Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor John Morgan.  Councillor Patricia Jackson attended as a substitute.

None.

The minutes of the meetings held on 26 April and 10 May 2012 circulated after the agenda papers had been despatched were agreed as an accurate record.

The Chairman agreed to take an additional urgent enforcement item which was considered in Part 2 which was circulated less than 5 days before the meeting.

All items were considered in Part 1 with the exception of Item 14 and an additional urgent item which were considered in Part 2.

Erection of a part three storey, part two storey building with roof space accommodation and basement parking, comprising 11 one-bedroom, 27 two-bedroom and 4 three-bedroom residential flats and a commercial unit on the ground floor fronting Field End Road (involving demolition of the existing building.)

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a S106/Unilateral Undertaking.

Erection of a part three storey, part two storey building with roof space accommodation and basement parking, comprising 11 one-bedroom, 27 two-bedroom and 4 three-bedroom residential flats and a commercial unit on the ground floor fronting Field End Road (involving demolition of the existing building.)

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

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

The petitioner made the following points:

• The proposal was completely out of character with the area.
• The proposal would not complement the area and was over dominant.
• The proposal would result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.
• The proposed mural would be an eyesore to local residents.
• The infrastructure of Eastcote would not be able to support the proposed development.
• The proposed development would cause local traffic problems.
• The proposed underground car park would cause flood problems locally.
• The developer should undertake a consultation session with local residents.

Although the application site was not located within the Conservation area (but bordered it on two sides), the Chairman explained he had used his discretion and would allow a representative of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area Advisory Panel to speak for up to 5 minutes.

The Conservation Area Advisory Panel representative made the following points:

• The proposed development had been submitted in 2010 and then revised with a further submission in April 2012. Neither application met the required standards.
• The RIBA report had denounced this type of development and the dwellings it proposed.

• The proposed development was out of character with the Arts and Craft style found in Eastcote.
• The proposed development was 4 stories high rather than the 2 or 3 stories of surrounding buildings.
• The proposed lead roof would be out of keeping with the clay tiles used on surrounding buildings.
• The proposal did not include details about the proposed front gate.
• The residents of Moorford Way were especially concerned about the proposed mural.
• The proposal did not included sufficient amenity or play space.
• The proposed solar panels would crate an eye sore.
• There was concern about how the shared driveway would operate.

The representative speaking on behalf of the agent made the following points:

• Considerable resources had been spent protecting the site and the proposed development would deliver a high quality residential scheme.
• The proposed development would bring a number of benefits to the area, including healthcare and education contributions through the S106 unilateral undertaking.
• A number of consultations had been conducted and the application had taken these concerns on board.
• Local residents were not opposed in principle to the redevelopment of the site.
• With regards to amenity concerns, the existing measurements were appropriate.
• In relation to flooding concerns, the Environment Agency had not raised any concerns.
• With regards to floor space, the room dimensions of the proposed development would still provide high quality living arrangements.
• A play area was proposed
• No  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Erection of 3, part 2, part 3 storey blocks with accommodation in the roof space, to provide 61 residential units, comprising 25 one bedroom, 27 two bedroom, 8 three bedroom apartments and one 5 bedroom house, together with construction of a new access, associated parking and landscaping, involving demolition of existing buildings and stopping up of existing vehicular access.

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

Erection of 3, part 2, part 3 storey blocks with accommodation in the roof space, to provide 61 residential units, comprising 25 one bedroom, 27 two bedroom, 8 three bedroom apartments and one 5 bedroom house, together with construction of a new access, associated parking and landscaping, involving demolition of existing buildings and stopping up of existing vehicular access.

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

In introducing the report, Officers confirmed that the proposed development was fully HDAS compliant and the scheme fulfilled the 10% development mix as directed by the London Plan.

In response to questions about access and egress to the development, officers confirmed that two cars could be accommodated off the highway while the electronic gates were operating. If the gates failed, the Committee heard that these would need to be forced open.

Officers confirmed that an independent viability study had been conducted as part of the proposal and this stated a payment of £40,000 would be made towards the provision of affordable housing within the borough.

Members expressed concern about access and egress to the site given this was located on a primary route for heavy goods vehicles across the Borough. Members also expressed concern about the level of education contributions as part of the scheme.

Resolved –

That the application be deferred for amendments relating to the removal of the proposed gates, amendments to or removal of the proposed house and a site visit.

Single storey front extension

Recommendation : Approval

Single storey front extension

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

A representative of the petition did not attend the meeting.

The agent made the following points:

• The proposed reception area was designed to improve the school reception facilities and was not about increasing school numbers.
• The proposed reception would not result in the loss of any car parking spaces but there would be would be a loss of car parking spaces during the construction phase.
• It was proposed that (subject to approval) the Head Teacher would write to all parents and staff requesting they park considerately during the construction phase.

No Ward Councillors attended.

In discussing the application, the Committee agreed the proposed development would enhance the appearance and facilities of the school.

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

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the officer report.

Single storey detached outbuilding to rear for use a hobby room (Retrospective)

Recommendation : Refusal

Single storey detached outbuilding to rear for use a hobby room (Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report which concerned an application for a single storey detached out building to be used as a hobby room.

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 proposed development incorporates a shower room which is out of keeping with its proposed usage as a hobby room.
• The proposed development would be over dominant due to its size, scale and bulk.
• The proposed development would overcrowd the garden
• The proposed development (if approved) would set a dangerous precedent
• The proposed development would be out of keeping with the back gardens of the surrounding area.
• The proposed development would affect the privacy to neighbouring properties.

The applicant made the following points:

• Similar developments had been approved locally.
• Washing facilities were required as the hobby room would be used for exercise equipment.
• The applicant had liaised with the Council and an officer had inspected the proposal during the construction phase but there had been no challenge.
• The applicant was prepared to raise the height of his fence line to address neighbours concerns regarding overlooking.
• The proposed development would not affect the character of the area

In discussing the application, the Committee agreed that the existing building was over dominant, too large for the garden and did not require washing facilities as a hobby room.

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

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

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) involving installation of extractor duct to rear.  Deferred from North Committee 13/03/2012

Recommendation : Approval

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) involving installation of extractor duct to rear

Deferred from North Committee 13/03/2012

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

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

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

2 x two storey, 4-bed, detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space involving the demolition of existing bungalow and outbuildings

Recommendation : Refusal

2 x two storey, 4-bed, detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space involving the demolition of existing bungalow and outbuildings

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

In discussing the application, the Committee agreed the proposal would encroach into the Green Belt and would therefore constitute inappropriate development.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the officer report

Single storey rear extension.

Recommendation : Approval

Single storey rear extension

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

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a ward Councillor was invited to address the meeting. The following points were raised:

• The proposed development would impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.
• The proposed extension would impact on the patio areas of adjoining properties.
• Officers were asked whether a shadow diagram had been produced for the application.

Officers explained that the as proposed development met all the HDAS criteria (and HDAS took right to light into consideration) a shadow diagram was not required.

Referring to the photographs of neighbouring properties, the Committee agreed that a canopy structure situated next door to the application site already had an impact and the application should be approved.

Resolved -

The application was unanimously approved as per the officer report.

Change of use of ground and first floor from Use Class B1 (Business) to Use Class D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) for use as a nursery

Recommendation : Approval, subject to the Section 106 Agreement.

Change of use of ground and first floor from Use Class B1 (Business) to Use Class D1 (Non-Residential Institutions) for use as a nursery

Officers introduced the report which concerned a change of use of the ground floor and first floor from class B1 to D1.

Officers explained that they had examined traffic flows, parking and dropping off points in detail and the applicant had submitted a travel plan as part of their application.

In discussing the application, the Committee raised a number of concerns. These included parking and traffic movements, given the application site was located opposite a bus station, the anticipated use of the upper floors and also the hours of use which were cited as 7 am to 8 pm.

As there were a number of unresolved questions at this stage, the Committee agreed to defer the item until further information had been provided and a site visit had taken place.

Resolved –

That the application be deferred to resolve issues relating to parking and highway safety, the use of the upper floors, the hours of use and a site visit.

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.

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).

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.

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).