Agenda and minutes

None.

Cllr Michael Markham declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in item 8 and item 16 of the agenda. Cllr Markham did not leave the room and voted on both items.

The minutes were agreed as an accurate record and signed by the Chairman.

None.

Items marked Part I were considered in public and Items 19 and 20 were marked Part II and were considered in private.

Remodelling works to Golf Course, consisting of re-contouring of existing land form using imported inert soils, together with extensive landscaping and associated drainage. (Appendices to the Construction Management Plan and the addendum to the Ecological Impact Assessment, Biodiversity Mitigation, Management and Monitoring Plan and the Water Management Plan.)

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in support of the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• The golf club is currently not being used and had been in decline for years
• There was no practice ground or teaching ground for golfers
• The steep slopes at hole 9 and 10 are very difficult to play on and needed to be addressed
• The drainage system needed restoration
• The golf course needed rejuvenation by an applicant as soon as possible.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution three representatives of the three petitions received in objection to the proposal were invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

• The proposed plans for the golf course by the current applicant would be harmful to the wildlife in the area
• The steep slopes on the course cannot be used by disabled people
• There were issues with the drainage system, with many holes not being used throughout the year as there was flooding in some parts of the green
• Landfill issues do not help drainage problems
• Lorries carrying landfill waste will cause noise pollution for local residents
• Additional conditions should be imposed on the applicant in relation to a deadline for landfill completion and a review of progress
• Membership of the golf club had been adversely affected due to the lack of action by the applicant

The Agent was present at the meeting and addressed the Committee:

• The Agent reiterated the fact that the company was not a landfill company, but a golf management company operating in the UK and Ireland.
• The company currently operated eleven public golf courses
• The 2010 season would see the company pay over £400,000 in rent to the London Borough of Hillingdon (£280,000 in fixed rent and £120,000 in turnover related rent).

The Committee asked the Agent that should planning permission be granted how long would it be before the golf course could be played on. The Agent said the total reinstallation would be completed by April 2011. The Committee also asked Members why the course had not maintained lately. The Agent said he was unable to answer as he was not involved in the course maintenance.

 A Ward Councillor was present and addressed the Committee:

• There had been a total lack of maintenance of the golf course
• Disabled access was unsatisfactory
• The Restoration Bond offered by the Agent was not a large enough sum and would not cover restoration costs, should the company fail to complete the task.

Members commended Officers on a very comprehensive report. Members highlighted their concerns over the low rate of the restoration bond put forward by the Applicant. The Committee said that figure of the bond currently being offered was very low compared to expected offers.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused. On being put to the vote, the Committee agreed refusal unanimously.

Resolved – That the application be refused due to the following reason:

“The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Erection of a three storey building to provide for a new library, adult learning facilities, 10 one-bedroom flats, together with associated parking and external works (involving demolition of existing library building).

This Item was withdrawn by the Head of Planning prior to the meeting.

Erection of a two storey rear extension and single storey side extensions.

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 petitioner:

• The proposals put forward by the applicant did not conform with the Council’s planning policies.

The Applicant / Agent were not present at the meeting. No Ward Councillors were present.

Members discussed the application and agreed that the proposals would result in gross overdevelopment.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused. On being put to vote the application was refused unanimously.

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

Demolition of existing industrial building and erection of a block of 5 flats with associated parking (outline application.)

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in support to the proposal was not invited to address the meeting, as the item had been considered previously where the petitioner and applicant had spoken.

Members agreed that overdevelopment would result in a decline in the quantity of the accommodation due to the lack of space available. The Committee agreed that there was no space for amenity space on the site.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused. On being put to the vote, refusal was agreed unanimously.

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

Although this application has not been before Members of the committee at least 5 working days in advance of the meeting, it is considered to warrant urgent action as an appeal against non-determination has now been lodged, and the Local Planning Authority needs to advise the Planning Inspectorate of the determination that would have been made, had the appeal not been lodged, within the appeal time frame.

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 petitioner:

• The proposed application was out of place with the surrounding buildings
• It was highlighted that it was important to keep a sustainable and close community in the area, and this proposal would not encourage this.
• Overshadowing issues would cause a detrimental effect on the neighbouring houses.
• There was a lack of amenity space in the planned proposals

The Applicant / Agent were not present at the meeting. A Ward Councillor was present and addressed the Committee:

• The Ward Councillor supported and endorsed the petitioners’ views
• The proposed plans were not in keeping with the surrounding houses
• The proposed amenity space was inadequate

Members asked for further clarification about the location of bins. Officers informed Members that the bins would be kept in the front garden. The Committee agreed that they did not want to encourage this.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused. On being put to the vote, refusal was agreed unanimously.

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reason set out below:

"The proposal, by reason of its excessive density and site coverage with buildings, including the bin storage building to the front and hard-standing, represents an over-development of the site, that would be out of keeping with the pattern of surrounding residential development and results in an excessive loss of garden space, detrimental to the verdant character and visual amenity of the area. The development therefore fails to harmonise with the character of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies BE13 and BE19 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007), Policies 3A.3, 4B.1 and 4B.8 of the London Plan, guidance within The London Plan Interim Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, April 2010 and Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (as amended) and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: Residential Layouts."

Erection of 1 single storey temporary hospital building and clinical waste bin store, involving demolition of existing temporary office and clinical waste bin store.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote, approval was agreed unanimously.

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

Demolition of existing temporary office and clinical waste bin store (Application for Conservation Area Consent.)

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote, approval was agreed unanimously.

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

Alterations to front boundary to include new gate and fencing involving removal of existing wall, pillars, railings and gates.

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 petitioner:

• The proposed vehicle crossover encouraged encroachment of neighbouring properties
• The proposed fence would create a suburban style frontage, which was not in keeping with the area
• The proposed high fence would decrease the openness of the area, which was in the green belt.

The Applicant / Agent were not present at the meeting. No Ward Councillors were present.

Members agreed that the proposed plans did not conform with Council planning policies.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused. On being put to the vote, refusal was agreed unanimously.

Resolved – That the application be refused with the additional reason below:

“The boundary fence, by reason of its overall height, siting and scale would result in a visually obtrusive form of development which would be detrimental to the open and rural character of Hill End Road and the visual amenities of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE13, BE19 and OL4 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: Residential Extensions.”

Single storey side extension/conservatory (Retrospective Application).

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 petitioner:

• The plans proposed by the applicant appeared to be an extension, and not a conservatory as stated in the officers’ report.
• Should the plans be approved there would be no garden area on the property.
• The plans would be gross overdevelopment in the green belt area.

The Applicant / Agent were not present at the meeting. No Ward Councillors were present.

Members agreed that the proposed plans would lead to gross overdevelopment in the green belt.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused. On being put to the vote, refusal was agreed unanimously.

Resolved – That the application be refused.

Conversion of integral garage to habitable space with new window and wall to front, rebuilding of ground floor front wall to two storey side extension and retention of enlarged dormer window to front elevation.

Members said the design and appearance of the property was poor and not in keeping with the appearance of the area.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused. On being put to the vote, refusal was agreed unanimously.

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

Erection of a new two storey building with front, side and rear dormer windows comprising of 9 two- bedroom units and 1 one-bedroom unit (involving demolition of two existing buildings.)

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote, approval was agreed unanimously.

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

Installation of vehicular crossover to front

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote, approval was agreed unanimously.

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

Erection of a two storey attached dwellinghouse with double garage to rear.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote, approval was agreed unanimously.

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

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

Members said the property had not been in use for the last few years. If the property stayed as A1 use it may deter future applications, resulting in no use for the shop. The Committee agreed that changing the use from A1 to A3 would encourage use of the property during these economically difficult times.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote, approval was agreed unanimously.

Resolved – It was agreed that the application be Officers’ recommendation be overturned and approved with conditions as set out in the report and on the addendum

It was moved and seconded that the Officers’ recommendations be enforced. On being put to the vote, enforcement was agreed unanimously.

Resolved – It was agreed that the Officers’ recommendations be enforced.

It was moved and seconded that the Officers’ recommendations be enforced. On being put to the vote, enforcement was agreed unanimously.

Resolved – It was agreed that the Officers’ recommendations be enforced.

None.

None.