Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Higgins declared a non-pecuniary interest in items 8 and 9, the Old Orchard, Park Lane, Harefield as he was a customer of the premises. Cllr Higgins remained in the room while the items were discussed.

No matters had been notified in advance or were urgent.

It was confirmed that all items on the agenda were Part I and would be considered in public.

3 x two storey, 5-bed detached dwellings with habitable roof space and 1x two storey, 4-bed, detached dwelling with associated parking, amenity space and landscaping with installation of vehicular crossovers and demolition of existing dwelling house

Recommendation: Approval + Sec 106

Resolved: That the application be deferred to enable a site visit to take place.

3 x two storey, 5-bed detached dwellings with habitable roof space and 1x two storey, 4-bed, detached dwelling with associated parking, amenity space and landscaping with installation of vehicular crossovers and demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the report and referred Members to the addendum sheet circulated. The application site was located on the northern side of Jackets Lane, which was a traditional country lane. The site contained two trees that were subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) and was not in the green belt. Neigbouring property, 12 Jackets Lane was a Grade II listed building.

The existing property compromised a large, detached dwelling with significant garden space. The application proposed demolition of the existing property and the construction of three, two storey, 5-bed detached houses and one, two storey, 4-bed, detached houses. Each property would have two vehicle parking spaces, private amenity space and landscaping. Each site had an integrated garage with off street parking in front of the garage. Highway works on Jackets Lane were also proposed.

Changes that had been highlighted in the addendum were brought to the Committee's attention. A verbal update was requested to condition 11, 2c to delete reference to refuse storage. Details of hard landscaping needed to be amended to include reference to the landscape buffer zone in the plot boundary that adjoined 4 Glynswood Place.

An amendment to the recommendations was proposed in order to make details of the proposed highway works clearer. These works included resurfacing of Jackets Lane, the potential installation of a lighting column on Jackets Lane, creation of footways on Hurst Place and trimming of hedgerow on Jackets Lane. The Conservation and Design Team had raised concerns about the relationship of 4 Glynswood Place to one of the proposed dwellings. Further comments had been provided in relation to the revised plans. The position of the house had been moved further back and the internal layout changed so that there was only one obscure glazed window on the first floor of the side elevation. There was plenty of room in the front garden for planting, which would screen the house from number 4. There had also been a change to the approved plans for consistency and accuracy. Two of the proposed new dwellings would front on to Jackets Lane and two would front on to Hurst Place.

A previous application had been submitted and refused in 2015. The application currently under consideration was seeking to address the reasons for refusal. Plot number 1 at the proposed development site was 2.5 metres from the boundary of 12 Jackets Lane. The visual separation of the elevations had been improved, including a cat slide roof, which would adjoin number 12. The application now contained the visual separation for the application to be considered to be appropriate in terms of separation distance. Crown roofs had been removed from the proposed plans to make the proposals more consistent with the surrounding area. Due to the changes made to the proposals, the Conservation and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 172.

Change of use of first and second floors from Use Class A1 (Retail) To Use Class C3 (Residential) to form 3 x 2-bedroom and 3 x 1-bedrom self contained flats involving first floor rear extension, glazed balustrades to form private/communal terraces to rear, external alterations and internal refuse bin and cycle storage (Resubmission)

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Change of use of first and second floors from Use Class A1 (Retail) To Use Class C3 (Residential) to form 3 x 2-bedroom and 3 x 1-bedrom self contained flats involving first floor rear extension, glazed balustrades to form private/communal terraces to rear, external alterations and internal refuse bin and cycle storage (Resubmission).

Officers introduced the report in relation to 178-182 High Street, Ruislip and referred Members to the addendum sheet circulated.

The application site was currently a retail unit, located within a retail parade. The building was currently in use for retail at ground, first and second floor level. The application proposed to retain the retail use at ground floor level, while converting the upper floors into two, three bedroom units and three, one bedroom units to create six residential units in total.

A small extension to the building was proposed at first floor level, which would serve as lobby access to residential units at upper floor level. An existing staircase leading up to the first floor would be retained and utilised to enable the subdivision of the property. The main frontage to the High Street would not be changed. A small portion of the rear section of the retail unit would be used to provide storage for residential refuse and bicycles.

The application did not propose the creation of any car parking spaces. Two existing parking spaces to the rear of the site would be retained as part of the development. These would serve the retail unit, rather than the residential units. The application site was within walking distance of a number of bus routes and of Ruislip Station. On that basis, it was considered appropriate for the development to not have any residential parking spaces. It was noted that an application in relation to a car free development on the opposite side of High Street had been lost at appeal as the inspector had considered it acceptable for there to be a car free development in such a location. For this reason, officers considered that any refusal due to the proposals currently under consideration being car free would likely to be lost at appeal.

The initial plans submitted proposed a bin and cycle store in the location of the two existing off street parking spaces. Due to concern about the loss of the parking spaces, the refuse and cycle storage areas had been relocated. These changes to the proposals had been included in the addendum.

Concerns had been raised about the loss of retail use at the site. It was noted that there were national policies that required the provision of more mixed use town centres. Recent permitted development changes allowed offices above retail units to be converted automatically to residential usage without the need for planning permission. The premises were one of the few retail units in the area that extended above first floor level. The loss of retail use at first and second floor level was considered to be acceptable as it would provide much  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173.

1 x two storey, 3-bed dwelling and 1 x two storey, 4-bed dwelling with associated parking and amenity space, installation of 1 x vehicular crossover and public space to side

Recommendation: Refusal

Resolved: That the application be refused.

Land between 64a & 74 and land between 44 & 76 Peerless Drive, Harefield.

Officers introduced the report and referred Members to the addendum sheet circulated. It was noted that a canal ran to the west of the site and that there was vehicular access to Peerless at the front of the site. The addendum referred to the principal loss of open space that would result if the application were approved. The application site provided informal recreation space for the neighbouring estate. The Council's Open Space Strategy did not define this area as being a formal recreation area, but there were policies in place to protect informal recreational space. The proposed reason for refusal number 5 had been amended to object to the loss of this space.

The application proposed the construction of two detached houses on the site. The houses would be two storey and would each have off street parking. It was noted that a previously refused application at the site had proposed to block off the public access to the canal. The current application proposed to maintain public access to the canal. Some amenity space would be retained adjacent to the existing estate, but this was substantially smaller than the open space that currently existed.

The proposed development was considered to be of an unacceptable scale. There were also concerns regarding the separation distances from existing properties, which was likely to result in a loss of privacy. The application was recommended for refusal.

A verbal change was requested to the officer report to remove reason for refusal number 7. This related to there being a 75 metre walking distance from one of the properties to the proposed refuse drop off point. However, the distance had been reduced to around 35 metres through the addition of two parking spaces. Therefore, the distance was no longer considered to be a reason for refusal.

The Chairman advised that one of the ward Councillors for Harefield, Councillor Jane Palmer, had asked it to be publically stated that she strongly objected to the proposals.

The Committee questioned what legal basis there was for the area of open space being considered as an informal recreational area. Officers advised that it was both Council and national policy that applications that proposed development on land considered to be informal recreational space could be refused. The Committee also questioned whether it could be conditioned to ensure that the parking spaces could only be used by occupants of the proposed dwellings. Officers clarified that conditions could only be added in the event that the Committee was minded to approve the application.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote, was refused unanimously.

RESOLVED: That:  the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer report, subject to the removal of reason for refusal number 7 and the amendments set out in the addendum.

Single storey detached outbuilding to be used to serve food and beverages (Revised and Resubmission)

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Single storey detached outbuilding to be used to serve food and beverages (Revised and Resubmission).

Officers introduced the report, which was presented to the Committee in conjunction with agenda item number 9, 3499/APP/2015/4600.

The application proposed the erection of a single storey, detached outbuilding at the Old Orchard. The outbuilding would be used to serve food and beverages in an outdoor environment. There was an existing outdoor shelter within the rear garden, with seating. The application had been referred to Committee for determination because it was a minor development within the green belt. One local resident had objected to the application.

The proposals were considered to be acceptable in terms of design and did not have an impact on the openness of the green belt. It was noted that some landscaping was proposed and also some hard paving in order to provide level access to the site. There had been previous extensions at the site, but none of the extensions that had previously been approved or the applications currently under consideration resulted in the addition of more than 50% of floorspace.

There was an existing marquee that housed the current offer of food and beverages. The design of the proposals would reflect the design of the existing smoking shelter. Accordingly, the application was recommended for approval.

The Chairman drew Members' attention to the proposed condition number 4. The permissible operating hours that this condition proposed were considered to be unduly restrictive. The existing condition, as proposed by the Environmental Protection Unit, stated that the barbecue and food preparation area could only be used from 10 am to 10 pm Mondays toFridays and between the hours of 10 am 11pm on Saturdays. Use on Sundays or Bank Holidays would be prohibited. These restrictions were not considered to be viable as Sundays and Bank Holidays would be important trading times for the premises. It was therefore proposed that the condition be amended to enable use of the facility between the hours of 10 am and 11 pm seven days per week, including Bank Holidays.

The recommendation for approval of the application was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote, was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED: That: The application be approved as per the officers' recommendation, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report and subject to amendment to condition number 4 to specify that the detached outbuilding 'should only be used between 10 am and 11 pm on any day.

Single storey side extension to provide a disabled toilet (Revised)

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Single storey side extension to provide a disabled toilet (Revised).

Officers introduced the report, which was presented to the Committee in conjunction with agenda item number 8, 3499/APP/2015/4269.

The application proposed the provision of a new disabled toilet at ground floor level. The impact of the extension to accommodate the toilet was considered to be limited and to not have an impact on the openness of the green belt or on the visual appearance of the existing building. One local resident had objected to the application.

There had been previous extensions at the site, but none of the extensions that had previously been approved or the applications currently under consideration resulted in the addition of more than 50% of floorspace.

Accordingly, the application was recommended for approval.

The recommendation for approval of the application was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote, was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED: That: The application be approved as per the officers' recommendation, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

This report provides financial information on s106 and s278 agreements in the North Planning Committee area up to 31 December 2015 where the Council has received and holds funds.

RESOLVED: That: the report be noted.