Agenda and minutes

There were no apologises for absence.

Councillor Edward Lavery declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to item 9, 534 Victoria Road, and left the room for the duration of this item. Councillor Allan Kauffman was Chairman for this item.

None.

Items marked part 1 were considered in public and items parked part 2 were considered in private. There were no part 2 items to consider.

Demolition of existing detached store to rear, erection of single storey side/rear extension and alteration to first floor side elevation

Recommendation: Refusal

Demolition  of  existing  detached  store  to  rear,  erection  of  single  storey side/rear extension and alteration to first floor side elevation

17423/APP/2011/57

The  application  site  was  located  on  the  north  side  of  Pavilion Way  and  comprised  a  two storey  semi-detached  property  finished  in  red  brick, with white  render  and white UPVC windows and a wooden door. The property had a detached garage to the rear which was used as a store, an area of hard standing to the front and had been extended to the rear with a single storey extension. A loft conversion involving the formation of a gable end  and  the  construction  of  a  rear  dormer  had  recently  been  undertaken  as  Permitted Development.

The street scene was residential  in character and appearance and  the application site was within the developed area as identified in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a single storey side/rear extension with alterations  to  the  first  floor  side  elevation  of  the  existing  house  and  demolition  of  the existing detached store to the rear. The extension would replace the existing single storey rear extension. It would project 3.6 metres from the original rear wall of the property and have an overall width of 8.4 metres. It would be set back 5.4 metres from the front main wall of the property. It would be constructed with a flat roof to a height of 2.98 metres and be finished in materials to match the existing.  The alterations to the first floor side elevation would comprise the installation of an additional toilet window.

Planning permission was refused on 1 November 2010 (17423/APP/2010/1662) for a two storey side and rear extension, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 1 front rooflight and conversion of roof from hip to gable end, including demolition of single storey rear element.

7 neighbours and the Eastcote Residents Association were consulted. A petition signed by 21 persons had been received objecting to the proposal on the grounds that it was oversized and posed potential environmental issues.

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 Hyde spoke on behalf of the petitioners; he stated that there had been significant changes to the original application that was submitted.

·        Pictures/plans submitted by the lead petitioner showed the angle of the plot. Mr Hyde stated that the boundary of the fence sloped inwards and not at a right as was suggested in the plans submitted by the applicant.

·        Photographs were shown to explain to members the extent of the inward slope on the neighbouring garden.

·        Further photographs showed the boundary line was one that had existed for many decades and that there was old vegetation.

·        The depth of the building was discussed.

·        Mr Hyde had met with the applicant and agent and said that they had stated whatever design was approved they would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 226.

Retention of existing dormers to side and alteration to 1 dormer (Part Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

Retention of existing side dormer facing No.32 and alteration to side dormer facing No.36.

59470/APP/2011/1203

The application site was located on the north east side of Parkfield Road and comprised of a detached bungalow.  The application property was separated from the adjoining property, No.32 also a detached bungalow, by 2.5m. To the northwest was 36 Parkfield Road, also a detached bungalow.

The  area  was  characterised  by  a  mix  of  bungalows  and  two  storey  houses  and  the application  site  lies  within  the  developed  area  as  identified  in  the  adopted  Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies 2007.

The proposal was to retain the dormer window facing No.32 as constructed and to alter and retain the dormer facing No.36. The dormer facing No.32 would measures 4.25m wide, 3.4m deep and finished with a flat roof 2.3m high. It would retain gaps of 0.5m to the eaves and 0.2m to the roof ridge and

would  be  set  some  4.5m  back  from  the  front  of  the  property.  This dormer was as constructed and would retain the existing windows. The dormer facing No.36 would still measures 4.25m wide and 3.4m deep but would be finished with a flat roof 1.96m high. This would involve a reduction in its height by approximately 400mm.  It would increase the gap between it and the eaves  to 0.9m, but would still be 0.2m to the roof ridge and would be set some 4.5m back from the front of the property. It was also proposed to remove both the existing windows from the face of this dormer, leaving a blank facade facing No.36.

The site had an extensive planning history relating to developments in the roof. However, the most relevant is the enforcement notice relating to the existing dormers, the subject of this application, which was  served  in July  2008  and was  the subject  of  an  appeal. The Council had already secured a prosecution through  the courts which  resulted  in  the courts instructing the owner to comply with the terms of the enforcement notice.  This had

not occurred and the matter would be referred back to the courts for further determination.

Ickenham Residents Association were consulted, and two letters had been received objecting to the proposal. Two petitions, one with 21 signatures and one with 20 signatures had also been received. Both requesting that the application was refused and the enforcement notice complied with.

Officers had recommended this application be refused.

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 Noad spoke to Committee on behalf of petitioners. He had lived in Parkfield Road for 50 years.

·        He stated that the dormers at no.34 had be one of the most stressful applications in the area.

·        The dormers should not have been built and there were many applications refused, hearing, enforcements, meetings, emails, etc which supported this.

·        The proposal that was submitted by the applicant was in no way acceptable.

·        That the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 227.

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.

1901/APP/2011/174

This application was deferred from the committee of the 14th July for a site visit. 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 formed  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.

Officers had recommended this application be refused.

Officers had met with neighbours the day before to discuss issues and Members commented that the site visit was very helpful.

Members felt that the proposed extension was very large and the visual amenities needed to be considered. Light in the proposed bedroom could be an issue. Members also discussed any possible vegetation that could be destroyed.

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

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the agenda with an additional reason relating to the visual impact on the adjoining occupier to be agreed with the Chairman and Labour lead.

Change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) for use as an estate agent.

Recommendation: Refusal

Change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) for use as an estate agent.

3677/APP/2011/851

The site was within the core area of the South Ruislip Local Centre and comprises a ground floor commercial unit. Policy S9 states that in Local Centres the Local Planning Authority would only grant planning permission to change  the use  from Class A1 shops outside  the core areas. Local Centres were generally much smaller  than Town Centres and  in order that  these  centres  retain a  strong  retail  core, with more  than  just  the bare minimum of shops, the Local Planning Authority would not grant planning permission to change the use from Class A1.

The application seeked the change of use of an existing A1 (retail) use to a A2 (Financial and Professional Services) use and therefore would be contrary to adopted policy. Therefore the application was recommended for Refusal.

The petitioners were not present at the meeting and therefore did not address committee.

The agent was present and raised the following points on behalf of the application:

• The agent employed 7 full time and 1 part time staff at his letting agents. He ran a family business.
• He had agreed to invest in the property without realising there were any issues regarding change of use of the property.
• The agent understood why the officer’s recommendation was for refusal but he felt he had a strong retail case.
• There were 24 units in the area and 1 was an estate agents. 4 were food outlets and 2 newsagents.
• Historically the property was a very successful estate agents for around 30 years, it was a very good site.
• The agent was surprised at the petition generated, this was done by another estate agent who did not want any competition.
• This existing estate agent was the only one in South Ruislip. The agent felt that monopoly was not positive or a healthy way forward.
• If the application was refused by Committee than the unit would be left empty.
• It was historically a busy parade and the proposed estate agent would improve the parade and business. 

Members discussed the current policy and commented that it was not fit for purpose in the current economic climate. Members discussed the possibility of another business failing and it was suggested that the officer’s recommendation be overturned.

Members also commented that where possible they should maintain A1 usage, that the shop was current occupied as A1 usage. Members considered the option of trying to maintain this property as an A1 usage and seeing if it could be occupied in this way. That other occupiers needed to be considered.

Members discussed the change in the retail market, that there was not as much demand for such shopping parades. Members could assume that the current owner had looked at other opportunities and some felt that it was not down to the Committee to dictate to the owner what he could and could not do.

Members further commented that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 229.

Part single storey, party two storey side / rear extension involving alterations to side elevation.

Recommendation: Approval

Part single storey, party two storey side / rear extension involving alterations to side elevation.

42456/APP/2011/653

This application related to an existing residential care home situated within a residential area.  The  application  seeked  permission  for  a  part  2  storey,  part  single  storey  side extension, to provide 5 additional rooms.

It  was  considered  that  the  design  of  the  proposal  was  acceptable  and  that  any  loss  of residential  amenity  had  been  satisfactorily  addressed  and  would  not  be  materially different  from  the  existing  site  circumstances  to  warrant  the  refusal  of  planning permission on these grounds alone. As such the proposal was considered to comply with all relevant  policies  contained  in  the  Hillingdon  Unitary  Development  Plan  Saved  Policies (September 2007) and therefore the proposal was recommended for approval.

Some Committee Members had visited the site previously. Members asked for clarification on the frontage and trees. Officers replied that no trees would have been affected, that some shrubs would have had to be removed. Officers further commented that conditions were in place which safeguarding the trees and vegetation in the area.

Members felt that it was a sympathetic design and that it ticked all the boxes. Officers had produced a good report and included good conditions.  Members agreed that the proposed application was in-keep with the existing building, and that the neighbouring property was at a higher level so the impact would be minimised.

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

Resolved –

That the application be approvedas per the agenda.

Two storey, three-bedroom, end terrace dwelling with integral garage and associated amenity space and parking involving the demolition of existing detached bungalow (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Approval

Retention of two storey, three-bedroom, end terrace dwelling with integral garage and associated amenity space and parking

16490/APP/2011/1037

The  proposal  was  for  retrospective  planning  permission  for  an  end  terrace  property,  that had not been built in accordance with the approved plans, which were for the erection of a  row  of  four  2-storey  2-bedroom  terraced  houses,  two with  integral  garages,  together with  frontage parking and  vehicular  crossovers  (16490/APP/2006/1061).

This particular property was  constructed with  3-bedrooms  and  the  position  of  the  integral  garage  had been re-sited and was now situated against the shared party wall. However, the proposed dwelling  was  still  considered  to  provide  adequate  amenities  for  future  occupiers  and  the bulk and design was not considered materially different to that approved by the earlier grant

of planning  consent and as  such,  it  was  considered  the design of  the dwelling had been established  by  that  permission  as  acceptable.

With regard  to  the  revised  layout,  the dwelling  still  provides  2  off-street  parking  spaces,  together  with  an  area  of  soft landscaping  to  the  front  and  therefore,  the  design  of  the  dwelling  is  considered  to adequately  integrate  within  the  street  scene  without  causing  material  harm  to  the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.

The application was recommended for approval subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed by a majority. Councillor Payne abstained from voting.

Resolved –

That the application be approvedas per the agenda  and the changes set out in the addendum, and delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Environment, Education & Community Services to update the policies.

Three storey, four-bedroom terraced dwelling with 2 rooflights to front and 2 rooflights to rear, involving demolition of existing detached bungalow (Retrospective application.)

Recommendation: Approval

Retention of two storey, with rooms in roofspace, four-bedroom terraced dwelling with 2 rooflights to front and 2 rooflights to rear.

16490/APP/2011/245

The proposal was for retrospective planning permission for a mid-terrace property, that had not been built in accordance with  the approved plans, which were  for  the erection of a row of four 2-storey 2-bedroom terraced houses, two with integral garages, together with frontage  parking  and  vehicular  crossovers  (16490/APP/2006/1061). 

This  particular property was constructed with 4-bedrooms, one of which was in the roof space and due to the amended frontage layout, now only allows for one off-street parking space. However, the  proposed  dwelling  was  still  considered  to  provide  adequate  amenities  for  future occupiers and the bulk and design was not considered materially different to that approved by the earlier grant of planning consent and as such, it was considered that the design of the dwelling had been established by that permission as acceptable.

With regard to the revised frontage layout, whilst the dwelling now resulted in a parking shortfall, due to the parking  management  scheme  that  was  in  place  in  the  street,  it  was  not  considered demonstrable  harm  by  this  deficiency  results  and  furthermore,  this  revised  layout  was considered  to  result  in a  visual  improvement  to  the  frontage as  there  is now adequate

space  to  allow  for  areas  of  soft  landscaping  to  be  provided. 

Approval was therefore recommended.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed by a majority. Councillor Payne abstained from voting.

Resolved –

That the application be approvedas per the agenda  and the changes set out in the addendum, and delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Environment, Education & Community Services to update the policies.

Three storey, four-bedroom, terraced dwelling with associated amenity space and parking involving the demolition of existing detached bungalow (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

Retention of two storey, with rooms in roofspace, four-bedroom terraced Dwelling.

16490/APP/2011/1039

The proposal was for retrospective planning permission for a mid-terrace property, that had not been built in accordance with  the approved plans, which were  for  the erection of a row of four 2-storey 2-bedroom terraced houses, two with integral garages, together with frontage  parking  and  vehicular  crossovers  (16490/APP/2006/1061). 

This  particular property was  constructed with 4-bedrooms, one of which  was  in  the  roof  space,  together with  a  revised  front  layout. Whilst it  is  considered  that  the  proposed  dwelling  provides adequate  amenities  for  future  occupiers  and  the  bulk  and  design  was  not  considered materially  different  to  that  approved  by  the  earlier  grant  of  planning  consent,  the

amended  frontage  layout,  which  allows  for  one  off-street  parking  space  for  this residential unit results in the need to remove an existing highway tree (Cherry tree, ref. 00894 on  the  street  tree  register).  It had been recommended that  this  tree  was  removed and replaced in a more suitable position.

In addition to this requirement, as the property would result in a net gain of 7 habitable rooms, the director of education had stated an education contribution of £13,572 for nursery, primary, secondary, and post 16 education would be required in the South Ruislip Ward. Confirmation had been sought from the applicant regarding a request that both of these matters were dealt with via the completion of a Section 106 agreement and no response had been received.  Without this agreement in place, the proposal was considered to result in a total lack of off-street  parking  provision  for  this  particular  unit  together  with  an  increased  shortfall  of education provision in the surrounding area.

As such, the application is considered to fail to comply with policies BE38, AM14 and R17 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) and was recommended for refusal.

Refusal of this application would result in prosecution proceedings recommencing.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed by a majority. Councillor Payne abstained from voting.

Resolved –

That the application be refusedas per the agenda.

Two storey, three-bedroom, end of terrace dwelling with associated parking and amenity space following demolition of detached bungalow (Retrospective application).

Recommendation: Approval

Retention of two storey, three-bedroom, end terrace dwelling with integral garage and associated amenity space and parking

16490/APP/2011/1085

The  proposal  was  for  retrospective  planning  permission  for  an  end  terrace  property,  that had not been built in accordance with the approved plans, which were for the erection of a  row  of  four  2-storey  2-bedroom  terraced  houses,  two with  integral  garages,  together with  frontage parking and  vehicular  crossovers  (16490/APP/2006/1061).

This particular property was  constructed with  3-bedrooms  and  the  position  of  the  integral  garage  had been re-sited and was now situated against the shared party wall. However, the proposed dwelling  was  still  considered  to  provide  adequate  amenities  for  future  occupiers  and  the bulk and design was not considered materially different to that approved by the earlier grant of planning  consent and as  such,  it  was  considered  the design of  the dwelling has been established  by  that  permission  as  acceptable.

With  regard  to  the  revised  layout,  the dwelling  still  provided  2  off-street  parking  spaces,  together  with  an  area  of  soft landscaping  to  the  front  and  therefore,  the  design  of  the  dwelling  was  considered  to adequately  integrate  within  the  street  scene  without  causing  material  harm  to  the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.

The application was recommended for approval subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed by a majority. Councillor Payne abstained from voting.

Resolved –

That the application be approvedas per the agenda  and the changes set out in the addendum, and delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Environment, Education & Community Services to update the policies.

Change of use from Retail (Use Class A1) to a gymnasium (Use Class D2)

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to a gymnasium (Use Class D2)

42660/APP/2011/739

The application related  to  the change of use of an A1  (retail) unit  to D2  (Assembly and Leisure) for use as a gymnasium. The site was within the core area of South Ruislip Local Centre. Policy S9  stipulates  change  of  use  from A1  to  other  uses would  only  be  granted outside these areas. However, due to the extended length of time this unit had not been used for A1 use (since mid 1990's), it was considered the change of use would not have an adverse impact on the established character of the Local Centre.

Therefore,  subject  to  appropriate  conditions  relating  to  hours  of  operation  and  noise control, deliveries, and air extraction systems, the proposal would not conflict with any of the  relevant  Adopted  policies  within  the  Hillingdon  Unitary  Development  Plan  Saved Policies (September 2007).

This application was recommended for approval.

Members discussed the usage and any noise issues that may arise. Members were satisfied with the proposal and change of usage.

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

Resolved –

That the application be approvedas per the agenda and delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Environment, Education & Community Services to update the policies.