Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Peter Curling, Eddie Lavery, and Duncan Flynn. Councillors Janet Duncan, Ian Edwards, and David Yarrow were substituting. Councillor Jem Duducu sent apologies for lateness.

None.

None.

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

THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. IT WILL NOT NOW BE CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING. 02/03/2015

Installation of 6 floodlight columns (12m high) located evenly around the external perimeter of the Multi Use Games Area.

Recommendation: Refusal

This application had been withdrawn by the applicant, and so was not discussed.

Three storey, 2-bed detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report and outlined the details of the application, which sought to erect a three storey, 2-bed detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space to the rear of a parade of shops.  Officers explained that the building would be out of keeping with, and detrimental to, the surrounding area. The proposal would have insufficient separation from neighbouring properties, and would have insufficient amenity space. Outlook from a bedroom would also be inadequate.

Jackie Redrup, Eastcote Residents Association and representative of the petitioner, explained that residents were very concerned about the proposal. She felt that the officer's report was very thorough, and supported the recommendation that the application be refused.

No representative of the applicant was present at the meeting.

Members felt that the application was contrary to many policies, and that it was totally inappropriate for the site. They noted also that existing residents at 103a would also suffer from the lack of separation distance from the proposed building.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for the reasons and with the informatives set out in the officers' report, as amended below.

Amended Refusal Reason 2: 'The proposed development by reason of its lack of separation distance from nearby presidential properties would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers by reason of overdomination and loss of outlook. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE19, BE20 and BE21 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: Residential Layouts.'

Additional informative - You are advised that had this application not been refused for other reasons it would have been considered appropriate and necessary to impose conditions relating to the windows and terrace screen to ensure that these were of an appropriate design to protect the privacy of the nearest residential occupiers.

Conversion of two storey dwelling into 3 x 2-bed self contained flats with associated parking and amenity space involving two storey side extension and first floor rear extension, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 1 front rooflight and conversion of roof from hip to gable end and installation of 2 x vehicular crossovers to front

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report, and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated. The application was for the conversion of a two storey house into three self contained flats with associated parking and amenity space. The proposal involved a two storey side extension and first floor rear extension, the conversion of roofspace to habitable use, including a rear dormer, a front rooflight and the conversion of the roof from hip to gable end. The proposal also included the installation of two vehicular crossovers.

Officers explained that refusal was recommended as the proposed alterations failed to harmonise with the existing building, and the wider area. Neighbours would suffer unacceptably from the loss of light, whilst future occupiers would suffer from inadequate living conditions. The proposed parking area failed to include sufficient soft landscaping.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officers' report.

Removal of existing 17.5 metre telecoms pole and installation of a new 17.5 metre pole with longer shrouded section in a position 12 metres north of the existing.

Recommendation: Approval

Councillor Jem Duducu joined the meeting at this point.

Officers summarised the report, explaining that the proposal was for the removal of an existing 17.5 metre telecoms pole and installation of a new 17.5 metre pole with longer shrouded section in a position 12 metres north of the current pole location.

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the officers' report.

RESOLVED:

That the enforcement action set out in the report be authorised.

The minutes of the meetings held on 21 January 2015 and 10 February 2015 were agreed to be accurate.