Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Ray Graham. Councillor Brian Stead was present as his substitute.

Councillors John Morgan and Duncan Flynn declared a non-pecuniary interest in items 12 and 13, concerning the Woodman Public House in Eastcote.

The minutes of the meetings held on 24 March and 14 April 2015 were agreed to be accurate.

There were no such matters.

It was confirmed that items would be considered in public.

Two storey building to provide 2 x 2 bed self-contained flats with associated parking and landscaping works involving demolition of 9 no. existing garages.

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the report, explaining that the application was for the demolition of nine garages and their replacement with a two storey building to contain two two-bedroom flats. Four parking spaces would be provided, and one existing garage retained on site. The proposed flats would provide acceptable living accommodation, whilst the proposals were considered to fit into the street scene well. The impact on neighbouring properties was considered to be low. Officers drew attention to the addendum report, and explained that the application was recommended for approval by officers. 

Councillors were pleased that disused brownfield sites were being developed, to provide much needed housing.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers report and subsequently amended by the addendum report.

Relocation and replacement of a 17.5 metre high telecommunications monopole with a 20 metre high telecommunications monopole, replacement of two existing cabinets and installation of one additional equipment cabinet.

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report, explaining that the application was for the replacement of a 17.5 metre telecommunications pole with one of 20 metres, the replacement of two cabinets, and the installation of one additional cabinet. This was considered to be unacceptable because of prominence of the proposed mast, and the additional street clutter which would be caused by the new structures.  Officers drew the committee's attention to the informative regarding the siting of masts on Council owned land, contained within the addendum.

Councillors agreed with the Eastcote Conservation Panel that the repositioning of the mast by a few metres to prevent a temporary loss of service was not acceptable.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be refused, for the reasons outlined in the officers report, with the informatives set out in the report and the addendum report. 

Replacement of existing 11.8m high telecommunications monopole with a 15m high telecommunications monopole.

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report, explaining that the application was for the replacement of an 11.8 metre telecommunications pole with a 15 metre high pole. The site was very near to a conservation area and green belt land. The visual impact of the new pole and the additional cabinet supporting its operation was considered to be unacceptable.

Councillors felt that the impact on the conservation area would be significant, and that the cumulative impact of cabinets was unacceptable.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be refused, for the reasons outlined in the officers report.

Retention of part of existing decking to rear of dwelling, retention of close boarded boundary fence adjacent to retained decking.

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report, explaining that the application was for the retention of part of the existing decking. The decking was subject to enforcement action, and the proposal was for the removal of a small part of the decking in an attempt to make the structure acceptable. Officers considered however that the proposal did not go far enough and that the decking would still cause harm to neighbouring properties and be a dominant feature.

Councillors were concerned that the proposal would still lead to overlooking and noted the large number of policies the proposal would breach.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be refused, for the reasons outlined in the officers report.

Alterations and reconstruction of the front wall of the garage including the installation of a new roller shutter door.

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the report, explaining that the application was for the alteration and reconstruction of the front wall of the garage. The impact on the street scene was considered to be very limited. Officers drew the committee's attention to the addendum which sought to replace a condition.

Councillors felt that the proposed frontage would be more aesthetic than the existing front wall.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers report and subsequently amended by the addendum report.

Replacement of existing 17.1 metre high telecommunications monopole with a 17.5 metre high telecommunications monopole with associated equipment cabinet (application under Part 24 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance).

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the report, explaining that the application was for the replacement of a 17.1 metre high telecommunications mast with one 0.4 metres taller, and the addition of a small ancillary cabinet. The pole was located in close proximity to a railway bridge which was the dominant feature of the street scene. Officers were therefore recommending that the application be approved.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers report.

Single Storey Rear Extension to replace timber lean to structure.

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced both the planning and listed building consent applications relating to The Woodman Public House, Eastcote. They explained that the unauthorised wooden lean-to would be demolished and replaced with a brick built extension. There had been a number of objections, many of which related to the operation of the public house. The conservation officer was content with the proposals, which they described as 'very small and discrete'.  Officers explained that the addendum report for items 12 and 13 ought not to have included 'if necessary' at the end of the first paragraph of the officer comments.

Councillors noted that the public house was now more commonly referred to as Arens Bar, but agreed that the proposals would represent an improvement to the site.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers report, and subsequently amended by the addendum report.

Single Storey Rear Extension to replace timber lean to structure (Listed Building Consent).

Recommendation: Approval

This application was discussed along with agenda item 12.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers report, and subsequently amended by the addendum report.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to a dental clinic (Use Class D1).

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the report, explaining that application was for a change of use from class A1 to class D1, which would be restricted to use as a dental practice. There would not be any significant physical change, and so the issue was one of principle. Officers considered that there were an acceptable number of A1 units remaining in the town centre, and that a dental practice was suitable for a town centre location. Officers therefore recommended that the application be approved.

Councillors agreed that a dental practice would be a valuable community asset. They questioned whether dental products would also be sold from the unit, but this was not clear from the application.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers report.

Radio base station comprising 25m Monopole with dual stacked antennas within shroud between 20 and 25m, 4 equipment cabinets and 1 slim line meter pillar.

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the report explaining that the application proposed a new 25 metre high telecommunications pole, four cabinets, and one slimline pillar. These would be located in front of a new development, and officers felt that that because of the height of the pole, which was the same height as some eight storey buildings, and because of the extra street clutter, the proposal would be visually obtrusive. They therefore recommended that the application be refused.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be refused, for the reasons outlined in the officers report.

Single storey side extension and a part two storey, part single storey rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the reports, explaining that the application was for a single storey side extension and a part single and part two storey rear extension. The side extension would replace the existing garage, whilst the rear extension was narrower at the first floor than on the ground floor. There would be little impact on the street scene, and the extension complied with all relevant policies. The proposal would not infringe unduly on neighbouring properties, which had themselves been extended.
Officers drew the committee's attention to the addendum report. Officers recommended that the application be approved.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers report, and subsequently amended by the addendum report. The formatting of the conditions and informatives was to be improved by officers before a decision notice was sent.