Meeting: 13/06/2023 - Borough Planning Committee (Item 13)
13 Pembroke House, 5-9 Pembroke Road, Ruislip 38324/APP/2022/2001 
PDF 13 MB
Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref. 38324/APP/2019/4066, dated 13/03/2020 (Erection of detached building to accommodate office accommodation above existing parking) to amend elevations, infill of undercroft and provision of wc/shower room and kitchen to first floor offices (part retrospective).
Recommendation: Approval
Decision:
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Minutes:
Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref. 38324/APP/2019/4066, dated 13/03/2020 (Erection of detached building to accommodate office accommodation above existing parking) to amend elevations, infill of undercroft and provision of wc / shower room and kitchen to first floor offices (part retrospective).
Officers introduced the application noting that planning permission for the office building to the rear of Pembroke House had been granted at Appeal and could therefore not be re-visited.
Officers noted that the development had not been built in accordance with the original plans hence a breach of conditions notice had been served which had resulted in the submission of the current application.
It was confirmed that planning enforcement officers had previously investigated reports of residential use at the premises but no evidence of this had been established. Members heard that conditions were proposed to ensure the development remained residential in the future. Revised drawings showed the removal of the existing hob and oven from the kitchen as these facilities were of a residential nature. The shower would be retained as this was considered appropriate for an office space.
A written submission had been received from Ward Councillor Philip Corthorne and was read out to the Committee. Councillor Corthorne expressed his concern that the development would be residential accommodation in all but name given the inclusion of a kitchen, shower and Juliet balcony. He supported the condition restricting the future use of the building to office accommodation only.
Members raised no concerns regarding the retention of the shower room which could be used for office staff. They welcomed the inclusion of firm conditions to ensure that the development would be used only as an office and not for residential purposes.
The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.