Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

None.

The minutes of the meeting held on 6 March 2014 were agreed as a correct record.

None.

All items were considered in Part I, with the exception of items 14, 15, 16 and 17 which were considered in Part II.

Part two storey, part single storey front/side/rear extension involving raising of roof.

Recommendation - Refusal

Part two storey, part single storey front/side/rear extension involving raising of roof.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application was deferred for a Members Site visit which took place on the 25^th March 2014.

The key issue was whether the proposed extensions would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the original house and to the appearance of the area, which was adjacent to a Conservation Area.  Officers remained of the view that the proposal was unacceptable in this regard.

Members were in agreement that the proposals would have a severe impact on neighbouring properties.

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 officers’ report.

Two storey 3 bed detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and installation of vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing shed.

Recommendation - Approval

Two storey 3 bed detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and installation of vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing shed.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated. 

It was noted that a Members site visit had taken place with respect to this proposal, and that there was relevant planning history in the form of a grant of planning permission for the erection of an attached dwelling and extensions to the existing property.  Whilst the current proposal was different from the previously approved scheme, this decision was material in particular with respect to the principle of additional built form to provide a dwelling, plot sizes and access arrangements.

It was noted by Members that the site was located in a prominent location, principally due to the change in levels, however the proposed dwelling would be quite similar in appearance and with respect of its height and set back from Elgood Avenue to the existing property at no.1 Elgood Avenue.  The site was not located within an Area of Special Local character and overall it was not considered that the proposal would be so harmful to the character and appearance of the area so as to warrant refusal.

Members noted that should approval be given that the proposals would be subject to a legal agreement.

The Chairman highlighted that the wrong ward had been named in the officers' report.  Northwood Hills was the correct ward.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection of the proposals was invited to address the meeting. The lead petitioner spoke on behalf of the petitioners and raised the following points:

·         The Northwood Hills Residents Association were in objection to the proposals.

·         The Gatehill Estate was an area of Special Character.

·         Glad there had been mention of the legal position between the two applications.

·         Enforcement was costly and time consuming.

·         Concern that the case officer dismissed comments of the planning conservation officer.

·         The conservation officer considered that the application be refused.

·         The proposed front garden would be 50% smaller which was garden grabbing.

·         There were sharp rises in levels.

·         The proposed building would be over dominant.

·         That the application should be refused as per the Hillingdon Local Plan BE1, BE5, BE13, BE14 AND BE19.

The Chairman highlighted that the agent had sent an email to Members of the Committee.

Local Ward Councillors also spoke regarding the proposals and made the following comments:

·         Technical reasons had been covered by the petitioner.

·         Supported the petitioners in objection to the proposals.

·         Concern that there would be a hugely dominant effect on the locality.

·         The level of the garden was 12 feet higher.

·         It was like a 4 storey building.

·         An unpleasant fence had already been subject to enforcement action which had now been repainted.

·         Ravenswood Park was a dense development in the immediate area.

·         A bungalow would be more appropriate.

·         The application should be refused.

·         Parking was a problem in the local area.

·         The road was narrow.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 205.

To use existing farmland for the purposes of providing dog walking services.

Recommendation - Refusal

To use existing farmland for the purposes of providing dog walking services.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application seeked planning permission to use the existing farmland for the purposes of dog walking.  The  existing  double  steel  framed  and  chainlink  fenced  gates  to  the northern side of Fore Street would be used as the main access to the site. Eight letters of objection and a petition with 26 signatories had been received opposing the proposed scheme.

It was noted that the proposal would introduce a commercial dog walking use within the Green Belt.

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 lead petitioner raised the following points:

·         Was speaking on behalf of residents living in Uplands.

·         Welcomed the officers' report.

·         The site had been cleared within the past 8 months.

·         There would be an impact on residents' lives.

·         Concern about health and safety.

·         The land was allegedly polluted with asbestos.

·         The fencing was not adequate to protect young children and the elderly.

·         There would be impact on noise pollution.

·         Questioned the maximum amount of dogs on site there would be.

·         What would the out buildings be used for?

·         There was a school in close proximity which was due to be expanded.

·         Supported officers' recommendation.

Local Ward Councillors also spoke regarding the proposals and made the following comments:

·         The area was one of the best dog walking areas in the Borough.

·         The facility was not needed.

·         The area was of special interest.

·         Fore Street was like a country lane.

·         The noise would be significant.

·         Would like to be assured that the asbestos had been disposed of appropriately.

·         Was a great place to meet with people.

·         Questioned whether the dogs would be kept on the premises for the whole day.

·         Could hear dogs barking from Harefield Dogs Trust.

·         Could hear dogs barking through double glazing.

The Committee discussed the application.  Members were unsure of the intensity of the proposals and questioned why the facility was needed when Ruislip Woods was in close proximity. 

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the, vote was agreed with 6 votes in favour and 1 against.

Resolved – That the application be refused as per the officers’ report.

2 x two storey, 3- bed detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing material shed, office building and material storage shelter.

Recommendation - That the delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Culture and Green Spaces, subject to the recommendations in the officers' report.

2 x two storey, 3- bed detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing material shed, office building and material storage shelter.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated. 

The application related to a builders yard site at the rear of 81-93 Hilliard Road and seeks permission to erect 2 x two storey, 3- bed detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space.

The development would be accessed via an existing alley which ran between Nos. 83 and 85 Hilliard Road.  The access route was considered appropriate to service a larger residential development of 3 units under a previous appeal; this decision was a material consideration which must gave significant weight.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection of the proposals was invited to address the meeting. The lead petitioner spoke on behalf of the petitioners and raised the following points:

·         The Northwood Hills Residents Association had objections.

·         The development did not harmonize with the surrounding area.

·         The design was over dominant.

·         The proposals were in close proximity to existing properties.

·         The access was too narrow to accommodate vehicles.

·         Threat to safety was a reason for refusal in 2009.

·         There was a high brick wall at the bottom of their gardens.

·         Proposals would result in garden grabbing.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

·         The proposals would make use of the existing areas.

·         This application was seeking 2 properties, not the 3 previously proposed.

·         Would replace existing ruined buildings.

·         There would be traditional features and materials used.

·         The proposals were compliant.

·         There would be a 50% reduction of the buildings.

·         The applicant would provide a high quality development.

·         Consultation was undertaken with local residents, unfortunately specific wishes could not be met.

·         Hoped the Committee noted the efforts made.

·         Was important to note that the petitioner had quoted previous planning evidence.

·         The site had been used for the past 23 years as a builder's yard.

A local Ward Councillor spoke regarding the proposals and made the following comments:

·         The agent had gone a long way, but not far enough.

·         Hilliard Road was a narrow road and was often congested.

·         It was hard to find parking on Hilliard Road.

·         There was a Nursery nearby.

·         The proposals were over dominant.

·         Had never observed a lorry on the slip road.

Officers explained that there was a 22.6 separation distance to the rear extension to other houses.  It was further explained that the planning inspector had previously found that the access to the proposed site was acceptable.

The resolution was amended to include a 5% Project management and Monitoring contribution within the legal agreement.

The recommendation for approval with the above change and changes in the addendum was moved, seconded and on being put to the, vote was agreed with 5 votes, with 2 votes against.

Resolved - That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Culture and Green Spaces to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 207.

Boundary wall and gate to front (Part Retrospective).

Recommendation - Approval

Boundary wall and gate to front (Part Retrospective).

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application related to 58 Halford Road and seeked part retrospective permission for a boundary wall and gate, which would involve a substantial re-build of the  existing  wall  by  reducing  the  height  of  the  front  piers  and  removal  of  the  existing railings  and  gate. Officers consider that the development as proposed would be acceptable both in respects of its visual appearance and pedestrian and highway safety.

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 officers report.

Two storey detached building with habitable roofspace for use as 8 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed flats with associated amenity space and parking, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation - That the delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Culture and Green Spaces, subject to the recommendations in the officers' report.

Two storey detached building with habitable roofspace for use as 8 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed flats with associated amenity space and parking, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated. 

In relation to the character and appearance of the area, the previously permitted development was a significant material consideration.  Having regard to this, which was very similar in terms of overall design, scale and bulk it was not considered that the development would have an unacceptable impact on the street scene or the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.

The resolution was amended to include a £20,000 travel plan bond within the legal agreement.

The recommendation for approval including the above change and changes in the addendum was moved, seconded and on being put to the, vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved - That  delegated  powers  be  given  to  the  Head  of Planning,  Green  Spaces  and Culture to grant planning permission, subject to the following:

1. That the Council enter into a legal agreement / Deed of Variation to secure:

(i) A contribution of £19843.00 to be used towards capacity enhancements in nearby educational facilities made necessary by the development.

(ii) 10 Year Green Travel Plan in accordance with TfL guidance.

(iii) Project Management and Monitoring Fee: A financial contribution equal to 5% of  the  total  cash  contributions  is  to  be  secured  to  enable  the management  and monitoring of the resulting agreement.

2. That  the  applicant meets  the Council's  reasonable  costs  in  the  preparation  of the S106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

3.  If  the  Legal  Agreement/s  have  not  been  finalised  within  3 months,  delegated authority  be  given  to  the Head  of Planning, Green Spaces  and Culture  to  refuse planning permission for the following reason:

'The  applicant  has  failed  to  provide  contributions  towards  the  capacity enhancements  in  nearby  educational  facilities  and  improvement  of  the environment as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy R17 of the Hillingdon Local Plan and the Council's Planning Obligations SPD'

4.  That  officers  be  authorised  to  negotiate  and  agree  the  detailed  terms  of  the proposed agreement.

5. That the conditions outlined in the officers report and changes to the addendum be attached.

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension and conversion of integral garage to habitable use involving installation of bay window to front.

Recommendation - Approval

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension and conversion of integral garage to habitable use involving installation of bay window to front.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application related to a semi-detached within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area and seeked permission for the erection of a part two storey, part single storey side and rear extension and the conversion of the integral garage to habitable use.

The development maintains adequate amenity space and car parking for the proposed development.  The proposed development also complied with the Council's guidance on residential extensions and it was not considered it would have any unacceptable impacts on neighbouring occupiers by way of loss of light or over dominance.

In relation to the appearance to the development within the street scene it was noted that the development complies with the guidance set out within residential extension and the Council's Conservation officer considered the scheme (which had been amended to address their initial comments) would have an acceptable appearance within the Conservation Area.

A local Ward Councillor spoke regarding the proposals and made the following comments:

·         Was surprised that the conservation officer had withdrawn their previous concerns.

·         Case Officer had identified potential issues.

·         Poplar Close was a small residential close.

·         There were lack of residents which meant lack of petitioners; however, there was not a lack of feeling.

·         There would be significant shadows from the existing building.

·         Parking was a premium in the local area.

·         Condition use of appropriate materials.

Members had listened to the points raised by the local Ward Councillor; however, it was felt that there was no reason to refuse the application.

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 officers' report.

The Committee received a report setting out the S106 Quarterly Monitoring Report.

Resolved - That the report be noted.

Resolved –

1.    That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report

was agreed with the compliance period amended to 4 months.

2.    That the Committee resolved 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.

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).

Resolved –

1.    That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report

was agreed.

2.    That the Committee resolved 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.

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).

Resolved –

1.    That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report

was agreed.

2.    That the Committee resolved 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.

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).

Resolved –

1.    That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report

was agreed.

2.    That the Committee resolved 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.

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).