Agenda item

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 the facility.

·        The road where the facilities were was a residential road, so there were issues regarding residential parking to consider.

·        The application was contrary to Council policy.

·        That the tennis club members parked in an obstructive manner. That if the application resulted in additional people using the tennis club then this would worsen the parking problems that already existed.

·        The application was harmful and detrimental to the area.

·        If a fence was built then it would ruin the atmosphere of the round window area of Imada.

·        It was already noisy in the patio area; the application would increase the noise levels.

·        The increase in the social aspect of the development would increase the noise and parking problems.

·        The petitioners were concerned for the future as it was an area that was rejuvenated from a derelict site.

·        It was not in keep with the ambiance of the area.

·        The lead petitioner stated she was surprised that officers had recommended this application for approval in the report.

·        She stated that there were serious effects to consider.

·        Mr Fernandez spoke on behalf of the second petition; he was an owner of Imada.

·        He believed that inaccurate information was submitted by the applicants. The plans shown to committee showed land that was owned by Imada that was being used as parking for the Tennis Club.

·        Socialising late in the evening would cause noise disturbance.

·        The restaurant users at Imada could not dine and enjoy.

·        The enclosure would make it look like a prison camp.

·        There were parking implications to consider.

·        The 19 car park spaces stated in the report were incorrect. The Tennis Club had 14. 3 of the spaces belonged to Imada, which the Tennis Club users could not use. The remaining 2 spaces were Council owned.

·        They claimed this was a legal invalid application.

·        The application would result in an increase in on-street parking.

·        The Tennis Club could not provide the additional parking space for additional customers.

·        The petitioner asked that the Committee withdraw the application as it was legally invalid or reject it.

The agent spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

·        Mrs Corbett spoke on behalf of the application.

·        The main objection from Imada was parking. There were 14 spaces and the remaining 5 were on the public highway, none belonged to Imada.

·        Over the number of years that the Tennis Club had been there residents had not complained about any parking issues.

·        There was no noise concerns, many of the Tennis Club users would be wearing rubber shoes.

·        The total number of full membership that was allowed at the Club was 180, they presently had 120.

·        The Tennis Club did wish to increase activity on the site but did not intend of hosting for huge parties. Unlike Imada which advertised that they could host for 160 people.

Members asked officers if there would be any additional noise from the decking that would affect residents. Officers explained that the nearest property was 18metres away.

Members asked for clarification on the land ownership and parking issues discussed by petitioners and Officers clarified the land which was owned by the Tennis Club.

Members also discussed issues raised regarding the fencing proposed and any obstruction in the view discussed by petitioners.

Members commented on the parking issue and said this was an issue between the Tennis club and Imada to resolve. It was not an issue for discussion with the application presented to them.

Members felt that it was an appropriate design, the urban designer was happy with the application and that there would be no significant change to the usage of the site from the application.

Members were happy with the officer report and recommendation.

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.