Agenda and minutes

Councillors Michael Markham, David Payne and John Morgan gave their apologises. Councillors Dominic Gilham and Pat Jackson were present as substitutes.

Councillor Jonathan Bianco who was present as a Ward Councillor for item 8, Harlyn School, declared and personal and prejudicial interest in relation to this item. He remained in the room and spoke as a Ward Councillor.

The minutes of the meeting held 28 April 2011 and 12 May 2011 were agreed as an accurate record.

Items marked part 1 were considered in public and items parked part 2 were considered in private.

Three storey detached building comprising  6, two-bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space and installation of 2, vehicular crossovers, involving demolition of existing detached garage.

Recommendation: Refusal

Three storey detached building comprising 6, two-bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space and installation of 2 vehicular crossovers, involving demolition of existing detached garage and erection of a replacement garage.

66134/APP/2011/294

This application seeked permission for a three storey block comprising of 6 two-bedroom flats and a replacement garage on rear garden land accessed from Ashurst Close.

The proposal would have involved the loss of garden land, a number of trees and landscaping which contributed to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Part of which was within the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character. The proposed block would have failed to sit comfortably on its plot, would of had an excessive density and appeared unduly cramped and bulky. Its modern design would not have harmonised with the architectural quality of the surrounding buildings.

Furthermore, the proposal would not have provided adequate off-street parking and no contributions had been offered at this stage towards additional education facilities.

Had an appeal not been lodged against non-determination, the application would have been refused for the above reasons.

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:

• Mr Sabel spoke on behalf of the petitioners who signed the petition objecting to the application.
• The petitioner spoke about the officer’s report and that it strongly recommended refusal of the application.
• They were objecting to the level of development proposed, this area was too small for the level of development
• Most of the residents who signed the petition lived in Ashurst Close and close to the proposed development.
• The area was a densely populated area which lacked a central park.
• It was a small attractive area which was mainly occupied by elderly residents.
• Contract gardeners were employed to ensure the area was well maintained.
• The petitioners agreed with the reports comments regarding trees and that it formed a critical attractive boundary.
• There was a tree preservation order and if the application was approved it would nullify the order, and the height of the building would exceed the trees.
• The proposal would result in driving hazards. The entrance to the proposed garages would be hazardous.
• There would be a lack of parking space. The plans allowed provision for 6 spaces but the petitioners felt there would be an additional 12 spaces that would be required.
• It was already a congested road and more cars would increase this congestion.
• The reputation of Northwood as an attractive area would be at risk if this application was approved.

The agent was not present at the meeting.

Members agreed that PPS3 was designed for this kind of application. They agreed with petitioners that this application was being shoe-horned into a space that was too small.

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

Resolved –

That had an appeal for non-determination not been lodged, the application would have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 190.

Three storey detached building comprising 6, two-bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space and installation of 2, vehicular crossovers, involving demolition of existing detached garage (Duplicate Application).

Recommendation: Refusal

Three storey detached building comprising 6, two-bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space and installation of 2, vehicular crossovers, involving demolition of existing detached garage and erection of a replacement garage (Duplicate Application)

66134/APP/2011/296

This item was discussed with item 6 as it was a duplicate application.

The leader petitioner, Mr Sabel, spoke on behalf of the petitioners in item 6 with regard to this item. The agent or applicant was not present at the meeting.

The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons stated in the officers report and as discussed in the previous item.

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

Resolved -

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Installation of a temporary mobile double classroom for a period of 3 years.

Recommendation: That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Consumer Protection, Sport and Green Spaces to approve the application, subject to no objections being received from Sport England, with conditions and informatives as outlined in the report.

Installation of a temporary mobile double classroom for a period of 3 years.

8883/APP/2011/941

This application seeked full planning permission for the erection of a mobile double classroom unit at Harlyn Primary School, for a temporary period of three years. The additional classroom spaces were required to accommodate the growing number of pupils at the school.

The Education Act 1996 states that Local Authorities have a duty to educate children within their administrative area. The Hillingdon Primary Capital Schools Programme was part of the Council's legal requirement to meet the educational needs of the borough.

In recent years the borough had seen a rise in birth rates up to 2008 and the trend had continued through 2009 and 2010. This growth in the birth rate, combined with net in-migration and new large scale housing developments in the borough had meant that there was a significant need for additional primary school classrooms across the borough.

The longer term strategy would be to provide permanent accommodation as part of the programme to meet existing and future needs. However, in the interim period an urgent need for additional classrooms had been identified to meet demand for September 2011.

The proposal fully complied with the aims of UDP Policy R10, which seeked to encourage educational facilities in the Borough and, accordingly, the principle of the development was considered to be acceptable.

Given its temporary nature, it was not considered that the proposed double classroom would have a significant impact on the visual amenities of the school or the surrounding area. The proposal would not have any detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential units and no objections had been raised on traffic grounds, provided appropriate mitigation measures could be put in place.

The proposal was considered to comply with relevant UDP and London Plan policies and, accordingly, approval was recommended.

There were no petitioners present at the meeting. 

The applicant or agent was not present at the meeting.

Ward Councillors’ Andrew Retter and Jonathon Bianco were present and spoke as Ward Councillors.

Ward Councillor Andrew Retter addressed the meeting. The following points were raised:

• Councillor Retter had spoken to the lead petitioner and she was concerned that the work had already started on the site before the application had been heard by the Planning Committee.
• Residents believed that a decision should be made before any work could commence.
• This was a problematic road, which had a lot of congestion and there had been previous petitions submitted to the Council regarding this. This included a petition regarding the local test centre which was in the area.
• Councillor Retter spoke about how previous experience had shown that a temporary classroom which was meant to be there for 3 years has in the past stayed on site for many years.
• That the Council needs to ensure that temporary classrooms stay as temporary and that long term measures were put in place.
• Councillor Retter asked that the Planning Department liaise with the Education  ...  view the full minutes text for item 192.

Installation of temporary mobile double classroom for a period of 3 years.

Recommendation: Approval

Installation of temporary mobile double classroom for a period of 3 years.

8004/APP/2011/932

This application seeked full planning permission for the erection of a mobile double classroom unit at Glebe Primary School, for a temporary period of three years. The additional classroom spaces were required to accommodate the growing number of pupils at the school.

The Education Act 1996 states that Local Authorities have a duty to educate children within their administrative area. The Hillingdon Primary Capital Schools Programme was part of the Council's legal requirement to meet the educational needs of the borough.

In recent years the borough had seen a rise in birth rates up to 2008 and the trend had continued through 2009 and 2010. This growth in the birth rate, combined with net in-migration and new large scale housing developments in the borough had meant that there was now a significant need for additional primary school classrooms across the borough.

The longer term strategy would be to provide permanent accommodation as part of the programme to meet existing and future needs. However, in the interim period an urgent need for additional classrooms had been identified to meet demand for September 2011.

The proposal fully complied with the aims of UDP Policy R10, which seeked to encourage educational facilities in the borough and, accordingly, the principle of the development was considered to be acceptable. Given its temporary nature, it was not considered that the proposed double classroom would have a significant impact on the visual amenities of the school or the surrounding area.

The proposal would not have any detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential units and no objections had been raised on traffic grounds, provided appropriate mitigation measures could be put in place.

The proposal was considered to comply with relevant UDP and London Plan policies and, accordingly, approval was recommended.

Members discussed the comment made by Sport For England regarding the playing field. Officers confirmed that the application was on the field but did not take away any part of the playing pitch.

Members had noted that work had started on this site and this was the risk that developers took and would not effect the decision they had to make.

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

Resolved –

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

The enforcement report was presented to Members.      

It was moved, seconded and approved that enforcement action be agreed as per the report.

Resolved –

The Enforcement Report was unanimously agreed by the Committee.