Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillors Allan Kauffman and John Morgan with Councillors Brian Stead and Josephine Barrett substituting.

None.

Were not available and would be considered at the next meeting.

None.

All items were considered in public with the exception of items 15, 16 and 17 which were considered in private.

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

Recommendation : Deed of Variation to S106 Agreement determined at Committee 26^th August 2010

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

Resolved –

a) That the Statement of Intent to enter into a S106 agreement dated 5th

November 2010 be varied as follows:

The addition of a further schedule (6) requiring that all 10 residential units as approved are to be delivered as affordable housing.

(This authority is given by the issuing of this notice under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 and shall enure only for the benefit of the land)

a) That the applicant being the local authority and being the only legal entity with an interest in the land which is the subject of this application, and hence being unable to enter into a section 106 Agreement with the local planning authority, completes a Statement of Intent (Statement) to make provision for the following matters as would a third party developer under a section 106 planning obligation:

i) The provision of highway improvements along Victoria Road, including right turning lane, reinstatement of the existing access and creation of new access arrangements.

ii) The provision of a contribution of £12,311 towards educational facilities.

iii) The provision of a contribution of £3,250 towards healthcare facilities.

iv) The provision of a contribution of £345 towards local library facilities

v) A contribution of £2,500 for every £1 million build cost to provide for

construction training.

vi) A cash contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contribution to enable the management and monitoring of the requirements of the legal agreement.

b) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Statement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

c) That planning officers be authorised to negotiate and agree details of the proposed Statement.

d) That if any of the heads of terms set out above have not been agreed and the S106 legal agreement has not been finalised within 6 months of the date of this committee resolution, or any other period deemed appropriate by the Head of Planning and Enforcement, then the application may be referred back to the Committee for determination.

e) That subject to the above, the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning and Enforcement under delegated powers, subject to the completion of the Statement.

Erection of a part three and a half, part four storey block and a three storey block comprising a total of 19 one-bedroom and 12 two-bedroom flats, together with associated parking and amenity space

Recommendation : Deed of Variation to S106 Agreement determined at Committee 19^th May 2011

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

Resolved –

That the Heads of Terms of the S106 agreement as set out in the report to the North Planning Committee of the 19th May 2011 be amended to read as follows:

This authority is given by the issuing of this notice under

Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General

Regulations 1992 and shall enure only for the benefit of the

land)

a) That the applicant being the local authority and being the only

legal entity with an interest in the land which is the subject of

this application, and hence being unable to enter into a section

106 Agreement with the local planning authority, completes a

Statement of Intent (Statement) to make provision for the

following matters as would a third party developer under a

section 106 planning obligation:

i) The provision of highway improvements along Victoria Road,

including right turning lane, reinstatement of the existing access

and creation of new access arrangements.

ii) The provision of a formula calculation towards educational

facilities.

iii) The provision of a formula calculation (£216.67 per person) towards healthcare facilities.

iv) The provision of a formula calculation (£23 per person)

towards local library facilities

v) The provision of a formula calculation towards construction

training, in line with the SPD, (£2,500 for every £1 million build

cost + 31 (number of units) /160 x £71,675 = total contribution).

vi) A cash contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contribution

to enable the management and monitoring of the requirements

of the legal agreement.

b) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the

applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of

the Statement and any abortive work as a result of the

agreement not being completed.

c) That planning officers be authorised to negotiate and agree

details of the proposed Statement.

d) That if any of the heads of terms set out above have not been

agreed and the S106 legal agreement has not been finalised

within 6 months of the date of this committee resolution, or any

other period deemed appropriate by the Head of Planning, then

the application may be referred back to the Committee for

determination.

e) That no planning permission be approved until the statement

of intent concerning application reference 67080/APP/2010/1419

has been varied as per the decision of the North Planning

Committee of the 17th November 2011.

f) That subject to the above, the application be deferred for

determination by the Head of Planning under delegated powers,

subject to the completion of the Statement.

Erection of a single storey, detached, two-bedroom dwelling with associated amenity space and parking

Recommendation : Refusal

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

• The proposal was a blatant case of garden grabbing
• The proposal was an over development of the site
• land had always been part of the Green Belt land, adjacent to No.12
• The proposal did not incorporate sufficient amenity space
• Destruction to greenbelt meadow trees would lead to the destruction of wildlife habitat
• The proposal would destroy the character of the road and lead to the loss of  a front garden
• There was no automatic right to build a dwelling on this land and the application was one of several which had been submitted by the developer to try and achieve his goal little by little

The agent did not attend the meeting.

Members agreed the application represented a prime example of creeping development and on these grounds supported the officer recommendation for refusal.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused as per the officer’s report

Detached storage building to be used for the processing and storage of bio fuel and compost

Recommendation : Refusal

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners (in support).

The Councillor made the following points:

• The protection of Green Belt land is very important but special circumstances exist in this case which mean the officer recommendation for refusal should be overturned.
• The site currently services a number of West London waste sites, various local garden centres and the Ruislip Crematorium and so is  a valuable local resource
• The proposal was situated within a concreted area of the existing development which meant there would be no additional encroachment   to the Green Belt.
• The proposal will enable the woodchip to remain dry and therefore would increase the productivity of the site

Members asked officers to clarify the exact nature of the application. Having heard the proposal would enclose an existing storage area, Members agreed there were several special reasons for the officers recommendation for refusal to be overturned.

Members agreed the proposal would improve the visual amenity of the site, ensure it provided a product of local need and also make the production of bio-mass material more efficient by ensuring raw material were kept dry. It was also noted the applicant had been providing a composting service for a number of years on the site.

It was proposed and seconded and on being put to the vote, unanimously agreed the officer recommendation for refusal should be overturned and the application be approved.

Resolved –

That the recommendation be overturned and the application be Approved. That the reasons for overturning the officer recommendation for refusal be agreed by the Chairman and Labour Lead outside the meeting

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of new 6 bedroom dwelling

Recommendation : Approval

This application was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Consumer Protection, Sport and Green Spaces

Raising of roof to allow conversion of roof space to habitable use to include  2 front rooflights and conversion of roof from hip to gable end at rear and at side with 4 new gable end windows and Juliette balcony involving alterations to chimney stack (Part Retrospective)

Recommendation : Refusal

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

• The current height of this build looks like a watch tower and results in loss of privacy;
• The proposal is an eyesore and far removed from the original plans;
• The raised roof level has already obscured the view from the upper room of our house and has created an eyesore
• The raised roof level is not in keeping with the cottages in the Area of Special Local Character.
• The view along the line of houses from a residents back garden is impaired by the style and size of this extension
• The work which has been undertaken has been done with complete disregard for planning rules
• The applicant did not consult neighbours
• The building is visually overbearing, an inappropriate design, would destroy the character of a beautiful part of Northwood.

The applicant addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·        Planning officers had advised him to apply for Permitted Development Rights and as soon as this had been received building works began

·        When a complaint about the building works was received two to three weeks into the build, an Enforcement officer investigated and the applicant was advised to contact a Planning Officer

·        Initially the applicant had sought to extend his property and replicate the visual characteristics of surrounding properties. Unfortunately none of the designs submitted met his needs and none of the designs were carbon efficient.

·        The proposed design would complement existing properties within the Conservation Area.

·        The proposed design would meet sustainability targets.

• The proposed design took account of flooding concerns and incorporated under croft void areas which would increase drainage

Members supported the officer recommendation for refusal.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused as per the officer’s report

Raising of roof to allow conversion of roof space to habitable use to include  2 front rooflights and conversion of roof from hip to gable end at rear and at side with 4 new gable end windows and Juliette balcony involving alterations to chimney stack (Part Retrospective)

Recommendation : Refusal

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

• The current height of this build looks like a watch tower and results in loss of privacy;
• The proposal is an eyesore and far removed from the original plans;
• The raised roof level has already obscured the view from the upper room of our house and has created an eyesore
• The raised roof level is not in keeping with the cottages in the Area of Special Local Character.
• The view along the line of houses from a residents back garden is impaired by the style and size of this extension
• The work which has been undertaken has been done with complete disregard for planning rules
• The applicant did not consult neighbours
• The building is visually overbearing, an inappropriate design, would destroy the character of a beautiful part of Northwood.

The applicant addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·        Planning officers had advised him to apply for Permitted Development Rights and as soon as this had been received building works began

·        When a complaint about the building works was received two to three weeks into the build, an Enforcement officer investigated and the applicant was advised to contact a Planning Officer

·        Initially the applicant had sought to extend his property and replicate the visual characteristics of surrounding properties. Unfortunately none of the designs submitted met his needs and none of the designs were carbon efficient.

·        The proposed design would complement existing properties within the Conservation Area.

·        The proposed design would meet sustainability targets.

• The proposed design took account of flooding concerns and incorporated under croft void areas which would increase drainage

Members supported the officer recommendation for refusal.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused as per the officer’s report

Change of use of No. 439 Victoria Road from Use Class A1 (Shop) to Use Class A5 (Hot food takeaway) and installation of extractor duct to rear of Nos. 441/441A Victoria Road.

Recommendation : Refusal

This application was withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant.

Conversion of open land into parking area.

Recommendation : Approval

At the beginning of the item the Planning Officer introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the recommendation to delete condition 10 as set out in the Addendum.

A number of different views both in support and in objection to the application were raised and included the following:

The site was situated on derelict land and was already in use as a dropping off point for children to school. Special circumstances concerning child safety existed in this particular case.

The site was effectively a car park within the Green Belt and did not represent an appropriate form of development. Pick up and collection times from school meant roads were congested across the Borough and this was not a special case.

With reference to disabled parking for the application site, the Committee agreed that 2 disabled car parking spaces, rather than 5 would be sufficient and agreed to amend condition 9 to this effect.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed with four votes in favour, two against and one abstention.

Resolved –

That the Application be Approved with the changes set out in the addendum and amendment to condition 9 to provide 2 disabled parking spaces.

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved,

seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved –

1. That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report and compliance period being changed by the committee was agreed. 

2. That the Committee resolve 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.

The report relating to this decision is not available to the public

because it contains information which reveals that the authority

proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of

which requirements are imposed on a person; and (b) to make an order

or direction under any enactment and the public interest in withholding

the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt

information under paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local

Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved,

seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved –

1. That the enforcement actions as recommended in the

officer’s report and at the meeting, subject to clarification be agreed.

2. That the Committee resolve 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.

The report relating to this decision is not available to the public

because it contains information which reveals that the authority

proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of

which requirements are imposed on a person; and (b) to make an order

or direction under any enactment and the public interest in withholding

the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt

information under paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local

Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved,

seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved –

1. That the enforcement actions as recommended in the

officer’s report be agreed.

2. That the Committee resolve 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.

The report relating to this decision is not available to the public

because it contains information which reveals that the authority

proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of

which requirements are imposed on a person; and (b) to make an order

or direction under any enactment and the public interest in withholding

the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt

information under paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local

Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

None

None