Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillors Eddie Lavery, Ray Graham and Janet Duncan with Councillors Alan Chapman, Brian Stead and Manjit Khatra substituting.

There were no declarations made.

The minutes of the meetings held on 17 July, 6 & 27 August 2014 were agreed as a correct record.

No matters had been notified in advance or urgent.

It was confirmed that all items marked Part 1 would be considered in public and items marked Part 2 would be considered in private.

2 x two storey, 4-bed, semi-detached dwellings with habitable roofspace and 2 x detached garages with associated parking and amenity space and the installation of bin stores and a vehicular crossover to Ashurst Close (Resubmission).

Recommendation :

2 x two storey, 4-bed, semi-detached dwellings with habitable roofspace and 2 x detached garages with associated parking and amenity space and the installation of bin stores and a vehicular crossover to Ashurst Close (Resubmission)

Officers introduced the report setting out details of the application and amendments contained on the addendum sheet. Officers advised the Committee that the application was identical to that considered on appeal by a Planning Inspector.  The only reason that the application was dismissed by the Planning Inspector was in relation to the impact the development would have on the education facilities in the locality.

In accordance with the constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting to the proposal addressed the meeting.  The agent/applicant was present at the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

·         There had been a number of applications submitted on this site over the years.

·         All previous applications had been refused by the Council and dismissed on appeal.

·          The latest appeal was only dismissed in relation to financial matters.

·         Residents felt justified in requesting that the application again be refused in spite of the financial implication this may bring.

·         If the views of the Council and residents do not prevail what is the point of Preservation Orders and Areas of Special Local Character.

·         The tree report undertaken by residents had been disregarded by the Planning Inspector.

·         There were existing parking pressures in the area and concern over access for emergency vehicles. This was exacerbated by school traffic at the junction of Ashurst Close/Hallowell Road and Hallowell Road/Green Lane.

·         Ashurst Close was narrow and with parking along one side of the road it was effectively one way street.

A Member asked whether a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could be attached to this permission.

Officers explained that the comments made by the Planning Inspectorate who considered the appeal felt that the proposal was acceptable except for the materially harmful effect the proposal would have on the Education facilities in the locality.  As the Council had adopted its own CIL, there was no longer a separate requirement for educational contributions on residential developments such as this.

In answer to an issue raised as to how refuse vehicles would access the site officers advised that it would be no different to what currently occurs and was an issue that the Inspector considered acceptable.

In answer to an issue raised in relation to the parking, officers advised that there was a condition on the addendum sheet requiring the parking to be allocated and designated. The parking was the maximum permitted.

The Committee asked whether a condition had been attached to require the installation of wheel washers on site during construction.  Officers suggested that this be added as an informative.  This was agreed by the Committee.

The recommendation for approval with an additional informative added was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved - That the application be Approved, subject to the conditions set out in the officer's report and the addendum circulated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Part two storey, part single storey 3-bed, detached dwelling house with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing B1 building.

Recommendation :

Part two storey, part single storey 3-bed, detached dwelling house with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing B1 building.

Officers introduced the report setting out details of the application and amendments contained on the addendum sheet.

In accordance with the constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting to the proposal and the agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

·         The site lies within an area of Special Local Character and was densely populated.

·         The proposal was bulkier and higher than the existing building and would therefore be out of character with the surrounding area.

·         There would be a loss of outlook to homes in Hallowell Road

·         The proposal backs on to the London Underground rail line.

·         The current building does not affect daylight/sunlight where as it was felt the proposed 2 storey dwelling would.

·         Emergency vehicles/construction traffic would be unable to enter the site due to the narrow access to the site

·         There would be an impact on the surrounding roads during construction.

·         Residents were concerned if damage was caused to their properties during construction.

·         A retaining wall was needed for the gardens adjoining the site.

·         Would tree roots be protected during construction?

·         116 - 124 Hallowell Road had a combined occupancy of 140 years and Hillingdon should put residents first and refuse the application.

The agent made the following points:-

·         The previous use could be recommenced at any time.

·         The application was for a modest 3 bedroom family home.

·         Parking provision had been provided on site so there would be no impact on surrounding roads.

·         The proposal was not over development as it was low scale.

·         Access for Emergency/refuse would be the same as currently exists.

·         There were a number of shared common boundaries and this would be no different to what currently exists.

·         The proposed house had been designed to be north/south facing, to reduce its impact on neighbouring occupiers.

·         The issue raised in relation to noise and pollution had been covered in the report.

·         There was currently partial overshadowing to adjoining gardens but the proposal would not increase this significantly.

·         Delivery Companies could be advised of the narrow access enabling smaller vehicles to be used.

·         First response vehicles would be able to access the site.

·         A hydrant was to be located at the corner of the site and if a sprinkler system was thought necessary this could also be installed.

The Committee raised concerns in relation to the close proximity of the proposed dwelling to the railway line and impact the foundations may have on the railway embankment.

Officers were unable to give clarification of the distance from the railway line but advised that there had been no objections received from London Underground Limited subject to appropriate conditions and informatives.

In answer to a concern raised in relation to the sound insulation, officers advised that Condition 8 required a scheme to be submitted so this was something there would be control over. Also condition 3 could be amended to include the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Boundary wall with iron railings to front, including electronic iron gates and pedestrian gate and involving soft landscaping (Part Retrospective).

Recommendation :

Boundary wall with iron railings to front, including electronic iron gates and pedestrian gate and involving soft landscaping (Part Retrospective).

Officers introduced the report setting out the main details of the report and the amendments contained on the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

The Committee asked whether there were any other sites with a similar boundary treatment and whether the wall would be acceptable without the railings.

Officers advised the Committee that the issue in relation to this application was that if the wall was less than 1 metre in height the Council would have no control. It was only that the wall, railings and gates were over 1 metre high that permission was required. The proposed expanse of wall, railings and gates was in this case felt to be incongruous and would have an impact on the street scene.

In answer to an issue raised in relation to the 2 dropped kerbs officers advised that where a dropped kerb was no longer in use it had to be re-instated as a footpath by the applicant.

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

Resolved - That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officers report.

Single storey detached outbuilding to rear for use as a cinema room (Part Retrospective).

Recommendation :

Single storey detached outbuilding to rear for use as a cinema room (Part Retrospective).

Officers introduced the report setting the main issues of the application.

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

Resolved - That the application was approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

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

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

2. That the Committee resolved to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in this report into the public domain, solely for the purposes of issuing the formal breach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

This item is included in Part II as it contains information which a) is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and b) contains information which reveals that the authority proposes to give, under an enactment, a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person. The authority believes that the public interest in withholding the Information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraphs 2 and 6(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).