Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Michael Markham and Councillor Carol Melvin. Councillor Pat Jackson and Councillor Brian Stead were in attendance as substitutes.

Councillor John Morgan declared a personal interest in regard to item 7, Mountwood Healthcare Properties, Mountwood Surgery, as it was his personal doctor surgery. Councillor Morgan 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. Item 9 was a part 2 item and therefore considered in private.

Part single storey part two storey rear extension; single storey front extension and entrance porches plus raising of roof incorporating front/rear dormers and rooflights; and alterations to elevations to allow for conversion of existing dwelling to 2 x two storey with habitable roofspace, 6-bed semi-detached dwelling houses with associated amenity space and parking.

Recommendation: Refusal

Part single storey part two storey rear extension; single storey front extension and entrance porches plus raising of roof incorporating front/rear dormers and rooflights and alterations to elevations to allow for conversion of existing dwelling to 2 x two storey with habitable roofspace, 6-bed semi-detached dwelling houses with associated amenity space and parking.

The proposed scheme had been assessed against the relevant Council policies and the London Plan and it was considered that the proposed increase in size, scale and bulk of the original  building  would  unduly  detract  from  the  character  of  the  street  scene  and  its surroundings. In addition, the proposed on-site parking layout was inadequate and was likely to raise issues of general highway safety.  For these reasons, the proposal was recommended for refusal.

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 Ian Philips spoke on behaviour of the petitioners:

• The application was on a prominent site on Swakeleys Road.
• The context for development was mainly a 2 storey family style dwelling.
• It was a mature property and situated back from the road.
• The application was on a rat-run, busy road, with 2 schools in the area.
• Traffic management and parking issues were highly relevant to this application.
• Residents in the area were aware that the site required development and asked that the application was in-keep with the street scene.
• The view from the neighbouring property was a concern.
• The petitioners felt that a family detached house would suit the area.
• The height of the roof was a concern and the profile needed to be sympathetic to neighbours.
• Most of the buildings in the area were 2 storeys but this application was for a 3 storey application.
• There was an issue with the bulk and mass, in particular the roof lines. This made the building seem intrusive.
• Petitioners felt that the proposal did not meet planning criteria, therefore objected to the application.
• Petitioners were happy to assist in the development and would be happy with an application that met planning criteria.

Mr Chris Barrett on behalf of the application submitted:

• Mr Barrett was not aware this application was going to Committee until the day before.
• He believed the application would be considered at the North Planning Committee on 26 April 2012, as this was the advice he received from the Planning Officer.
• The applicant stated that this application was almost identical to another application which had been approved.
• He had been working with the Council and architect to sympathise the application to something that was acceptable.
• Mr Barrett asked for a deferral in order for plans that he was currently working on to be made available.
• He believed he could accommodate the requested changes and a meeting for new drawings had been scheduled.
• He had consulted with neighbours and would continue to do so, in order to submit an application which they would be happy with.
• The applicant was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

Installation of 2 x flood lights mounted on lamp posts.

Recommendation: Approval

Installation of 2 x flood lights mounted on lamp posts.

This application seeked planning permission for  the  installation of 2  flood  lights mounted on  lamp posts to be situated projecting onto a car park. The flood  lights would provide additional  light  to  the Mountwood Surgery car park. The proposal would not cause any detrimental  harm  to  residential  amenity nor would  there  be  a  public  or  highway  safety risk. The proposal was minor and would not harm the visual amenities of the green belt or the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It was therefore recommended for approval.

Members confirmed the lighting was for security purposes and would have no impact on any adjoining properties; the lights would be facing away from the nearby buildings.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed by a majority of 6 to 0, Councillor Morgan abstained from voting.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda.

Change of use of dwellinghouse to a Nursery School (D1), including single storey side and rear extensions, two storey front extension, canopy to front, side and rear, alterations to the elevations and relocation of pedestrian and vehicular accesses, retention of a one bed staff flat at first floor level, involving demolition works. (Resubmission).

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use of dwelling house to a Nursery School (D1), including single storey side and rear extensions, two storey front extension, canopy to front, side and rear, alterations to the elevations and relocation of pedestrian and vehicular accesses, retention of a one bed staff flat at first floor level, involving demolition works.

The application seeked planning permission for a change of use from the existing dwelling house to a Nursery School including front side and rear extension. The application was a revision on a previous refused scheme (698/APP/2010/1947) which was refused on three grounds; loss of a residential unit; highways issues and design.

An  appeal  to  the  Planning  Inspectorate  was  dismissed  on  design  grounds  only.  The Inspector  considered  that  both  the  highway  safety,  parking  and  the  loss  of  residential were acceptable in this instance.

The  current  application  was  similar  to  the  previous  submission with  the  exception  of  the front  extension.  This  front  element  now  appeared  traditional  in  design  and  would blend  in  with  the  existing  property  and  surrounding  street  scene.  It would therefore comply with policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of UDP.

Given the Inspectorate's decision, both the highway concerns and the loss of residential unit would now be acceptable.  As such the application now  overcame  the  previous reasons for refusal and was recommended for approval. A unilateral undertaking had been agreed with the applicant which covered highway safety measures.

Members discussed the possible problems that may arise with regard to parking. Officers confirmed that 1 parking space would be available for staff and the rest of staff would have to park on the nearby road. Members were familiar with the area and felt that there would be parking problems; because of the Inspectorate decision Members felt that they had no choice but to approve on application.

Members and officers discussed the option of including an extra condition with regard to the Green Travel Plan.

Members stated that the application would increase the number of nursery places available and this was positive.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed by a majority of 5 to 2. Councillors’ Morgan and Dhillon voted against approval of the application.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum, and additional Green Travel Plan condition.

This item is included in Part II as it contains information which a) is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and b) contains information which reveals that the authority proposes to give, under an enactment, a notice under or by

virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person. The authority believes that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraphs 2 and 6(a) 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. Councillor Kaufmann abstained.

Resolved –

1.      That the Committee resolve to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in the report into the public domain, solely for the purpose of informing future complainants that no further action will be taken in respect of the advertising outlined in the report, and the exact wording to be agreed under delegated authority.