Agenda and minutes

Councillors Michael Markham, John Morgan and Jazz Dhillon gave their apologises. Councillors Ray Graham, Pat Jackson and Lynne Allen were present as substitutes.

Councillor Edward Lavery declared a personal interest in relation to item 10, 26 Acre Way. He remained in the room for this item.

Councillor Shirley Harper-O’Neill who was present declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to item 10 and left the room for the duration of this item.

The minutes of the meeting held 23 June 2011 were agreed as an accurate record.

None.

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

Variation of Condition 3 / Minor material amendment to planning permission ref: 10622/APP/2009/2504 dated 11/02/2010: Refurbishment and conversion of listed building to 12 residential units and erection of 4 two-bedroom mews dwelling houses and associated works (time extension of planning permission ref: 10622/APP/ 2006/2490 dated 11/01/2007) to allow alterations to the siting and design of the two blocks of mews housing (Retrospective application).

Recommendation: Approval

Variation of Condition 3 / Minor material amendment to planning permission ref: 10622/APP/2009/2504 dated 11/02/2010: Refurbishment and conversion of listed building to 12 residential units and erection of 4 two-bedroom mews dwelling houses and associated works (time extension of planning permission ref: 10622/APP/2006/2490 dated 11/01/2007) to allow alterations to the siting and design of the two blocks of mews housing (Retrospective application).

Members recalled planning and listed building applications on this site for the refurbishment and conversion of Highgrove House to provide 12 residential units and the erection of 4 two-bedroomed mews houses with associated amenity space, off-street parking and landscaping, involving the demolition of the stable building.

Permission was originally granted at the North Planning Committee meeting on the 09/01/07 (refs.10622/APP/2006/2490 and 2491) and time limit extensions were granted at its meeting on the 04/02/10 (refs. 10622/APP/2010/2504 and 2506). Works had commenced on site, including work on the mews houses with their revised siting, the subject of this application.

This application as originally submitted was for a revised siting and design of the mews housing. It has since come to light that the original plans submitted were inaccurate in terms of the siting of the adjoining properties in Kent Gardens. Accurate plans have now been submitted. Furthermore, this application seeked to up-date the details which have now been approved in connection with the conditions attached to the renewed planning permission (ref. 10622/APP/2009/2504).

It was considered that as the revised siting of the mews housing did not bring the blocks any nearer to the listed Highgrove House and the alterations to their design were not extensive and were acceptable, its setting would not be adversely affected. For similar reasons, the alterations would not materially harm the amenities of future residents on the site. In terms of the impact upon adjoining residents on Kent Gardens, it was considered that the revised siting and design of the mews housing would have a neutral impact, and with the planting of a laurel hedge on the boundary, possibly a reduced impact in terms of the existing planning permission as was approved.

A site visit was carried out by Members on Tuesday 12^th July. The application was subject to 10 letters and 2 petitions.

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:

• Mr Larkin spoke on behalf of the petitioners who signed the petition objecting to the application.
• The lead petitioner lived at lived at 27 Kent Gardens and stated that the residents were in support of the petition which objected to the intrusion that would be caused by this application.
• The petition had the support of MP Nick Hurd, Cllr Bruce Baker and local associations.
• The petitioner stated that the plans were inaccurate and the development was built on the wrong place.
• That the application was on a site that was already over developed and this was against planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 212.

Erection of a part three storey, part four storey building comprising a ground floor Class A1 (Retail) unit and 3, one-bedroom flats and 8, two-bedroom flats above with first floor rear roof garden and third floor terrace on front elevation.

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of a part three storey, part four storey building comprising a ground floor Class A1 (Retail) unit and 3, one-bedroom flats and 8, two-bedroom flats above with first floor rear roof garden and third floor terrace on front elevation

This application seeked planning permission for a new four storey building on the vacant site. It would comprise a new convenience store covering most of the ground floor and 3 one-bedroom and 8 two-bedroom flats above. The scheme would be car free.

The proposed usage was acceptable in policy terms and the scheme would benefit the town centre in terms of bringing a vacant prominent town centre site back into productive use. The scheme had been revised in terms of the building's siting and design and it was considered to present a satisfactory appearance on Field End Road, which respected the scale and harmonised with surrounding buildings.

The proposal was not considered to harm the setting of the Grade II listed Eastcote Underground Station sited on the opposite side of the road. The proposed building would not be detrimental  to  the amenities of surrounding residents.

One of  the  flats  was below  the minimum unit size advocated by design guidance, but  the shortfall  was minimal  and would  not  justify  a refusal of the  scheme. The amenity space proposed was considered acceptable in this town centre location. 

With  regards to noise,  the Council's  Environmental  Health  Officer  advised  that  adequate  safeguards  and attenuation  measures  would  ensure  that  an  adequate  residential  environment  was achieved.

Since the scheme has been amended to include a lift to all residential floors, the Council's Access Officer advised that the scheme was acceptable.

As the site had no rear access, servicing and deliveries would be at the front of the store. Works to the highway included a new  loading/unloading  bay  that would  be  available  to surrounding retail units, remodelling of the adjoining lay-by to provide three additional on-

street parking spaces and the area to the front of the store would be paved and two new trees and seating provided and the area would be dedicated to the Council. The Council's Highway Officer advised that delivery arrangements were acceptable; subject to control of delivery times to avoid peak hours and that the car free scheme was acceptable. Although no disabled car parking space was provided, given the constraints on site and the scale of the development proposed, no objection was raised.

An Affordable Homes Viability Assessment demonstrated that the scheme would not be viable  was  such  housing  was  included  having  regard  to  other  s106  commitments. It was considered that the scheme did provide a full range of S106 contributions. It was recommended for approval.

Members discussed the traffic and parking implications of the application. Members were concerned that the application offered of no parking spaces. They discussed the option of underground parking and issues that may arise from deliveries to this site. It was noted that this site did not have rear access so deliveries would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 213.

Erection of a glazed conservatory at Plot 296. (Amendment to reserved matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 dated 31/03/2008 - residential development)

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of a glazed conservatory at Plot 296. (Amendment to reserved matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 dated 31/03/2008 – residential development)

This report related to an application that seeked variations to the layout and design of the alternative access reserved matters scheme (ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046), for the former RAF Eastcote site, which was approved on 31 March 2008. The amendments would allow a rear conservatory on plot 296, which was located centrally in the northern portion of the site.

It was considered that in terms of design and layout, the inclusion of the conservatory would respect the character of the local area and not detract from the internal character of the development.

It was also considered that the inclusion of a conservatory to this plot would not have had an adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residents in terms of loss of privacy, outlook, daylight or sunlight. The remaining external amenity area of this plot would was considered sufficient to meet the needs of future occupiers.

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

Erection of part first floor rear/side extension, alterations to rear elevation to include removal of single storey rear roof, installation of ramps to West elevation and East elevation and external staircase to side.

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of part first floor rear/side extension, alterations to rear elevation to include removal of single storey rear roof, installation of ramps to West elevation and East elevation and external staircase to side.

Planning  permission  was  sought for the erection of a part  two storey part first floor side extension,  ground  floor  rear  infill  extension  and  provision  of  external  first  escape staircase. 

The application property was an attractive 'Arts & Crafts'  style  building  which forms a  group  with  10, 14  and 16  Eastbury  Road, which  were  on  the  local  list. 

The proposed part first floor side/rear extension was not considered to  harmonise with  the character, proportions and appearance of the main building and would be detrimental to the appearance of the  surrounding area and the  character and appearance of the Northwood/Frithwood Conservation  Area. The proposal would not harm the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

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:

• Mrs Herrning spoke on behalf of the petitioners who signed the petition objecting to the application.
• She stated that the reasons given by petitioners at the North Planning Committee last year on an application on this site all still applied.
• The lead petitioner had lived at no.14 for a number of years and wished that the area would stay an attractive area. She believed it was a conservation area and should be maintained.
• Malcolm Ruddock, Northwood Association, emailed his comments and he would actively oppose any further development on the site.
• The staircase on the site was a concern for any emergency access and any new proposed staircase needed to consider this.
• The proposed application would obstruct the sunlight and there would be an increase in the noise levels for neighbours.
• Currently during the day time the noise levels were loud. Loud screaming could be heard as well as bad language.
• The petitioner urged the Committee to uphold the planning department’s advice to refuse the application.
• Mrs Nuttall stated that residents supported Mrs Herrnings petition for refusal.
• The site was already over-developed and that residents were already troubled by the noise from the nursing home. Complaints had been made numerous times about this. The nursing home staff were not cooperative and told residents to take the matter up with Hillingdon Council.
• That in 1988 the then Director of Planning said that the site had reached its maximum development levels.
• The footprint of the site was already too big.
• The resident’s basic human rights were in being breached.
• The petitioner also stated that the owner of the nursing home had ignored the planning application.

The agent made the following points:

• The agent stated that they had been instructed on the current application. The previous application had been done by different architects.
• The agents did not understand why it had been necessary to contradict the conservation officer’s recommendation which gave approval for this application.
• A lot of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 215.

Retention of a single storey detached outbuilding to rear

Recommendation: Refusal

Retention of a single storey detached outbuilding to rear

Councillor Edward Lavery declared a personal interest in relation to this item. He remained in the room for this item.

Councillor Shirley Harper-O’Neill who was present declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to this item and left the room for the duration of this item.

The application site  was  located on  the south east side of Acre Way and comprised a  two storey  end  of  terrace  house  which  had  not  been  extended  with  an  outbuilding  at  the bottom of  the  rear garden,  the  subject of  this application.

The attached house, 28 Acre Way lies to the north east and had an outbuilding at the bottom of the rear garden. To the south west lies 24 Acre Way, a two storey end of terrace property set behind the front wall

of the application property. To the rear lies a footpath and driveway of Jupiter Court, a residential apartment block.

The street scene was residential in character and appearance, comprising  blocks  of  two  storey  terraced  houses  and  the  application  site  lies within  the developed area, as identified in the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007).

Planning permission was sought for the retention of an outbuilding at the bottom of the rear garden. The outbuilding was set adjacent to the side boundary with 28 Acre Way and along the rear boundary with Jupiter Court, and measure 5m wide, 5m deep and finished with an off-centre ridged roof 2.3m high at eaves level and 3.2m high at its highest point.  The outbuilding had a window  facing  the application property, a door and window  facing south west,  and  a  door which  opens  out  onto  a  footpath  associated with  Jupiter Court. The structure comprises timber elevations, with UPVC windows and a felt finished roof.

42 adjoining owner/occupiers and the Northwood Hills Residents Association have been consulted.  1  letter  of  objection  and  a  petition  with  26  signatories  had  been  received.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. There was no petitioner present on behalf of the petition.

A petition was received in support of the proposal by the agent, who was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the agent/petitioner:

• The building was a half complete project as they were told to stop as someone from Juniper Court complained. This was the reason the building looked in the state that it was.
• The agents did not want to continue any further building work in case they were told they could not.
• 2 weeks ago the agent received information of a petition against the application.
• The rear access was not being used.
• The agents wished for clarification on whether they could continue building as the half built project had been left for 2/3 years. 
• They were told to stop building by Housing, after commencing works in January 2008 and stopped around 6 months later.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 216.

Variation of condition 40 (to remove the requirement for traffic signals on Eastcote Road and on the intersection of Eastcote Road and Fore Street) of outline planning permission ref:10189/APP/2004/1781 dated 09/03/2006 'redevelopment for residential purposes at a density of up to 50 dwellings per hectare, including affordable housing, live-work units, a community facility and open space '

Recommendation: The application be deferred for determination bythe Head of Planning, Trading Standards and Environmental Protection under delegated powers

Redevelopment for residential purposes at density of up to 50 Dwellings per hectare, including affordable housing, live work unites, a community facilities and open space.

This report seeked approval for a deed of variation to the s106 Agreement attached to the outline planning permission for theredevelopment of the former RAF site for residential purposes.The deed of variation would allow flexibility in providing a moresympathetic pathway to be constructed through the adjoiningHighgrove Nature Reserve and outdoor sports facilities.

It was alsorequested that the remainder of the obligation relating to theNature Reserve be spent in an alternative way to that ofhedgerow removal as this hedgerow had already been removed.It was proposed to use these funds to purchase plant andmachinery to assist with the maintenance and improvement ofthe nature reserve and its surrounding area.

A further 12 months was sought to enable the Green Spaces team enough time toprepare and install this pathway. In addition, a further amendment to the main agreement wassought in relation to the definition of Outdoor Sports facilities, toenable greater flexibility in the spending of this contribution.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.  The deed of Variation agreed as per the agenda.

Resolved –

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

Single storey rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

Single storey rear extension.

The application site was located on the south eastern side of Wentworth Drive, a residential area of bungalows and houses. The site, No.  39, was a semi-detached bungalow that was attached to No.37 to the east and a detached bungalow, No. 41, was situated to the west.

These bungalows were on slightly raised ground. Nos. 37 and 39 were built as a pair with rear outshoots creating a short 'L' shape, each projecting 1.75m from No. 39 and 0.68m from No.37. Both properties had also extended their properties to fill in the 'L' shape and extended further outwards. The  remainder  of  properties  on  this  side  of  the  road  were  two storey  houses,  downhill  as  the  road  slopes  away  to  the  north,  north  east.  All three bungalows had single storey rear additions of which only limited glimpses were obtained from the front.  Limited  rear  views  were  gained  from  a  gated  private  access  road  serving garages to the rear of this side of Wentworth Drive.

The proposal was to erect a flat-roofed single storey extension to the rear. The extension would be stepped so that its smaller projection abuts the adjoining bungalow. The  extension  would  span  the  entire  width  of  the  property,  meeting  the  edges  of  the existing extensions and projecting out into the garden to a depth of 3.0m before stepping in by 3.21m on the boundary of No. 37 and projecting out again to a further 1.11m for a final width of 4.79m  towards  the boundary  to No. 41. The stepping permits a 45 degree angle of sight from the middle of the patio doors to No. 37. The proposed extension would project out a distance of 2.178m from the back wall of the extension to No. 37.

The new extension would replace an earlier extension and add to the floor area, making a total depth from the original bungalow of 6.4m where abutting the side of No. 37 and 7.1m on the side of No. 41. Both the existing and proposed side extensions would project approximately 0.7m above the existing fences. The proposed extension, at its longest, meets the rear building line of the extension to No.41.

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:

• Neighbours had discussed the loss of light that would result if the development was granted planning permission.
• The application was for an extension on an existing extension. This would bring the long extension in line with it’s neighbour at no.41 and would impact grossly on no.37.
• The 45 degree line of angel that was taken for the line of sight was taken from an incorrect position and did not show the extent of impact the development would have.
• That a planning officer had verbally agreed that the line of sight had been taken in the wrong place and the petitioner was surprised that this point had been washed over  ...  view the full minutes text for item 218.

Replacement of existing 12.5 metre high monopole mobile phone mast with a 12.5 metre high monopole mobile phone mast, replacement equipment cabinet and ancillary works (Consultation under Schedule 2, Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) (as amended.)

Recommendations:

1. That prior approval of siting and design is required.

2. The details of siting and design are refused.

Replacement of existing 12.5 metre high monopole mobile phone mast with a 12.5 metre high monopole mobile phone mast, replacement equipment cabinet and ancillary works (Consultation under Schedule 2, Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) (as amended.)

It was proposed to replace the existing 12.5m high monopole mobile phone mast with a monopole phone mast of the same height (including antennas), albeit with a thicker profile, incorporating three antennas. The mast would be moved by some 1.5m but still retain a back of footpath location. An existing equipment cabinet would also be replaced with a larger equipment cabinet.

The proposed replacement telecommunications mast would have a thicker profile, which would result in the mast having a more conspicuous and intrusive impact upon the street scene as compared to the mast it replaces.

This impact would be compounded by the larger replacement equipment cabinet.  Furthermore, the search for suitable replacement sites had not been comprehensive. As such, the proposal complies with Policies BE13, BE37 and OE1 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Polices (September 2007).

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed. This was a telecommunications application and the decision needed to be sent ASAP.

Resolved -

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

Installation of exhaust flues to north elevation

Recommendation: Approval

Installation of exhaust flues to north elevation

Installation of exhaust flues to north elevation

This application seeked planning permission for the alteration of the existing extract ducting on the Mount Vernon Treatment Centre, located within the Green Belt. The proposal was minor and would not harm the visual amenities of the green belt or the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

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.

Up to 31 March 2011

This report provided financial information on s106 and s278 agreements in the North Planning Committee area up to 31 March 2011 where the Council had received and held funds.

Resolved – That the Members noted the contents of the report.