Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor David Allam and Councillor Janet Gardner attended in his place.

None was declared.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 March 2014 were agreed as a correct record.

There were no matters notified in advance or urgent.

It was confirmed that items marked Part 1 would be heard in public and item 10 marked in Part 2 would be heard in private.

Change of use from Retail (Use Class A1) a Mixed Use (Sui Generis) comprising elements of retail/restaurant and cafe use (Retrospective).

Change of use from Retail (Use Class A1) to a Mixed Use comprising elements of retail/restaurant and cafe use (Sui Generis) (Retrospective).

Officers introduced the report and directed Members to note the changes set out in the Addendum and to note in particular, the amendment to the heading to make it clear that the proposal was a mixed use development. Planning permission would therefore be required should there be any proposed change of use to predominantly restaurant and cafe in the future. 

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points in support of the application:

·         Had lived in Ickenham for over 50 years and although Ickenham Village had changed, the village atmosphere had remained unchanged

·         The premises had been well operate and provided a welcomed service to people in the village and visitors alike

·         Over a thousand signatories to the petition had been collected by the applicant, which demonstrated the strength of support for the application

·         The premises was formerly a green grocers and the applicant had not realised when he acquired it two years ago, that the use he was operating the premises under was different to that of the green grocers

·          It had taken two years to progress the application before the Committee

·         Urged Members to approve the application. 

A Member commented that the development had made a significant contribution to the High Street.

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 officers report and changes in the addendum.

Single storey rear extension.

Single storey rear extension.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

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.

General purpose agricultural building.

General purpose agricultural building.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the 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.

Conversion of roof-space to habitable use to include a rear dormer a side dormer, 1 side roof-light, conversion of roof from hip to gable end and installation of gable end window to front (Retrospective).

Conversion of roof-space to habitable use to include a rear dormer a side dormer, 1 side roof-light, conversion of roof from hip to gable end and installation of gable end window to front (Retrospective).

In introducing the report, officers advised that there was no hip to the gable at No. 14 (which formed a pair of semi detached properties with No.16) thus raising the issue of subordinance. Members were informed that Hip to the gable should normally be subordinate to the roof within which there were set. In addition, the issue relating to the visibility of the dormer to the highway was also highlighted for consideration by the Committee.

A ward Councillor spoke in support of the application and raised the following points:

·         Did not agree with concerns about dominance and the issue of setting a precedent

·         Had visited the property and observed that the development was not noticeable from the highway

·         The development blended remarkably well in the surrounding area and could not be noticed from the rear

·         Had been told that the roof could be changed from hip to gable

·         With regard to the issue of setting a precedent, suggested that this had already been set, as there were numerous examples in the area, particular at No.105 and did not consider therefore that this application was out of keeping

·         From the photographs circulated, Members could see that Nos. 4 and 5 The Fairway were almost identical buildings to No.16

·         The application had been designed in such a way in order to raise the building, otherwise, the building would be unusable

·         Urged the Committee to grant the application.

A Member stated that they lived opposite a semi detached property with an originally hipped roof, which was then, converted one side to hip and the other side to gable with a huge dormer at the back of the property. The member did not feel that there was sufficient justification to refuse the application, which they considered would very likely be overturned on appeal.

A Member further commented that being familiar with the developments in the area; refusal of this application would be unjustified.

Officers highlighted that front dormers were not predominant in that area.

The Committee indicated that on balance, there was sufficient precedent in the area to approve the application.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved - That the application be approved.

Officers introduced and outlined details of the report.

The recommendation contained 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 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).