Agenda and minutes

None.

Councillor Richard Lewis declared an interest in relation to Item 8, St John’s School, and remained in the room for the duration of this item.

These were agreed to be an accurate record.

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.

Retention of additional classroom and assembly area with library for pre-prep school, together with first aid room and staff toilet, without complying with condition 4 of planning permission ref: 10795/APP/2001/1600 dated 21/11/2001 (which limited pupil numbers at the school to 350 and staff to no more than 40 FTE) to allow for the retention of the current staff numbers (65 full-time equivalent staff).

Recommendation: Approval

Retention of additional classroom and assembly area with library for pre-prep school, together with first aid room and staff toilet, without complying with condition 4 of planning permission ref: 10795/APP/2001/1600 dated 21/11/2001 (which limited pupil numbers at the school to 350 and staff to no more than 40 FTE) to allow for the retention of the current staff numbers (65 full-time equivalent staff).

The Chairman introduced the application and reminded all those present that the Council meeting on 12 January 2012 had approved a change to its petition procedures and speaking rights at Planning Committee meetings.

Where there were multiple petitions received in relation to a planning application, the Chairman of the Planning Committee had the discretion to amend speaking rights so that there was no duplication of presentations to the meeting. There would not be an automatic right that each organiser of a petition will get 5 minutes to speak. The Chairman may agree a maximum of 10 minutes speaking time for a representative to speak on behalf of the multiple petitions. The applicant or their agent also had the right to speak at the Committee meeting about the application for 5 minutes.

For this application the Council had received a total of 37 petitions in support of the application, this included an on-line petition. A total of 4 petitions had been received against the application.  The Chairman had agreed that the petitioners in support of the application be granted 10 minutes to address Committee and two petitioners had been nominated to speak on the petitioners behalf. The Chairman had agreed that the petitioners against the application be granted 5 minutes to address Committee as the 4 petitions received had the same statement against the application and as the majority of the signatures on the petitions being the same.

It was noted that Members had considered the large volume correspondence and papers in relation to this application. This included a lengthy addendum which set out an additional statement from the petitioners in objection to the application. It was noted that all planning decisions were influenced by planning matters. The comments from residents, MP, Councillor’s had all been noted by Committee.

An earlier application to retain a single storey extension to the school which was sited within the Green Belt without complying with condition 4 of the original permission dated 21st November 2001 which limited pupil and staff numbers at the school to 350 and 40 full time equivalent (FTE) respectively so as to allow current numbers of 405 pupils and 65 FTE staff to be retained was refused at the North Planning Committee on 29^th April 2010.

A subsequent appeal was dismissed. The School had made a legal challenge to the Inspector's decision which was still pending. Before the appeal was due to be heard, a further application was submitted with up-dated information. This application was due to be considered at a special North Planning Committee meeting on the 9th March 2011, but the School withdrew the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

Demolition of existing property and the erection of a two storey, with rooms in roofspace, six bedroom detached dwelling.

Deferred from North Committee 20/12/2011

Recommendation: Approval

Demolition of existing property and the erection of a two storey, with rooms in roofspace, six bedroom detached dwelling.

This application was deferred at the North Planning Committee of the 20th December 2011 for a site visit. Members visited the site on the 24th January 2012.

Planning permission was sought for the erection of a 6 bedroom detached house. The proposed house, would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers and would not harm the amenities of nearby residents. With the proposed amendments, it was considered that the development would relate satisfactorily with the character and appearance of other houses in the street, the street scene and surrounding area generally.

A new petition, objecting to the application, with 23 signatures had been received. Concerns had been raised by adjoining residents relating to the accuracy of the plans and in particular the distance the new property would extend beyond the rear of the current building, which on the plans is shown to align with the rear of No.37 at a distance of 5.105m; and the discrepancy in the report between paragraph 3 and paragraph 5.

Officers had been to the site twice and measured this distance, there was a discrepancy of around 100mm. Paragraph 3 was correct. With regard to paragraph 5 this particular sentence was referring to No.41 and should say ‘house’ as opposed to ‘houses’.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Mr Jerry Hughes spoke on behaviour of the petitioners:

·           Mr Hughes stated that the plans shown in the report did not reflect the application adequately. He felt there were discrepancies in the accuracy of the plans.

·           The figures that were stated in the plans gave the planners the option to go further with the extension and closer into the neighbouring properties.

·           The petitioner stated that the shadow plans shown were significantly different to what the current building at no.37 was currently like; the plans reflected what it was like in 1991.

·           Petitioners did wish that no.39 be developed as it was an eyesore but would like it to be developed legally.

·           Mr Hughes stressed that he felt the plans shown were incorrect.

The agent was not present.

A Ward Councillor was present and addressed Committee:

·           The Ward Councillor stated that if the plans in the report were not correct than the information before Committee was inaccurate. Therefore the Committee would not be in a place where they could make a decision on the application before them.

The Council’s Legal Officer confirmed that if the Committee made a decision on the application at the meeting then it would be on the plans submitted to them.

Officers confirmed that the addendum contained new plans and the discrepancy was very small. It was confirmed, again, that officers had been out twice to measure to site. It was also confirmed by officers that the overshadowing diagram was correct.

Members discussed the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

Part two storey, part single storey rear/side extension and single storey detached garage to side/rear involving demolition of existing detached garage to side.

Deferred from North Committee 10/01/2012

Recommendation: Approval

Part two storey, part single storey rear/side extension and single storey detached garage to side/rear involving demolition of existing detached garage to side.

This application was deferred at the committee of the 10th January 2012 for a site visit. Members visited the site on the 24th January 2012. Petitioners had addressed the Committee at the meeting on 10^th January 2012 and a new petition had not been received, there was therefore no right to speak for petitioners at this meeting.

The application property was a distinctive, two storey, detached dwelling situated on the western side of Catlins Lane. The property dates from 1904, was locally listed and within the Eastcote Village Conservation Area. It was built in an Arts and Craft style, with elevations comprising rough cast render with a tiled roof with a circular bay to the front and a tiled roof turret.

The streetscene was verdant and semi-rural in nature. It was primarily residential with large two storey individually designed houses, generally set in large plots, with the buildings set well back from the road.

The application remained the same as previously presented to Committee with a minor amendment to the size of the patio, and width of the side extension, which were being reduced. The plans remained the same and additional information had been provided with the materials to be used.

An email had been received from a resident stating that the English Heritage had decided to protect the house with a Grade II listing and were expecting ratification of this from the Secretary of State by 29th February. Officers had received confirmation from English Heritage that the property was not recommended for a statutory listing.

It was also noted that an additional standard condition would be added, which was not included in the report or addendum, with regard to ‘boundary treatment.’

As site was within the Eastcote Village Conservation Area, Mrs Lesley Crowcroft had indicated she would be speaking on their behalf:

·      Mrs Crowcroft felt that the report, additional conditions and addendum did not show the protection across the ridge.

·      She asked that the rough cast be retained and the application would be more acceptable.

·      It was felt that the side extension would cause a terrace effect.

·      The new revised drawings did not contain the dimension of the side extension, as detailed in the officer’s report. 

·      Mrs Crowcroft asked that the conditions on the application contained a minimum distance. Neighbours and occupiers of Westcott had shown concern.

·      There were problems with air vents to consider.

·      The Conservation Panel felt the side extension would be over dominant and not in-keep with the street scene.

Officers confirmed that the conditions on the application required that the tiles and lights on the site be retained. Officers also confirmed that the plans set out in the addendum set out the distances. The rough cast was detailed in the conditions and was proposed to match.

Members commented that the property needed some work. The features of the property were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

Single storey side/rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

Single storey side/rear extension.

The application related to a semi-detached house dating from the 1930's on the southwestern side of Poplar Close, a cul-de-sac serving eleven dwellings and a scout hall. Poplar Close was off Ickenham Road, near the junction of Ickenham Road with High Street.

The site was within the Developed Area as identified in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the Ruislip Village Conservation Area.

The proposal was for a side and rear extension that would wrap around the rear of the existing house. The house had been extended in the past with a hip to gable roof alteration for a loft conversion under Permitted Development rights. This was undertaken prior to the property being included within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area.

The main considerations were the design and impact of the extension on the house and wider locality, the impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers and car parking considerations. With regard to any loss of privacy, it was considered that the proposal would not have an adverse affect on the amenity of adjoining residents. The proposal would involve no additional side facing windows.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Mr Trevor Browne spoke on behalf of the petitioners:

·        Mr Browne explained to Members that before Christmas the officer recommendation was to refuse this application.

·        That the plans previously submitted were similar to what was being presented in the report to Committee.

·        The majority of the residents in the area were elderly and when amendments came out they did not have access to the updated plans.

·        Mr Browne questioned why the recommendation had changed and that there were only small changes to the report.

·        It was felt that the application was overdevelopment and would be over dominant.

·        He felt the comments on the previous report were still relevant.

·        Mr Browne asked Members to vote against the officer recommendation and refuse the application.

The agent was not present.

A Ward Councillor was present and addressed Committee:

·           The Ward Councillor supported the objections of the residents.

·           It was stressed that the was development in a Conservation Area.

·           That the large roof extension was against policy B15, and it would impact on amenities.

·           The Ward Councillor found it difficult to see how the application would enhance the area.

·           It was urged that the Committee gave serious consideration to the points that were raised regarding the application.

Officers commented on the plans submitted with the application and stated that the Council had no control over who draws the plans. A number of minor revisions had been done on the plans due to some inaccuracies. Officers also commented that the proposal was a regular shape roof form. This was no different to a large amount of applications approved across the Borough, including in Conservation Areas.

Officers spoke about the flue and explained that for the application this would have to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.