Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Edward Lavery. Councillor Brian Stead attended in his place.

There were no declarations of interest notified.

The minutes of the meetings held on 30 August 2012 were agreed as an accurate record.

There were no matters notified in advance as urgent.

It was confirmed that all business marked Part 1 would be heard in public.

Erection of a block of 9 flats ( 4 no. one-bedroom and 5 no. two-bedroom) with associated parking and amenity space (involving demolition of existing house)

Recommendation: Refusal

Petitioners objecting to the proposed development were not present at the meeting. The agent did not wish to address the Committee.

During discussion, Members indicated that the proposed development was too large for the size of the application site and failed to satisfy Lifetime home standards.

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.

Part two storey, part single storey rear extension and single storey side extension involving installation of additional windows to side elevations, involving demolition of existing conservatory to rear and existing attached garage to side

Recommendation: Refusal

In introducing the report, officers advised that a previous scheme had been dismissed on appeal and had not been considered by the Inspector to be subordinate to the original house. The current scheme was still considered to be unacceptable, as the depth of the scheme’s two-storey extension was identical to the previously refused scheme at 4 metre from the original rear wall of the house.

A Member commented that after visiting the site, in their view, the size of the plot was adequate enough to accommodate the extension but had concerns about the timber cladding.

A member expressed some sympathy to the application and noted that the proposed development would be set back by 4metres, which would mitigate the concerns in the Inspector’s report that ‘the appeal proposal would noticeably alter this to create a roof and upper level with an unduly bulky nature and a key design quality of the existing home would be lost by the sizeable rearward projection following the same roof and vertical wall lines as the existing property’. This projection was at the back of the property and the application had sought to address this issue.

Officers advised that the main issue regarding the proposal was related to the comments of the Conservation Officer which concerned the character of the property, the symmetrical design at the back of the property and the unacceptable use of timber cladding. Officers suggested that if Members considered that the timber cladding was the only issues of concern, this could be dealt with by condition, should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

In response to the question of how strongly this refusal reason could be defended on appeal, officers advised that on balance, the decision could go either way.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved and on being put the vote, the application was approved subject to conditions and informatives being prepared by officers in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the following conditions and informative:

CONDITIONS

1.                  The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

   2.            Notwithstanding the materials indicated on the submitted drawings and documentation, all materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building and shall thereafter be retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policy BE15 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

3.         Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, doors or other openings shall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

Permanent use of the land as a gypsy and traveller caravan site and for the keeping and breeding of horses with associated operational development, including the siting of two mobile homes and a touring caravan, retention of two stable blocks, and the formation of a garden area with the erection of a garden shed, yard and paddock areas, parking spaces, landscaping and fencing (Part retrospective application).

Deferred from North Committee 10 January 2012

Recommendation: Refusal

Prior to officer’s introduction of the application, a petitioner organiser (in support of the application) stated that he would like to address the Committee for a second time and stated that he would like to ask the Chairman (under the Chairman’s discretion) to accept a late petition to enable him to speak about the application. 

The Chairman announced that as the application had previously been considered by the Committee and the petition organiser (who spoke on behalf of the applicant/agent) was aware that the application would be coming back to a future meeting, he saw no extenuating circumstances to allow the petition organiser to speak, given that the petition was received less than 48 hours before the meeting.  As such, the petition organiser’s request to speak on this item was refused.

The Legal Advisor asked the Chairman whether the Committee would be taking the written petition in into account. The Chairman affirmed that the petition would not be taken into account.

The petition was handed back to the petition organiser at the end of the meeting.

In introducing the report, officers reiterated that the application was reported to the North Planning Committee meeting held on 10 January 2012, at which the Committee was addressed by a representative of the applicant/agent (following a receipt of a petition that had been submitted in objection to the application). 

Officers drew Members’ attention to note the changes in the Addendum and advised that at the time the addendum had been published, two further emails had been received in support of the application. 

Officers highlighted that not withstanding the personal circumstances of the applicant and his family; the site had continually been occupied for over 9 years and on balance, the overall duration of harm and the impact on green belt, permission could no longer been extended. 

A Member expressed sympathy for the applicant having occupied the site for 9 years and stated that the two previous planning appeals had been granted by Planning Inspectors for two reasons; firstly, due to the lack of policies (for appropriate site- specific allocations to be made) and secondly due to the compelling personal circumstance of the applicant. The Member highlighted that the balance would be against any harm (the character and appearance of) to the green belt as opposed to the occupying the green belt.

Officers were asked whether consideration could possibly be given to a temporary permission tied up exclusively to the applicant and his family.  Officers responded that temporary permission could be considered but stressed that if temporary permission were to be granted, the buildings would also be temporary, which would then raise the issue of what would happen with the buildings when the applicant was no longer on the site.

Members were advised that in order to take the technical issues into consideration, the Committee could grant a permission which was tied to the site and impose conditions which would require the removal of all buildings on site.

During discussion, Members indicated that granting permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Part-retrospective application for the retention of 2 x 4 bedroom flats above 91 and 93 High Road Ickenham and the retention of an existing external metal staircase accessed from the side of No. 97, plus the addition of a new staircase accessed from the rear yard to serve all the flats above 91-97 High Road, Ickenham.

Recommendation: Approval

In introducing the report, officers advised that the proposal had overcome previous reasons for refusal and was therefore recommended for approval.

In response to a query relating to the two flats above Nos. 95 and 97, officers advised that enforcement notice was served against all four flats in 2005 which were appealed on the grounds that the flats were lawful, as they had been in existence for 4 to 5 years. Evidence had been provided to support the claim for Nos. 95 and 97, but not for Nos. 91-93 (the current application).

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.