Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor David Payne declared a Non Pecuniary interest in Items 7, 8, 9, & 10 – Former RAF Eastcote, Lime Grove, Ruislip, by virtue of having been involved as a Ward Councillor and Item 13 – Woody Bay Station, Ruislip Lido Railway, Reservoir Road, Ruislip; as he was a member of the Ruislip Woods Management Advisory Group. He left the room and did not take part in the decision of these items.

Councillor John Morgan declared a Non Pecuniary interest in Item 13 - Woody Bay Station, Ruislip Lido Railway, Reservoir Road, Ruislip, as he was a member of the Ruislip Woods Management Advisory Group. He left the room and did not take part in the decision of this item.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 August 2012 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There had been no matters notified in advance or urgent.

It was confirmed that all business marked Part 1 would be heard in public and all items marked Part 2 would be heard in private.

Conversion of existing dwelling into 2 x 1 bed self contained flats to include part two storey, part single storey rear extension and two storey extension to side to create 2 x 1-bed self contained flats, with associated parking and amenity space and installation of a vehicular crossover to front.

Recommendation - Approval

Conversion of existing dwelling into 2 x 1 bed self contained flats to include part two storey, part single storey rear extension and two storey extension to side to create 2 x 1-bed self contained flats, with associated parking and amenity space and installation of a vehicular crossover to front.

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes in the Addendum (circulated at the meeting) and to note the correct plan, as the incorrect plan had been attached to the plan pack.

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

The petitioners made the following points:

• The proposed development would be detrimental to the character of the street
• The street was an established family street and objected to a family home being demolished and replaced with flats
• Would have no objection to the development of a family home
• The proposed development would be opposite St Swithun Wells  school, and with Queensmead school near by, would result in increased traffic congestion
• The plans showed no access from the boundary gardens serving the first floor flats which would give rise to security issues
• Future occupiers would be required to walk down unlit access road, which had not been designated or intended as a public foot path
• Concerned about the return of crime and disorder which residents had experienced prior to the security gates being installed
• Urged the Committee not to grant permission for the proposed development, as future occupiers would not be able to access their rear gardens
• No provision had been made to access amenity spaces
• Residents were concerned about the total misuse of access road
• Suggested that the application submitted was a backland proposal.

A Member commented that the security gates had been installed as part of a gating scheme which had been funded through the Chrysalis Programme.

The agent addressed the meeting and raised the following points:

·        Agreed with the officer’s recommendation of approval

·        The plans had been amended to consider neighbours objections

·        Was aware of the security issues there had been regarding access to rear parking and was the first to venture through the access gates in 2003

·        Suggested that future occupiers would equally be concerned about security around access, which was why the gates would be closed at all times

·        The access road on the side was owned by the application property

·        The three terraced benefited from the access road and were owned by the property

·        The access road was currently not a used road and would therefore benefit from being used and from having security lighting

·        The scheme complied fully with all the policies and guidelines; was symmetrical in appearance and would not look out of place in a terrace of 4 houses

·        The proposed development had been amended to maintain on-street parking spaces as was currently the case

·        Parking (which exceeds space standards) would also be maintained for future use for the school

·        Existing hedge would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Conversion of 3, one bedroom live work units to 6, one bedroom bedroom flats (Block R).

Recommendation: Refusal

Conversion of 3, one bedroom live work units to 6, one bedroom flats (Block R).

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes in the Addendum. It was reported that comments had also been received from Councillors Catherine Dann and David Payne giving their full support of the officer’s recommendation for refusal of the application.

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 (also in relation to agenda items 8, 9 and 10):

• Residents as well as the Pembroke Park Residents’ Association were all in support of the objections raised by the Eastcote Residents’ Association
• The proposed changes were unattainable and would be difficult to live with
• The proposed development would exacerbate existing parking problems in the estate and on the surrounding roads
• The proposed development would put pressure on shared amenity space, as no provision had been made
• Concerned about the scale and density of the proposed development, which  would be out of keeping with the local environment
• Urged the Committee to endorse the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

In discussing the application, Members expressed concerns about the inadequate parking spaces allocated, lack of amenity spaces and the density of the proposed development.

The Committee sought clarification as to whether the proposed flats met with the minimal requirements for internal floor spaces. Officers advised that the proposal complied with the requirement for internal floor space but did not meet with requirement for amenity space.

In expressing concerns about the density of the proposed development and its effects on the larger site, the Committee agreed to attach an additional informative relating to capacity being reached for the overall development of the site.

With regard to parking, officers confirmed that that the overall parking provision was for 625 spaces with a maximum of 654, which meant that allocation of parking spaces was an issue. The Committee noted that adding additional units would result in the loss of visitor parking spaces.

The Committee agreed to add an additional reason for refusal relating to parking and requested officers to prepare the wording in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report subject to the following additional reason for refusal and additional informative:

Additional Reason for Refusal

The Proposal provide insufficient parking provision for the proposed increase in the number of units and would therefore result in an increase in on-street car parking in an area where parking demand already exceeds supply, therefore leading to conditions which would be prejudicial to the operation of the highway network and pedestrian /highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies AM7 and AM14 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Conversion of 3 one bedroom live work units to 6, one bedroom flats (Block H1).

Recommendation: Refusal

Conversion of 3 one bedroom live work units to 6, one bedroom flats (Block H1).

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

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report subject to the following additional reason for refusal and additional informative:

Additional Reason for Refusal

The Proposal provide insufficient parking provision for the proposed increase in the number of units and would therefore result in an increase in on-street car parking in an area where parking demand already exceeds supply, therefore leading to conditions which would be prejudicial to the operation of the highway network and pedestrian /highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies AM7 and AM14 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

Additional Informative

The applicant is informed that in the view of the Local Planning Authority the development of the wider site is now at capacity and thus any increase in the number or size of units is unlikely to be acceptable.

Conversion of 3 one bedroom live work units to 6 x one bedroom flats (Block L).

Recommendation: Refusal

Conversion of 3 one bedroom live work units to 6 x one bedroom flats (Block L).

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

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report subject to the following additional reason for refusal and additional informative:

Additional Reason for Refusal

The Proposal provide insufficient parking provision for the proposed increase in the number of units and would therefore result in an increase in on-street car parking in an area where parking demand already exceeds supply, therefore leading to conditions which would be prejudicial to the operation of the highway network and pedestrian /highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies AM7 and AM14 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

Additional Informative

The applicant is informed that in the view of the Local Planning Authority the development of the wider site is now at capacity and thus any increase in the number or size of units is unlikely to be acceptable.

Conversion of 3 one bedroom live work units to 6 x one bedroom flats (Block J).

Recommendation: Refusal

Conversion of 3 one bedroom live work units to 6 x one bedroom flats (Block J).

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

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report subject to the following additional reason for refusal and additional informative:

Additional Reason for Refusal

The Proposal provide insufficient parking provision for the proposed increase in the number of units and would therefore result in an increase in on-street car parking in an area where parking demand already exceeds supply, therefore leading to conditions which would be prejudicial to the operation of the highway network and pedestrian /highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies AM7 and AM14 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

Additional Informative

The applicant is informed that in the view of the Local Planning Authority the development of the wider site is now at capacity and thus any increase in the number or size of units is unlikely to be acceptable.

Conversion from World War II hut to 1 x 1-bed self- contained dwelling with associated amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

Conversion from World War II hut to 1 x 1-bed self- contained dwelling with associated amenity space.

In introducing the report, officers advised that the applicant had provided late information regarding the planning application, giving insufficient time for officers to review in detail. It was noted for instance that revised plans submitted, may overcome certain issues and raise issues in another area. Furthermore, there were concerns regarding the changes put forward by the applicant which may result in major changes. Members were informed that the applicant had been advised to withdraw this application and submit a new application. Officers advised that if the Committee was minded, it could defer the item to allow officers to properly review the new details and present to another Committee meeting.

The Chairman commented that unless the applicant was prepared to withdraw this application, the Committee would consider it at this meeting.

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

The petitioner made the following points:

• The petitioner’s home included the application site
• Opposed to the proposed back land development, which would be inappropriate and harmful to the local area as stated in point 7.01 of the officer’s report
• The proposed development would damage the Court Road part of the Ickenham Conservation Area
• The proposed replacement of an historic ex-forces billeting hut would consist of a makeshift substandard residential building, which when fenced off would destroy the unity of the existing garden
• It would cause damage to the environment and result in the loss of local wild life
• The proposed development would result in the substantial loss of trees, necessitating in large scale removal of mature trees to meet day lighting requirements
• The proposed development would be unsustainable as a residential unit due to inadequate provision of basic amenities
• The hut was currently used for storage by 24  Court Road
• The proposed development would deprive 24 Court Road of a utilised parking space
• Asked the Committee to refuse the application.

The agent/applicant was not present at the meeting.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Single storey extension.

Recommendation: Approval

Single storey extension.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report

Demolition of existing buildings, provision of 3 new buildings (woodland centre, ticket office and mess room) with associated landscaping.

Recommendation: Approval

Demolition of existing buildings, provision of 3 new buildings (woodland centre, ticket office and mess room) with associated landscaping.

Officers presented the report to the Committee and drew their attention to the amendments in the Addendum sheet.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and changes in the Addendum.