a query about the tidiness of the site, officers explained that a section 215 notice could be served  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

62.

Former Kings Arms Garage Site, Rickmansworth Road, Harefield - 3877/APP/2010/2201 pdf icon PDF 118 KB

Conversion of existing listed building incorporating new two storey extension with habitable roofspace comprising 3 one-bedroom flats and part use as Class A1 (Retail) for use as convenience goods store, to include associated parking, involving demolition of existing single storey building (Application for Listed Building Consent.)

 

Recommendation: REFUSAL

 

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved – That the application be Refused as set out in the officer’s report.

 

63.

Former Kings Arms Garage Site, Rickmansworth Road, Harefield - 3877/APP/2010/2204 pdf icon PDF 115 KB

Demolition of the existing detached car wash facility building (Application for Conservation Area Consent.)

 

Recommendation: REFUSAL

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved – That the application be Refused as set out in the officer’s report.

 

64.

Land FPO 11 Hoylake Gardens, Ruislip - 66856/APP/2010/2169 pdf icon PDF 173 KB

Two storey side and single storey front, side and rear extensions together with conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation and dormer to rear, involving conversion of resulting building into 2 two-bedroom flats, including demolition of existing attached garage to side.

 

Recommendation: REFUSAL

 

Minutes:

The application had been withdrawn by the applicant.

65.

176 Field End Road, Eastcote - 6277/APP/2010/2161 pdf icon PDF 159 KB

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to restaurant (Class A3)

 

Recommendation: APPROVAL

 

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved – That the application be Approved as set out in the officer’s report.

 

66.

Land at Grand Union Canal bank, Springwell Farm, Springwell Lane, Harefield - 67241/APP/2010/1939 pdf icon PDF 141 KB

Restoration of a former wetland area to create a habitat for a number of species to include tree works, excavating leaf matter and sediment to create on-line ponds of variable depths and an interpretation zone on the canal towpath.

 

Recommendation: APPROVAL

 

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved – That the application be Approved as set out in the officer’s report.

 

67.

42 Victoria Road, Ruislip - 38038/APP/2010/2179 pdf icon PDF 185 KB

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to restaurant (Class A3) and erection of single storey extension to rear, relocated access to first floor and new extractor flue and ducting.

 

Recommendation: APPROVAL

 

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved – That the application be Approved as set out in the officer’s report.

 

 

68.

RAF Northolt, Lime Grove, Ruislip - 189/APP/2010/2585 pdf icon PDF 139 KB

Demolition of existing temporary accommodation and erection of a temporary three storey single living accommodation building and associated external works.

 

Recommendation: APPROVAL

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved – That the application be Approved as set out in the officer’s report.