Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors John Morgan and David Payne with Councillors Dominic Gilham and Michael White acting as substitute.

None.

The minutes of the meetings held on 20 December 2011 and 10 January 2012 were agreed as accurate records.

None.

Construction of an all-weather, sand dressed multi purpose sports playing pitch, with associated floodlighting and fencing.

Recommendation : Refusal

The application was withdrawn by the applicants.

Demolition of 30-32 Chester Road and development of Residential Care Home, alterations to access and associated landscaping.  Deferred from North Planning Committee on 4^th October 2011

Recommendation : Would have been approved had an appeal against non-determination not been received.

Officer’s introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes as set out in the addendum.

Officers highlighted that the application had been deferred at the Committee meeting held on 4^th October 2011 and had also been the subject of a site visit by the Committee.

Officers explained that a previous scheme for a 24 bedroom care home on the application site was refused by the Council in 2010, and a subsequent appeal was also dismissed earlier this year.

The Inspector found that that scheme would have resulted in a development that would fail to harmonise with the area and would create a cramped street scene, thereby harming the character and appearance of Chester Road and the Area of Special Local Character. The Inspector did however find that there would be no harm to highway safety, that the Council's renewable energy requirements could reasonably be controlled by condition, that access for the disabled was satisfactory, and that a healthcare contribution was appropriate.

The Inspector also found that the relationship with the adjoining neighbours in terms of the impact on their amenities would be acceptable. Therefore the Committee were informed that the only reason for refusal of the Council that he supported was in respect of the impact on the character of the area.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a ward Councillor spoke in objection to the item.

The ward councillor made the following points:

• The flanks of the proposed building were bulkier in depth than the adjoining property at No 28 and exceeded the present building, affecting the privacy of residents in Roy Road and this would be exacerbated by the removal of trees.
• The proposed care home would bring total occupancy to 58 people plus staff, causing an increase in road traffic with little off-road traffic catered for.
• The traffic survey commissioned by the applicants had been held at strange times which did not coincide with the time at which local roads would be busiest.
• The traffic survey had only been conducted on the main roads and had ignored the likely impacts (of displaced parking) on side roads.
• A large commercial enterprise in a wholly residential area would not be sympathetic to the area

In discussing the application, officer’s confirmed that no parking survey had been conducted on a Sunday. Officer’s reported that the Council’s own parking survey had yielded the following results:

• Chester Road : 31 parked, 46 vacant, and 40% occupied
• Kemps Drive: 3 parked, 5 vacant, and 38% occupied
• Wychwood Way: 16 parked, 9 vacant, and 64% occupied

And this survey re-inforced the information provided by the applicants that indicated the parking situation in the area was not so severe that the application could be refused.

With reference to access and temporary parking for emergency vehicles it was noted that there was parking available to the front of the site and  emergency service could park in the access point of the proposed development should this need arise.

The recommendation:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.

Change of use of ground floor unit from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to a mixed use of Class A1 (Shops) and 'Sui Generis', for use for Hypnotherapy, Dietician, IPL Laser, Beauty Therapy and Hairdressing.

Recommendation : Approval

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes as set out in the addendum.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:

• The ongoing recession meant that the change from Class A2 to Class A1 was not welcome as there already were 10 salons on the High Street and if permission were granted, then all the existing salon owners would suffer loss of trade
• The street scene required a variety of shops to attract new customers to the area and a further salon was not required.
• A new salon would not bring anything new (in terms of treatments) to the area.
• A change of use would not safeguard the area.

The applicant made the following points:

• There were 6 vacant properties in the High Street which had been empty for a long time.
• The proposed application intended to offer customers a wide range of supplementary treatments in addition to health and beauty care.
• The catchment area of the High Street was sufficiently large to support another salon.
• A further salon would provide customers with greater choice

Officers advised the Committee that its decision had to take account of material planning considerations and could not take retail competition into account.

In discussing the application, the Committee agreed that no trade had a right to a monopoly, competition was necessary for any High Street to thrive and market forces would dictate that only the most successful traders would survive. Members noted that the shop unit had been vacant for some time and agreed it was better to grant a change of use rather continue to have an empty shop unit. The Committee agreed that given the current economic climate, the start-up of new businesses should be applauded.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved as per the officer’s report and the changes set out in the addendum.

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway)

Recommendation : Approval

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes as set out in the addendum.

In discussing the application, the Committee agreed it was preferable to have shop units in use rather than remain vacant. Officers explained that the nature of the application meant this was likely to be the last Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) which could be approved on the High Street.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved as per the officer’s report and the changes set out in the addendum.

One storey, 1-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing detached garage (Resubmission)

Recommendation : Refusal  

Officer’s introduced the report.  The Committee agreed that the proposal would constitute an over development of the existing site and be detrimental to the area, would result in the loss of amenity space for the donor property and would also result in the loss of off-street parking to that property.

The Committee also raised concerns about the poor access to the property (given this was situated on a hill near to an elongated round about) and the lack of provision shown for the protection and long term retention of a protected Ash tree.

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 officer’s report

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to A2 (Financial and Professional Services) for use as an estate agents

Recommendation : Would have been approved had an appeal against non-determination not been received.

Officer’s introduced the report. Officer’s confirmed that the application related to a change of use of an existing vacant retail unit (A1) to A2 an estate agents and this was located in an area of special local character as identified in the Hillingdon IDP.

In discussing the application, the Committee agreed it was preferable to have shop units in use rather than remain vacant.

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

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

Single storey extension to clubhouse, alterations to elevations and access to clubhouse.

Recommendation : Approval

Officer’s introduced the report. In discussing the application, the Committee noted that the revised scheme had been reduced in size and included a slight alteration to the general internal layout.

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

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