Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Eddie Lavery, with Councillor Brian Stead substituting, from Councillor Manjit Khatra with Councillor Jazz Dhillon substituting and from Councillor Duncan Flynn with Councillor Ian Edwards substituting.

There were no Declarations of Interest made.

Resolved: That the minutes of meeting held on 31 May 2016 be agreed as accurate.

No matters had been notified in advance or were urgent.

It was confirmed that all agenda items were Part I and would, therefore, be heard in public.

Two storey rear extension, part single storey rear extension and 2 single storey side extensions involving demolition of existing side structures.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Two storey rear extension, part single storey rear extension and two single storey side extensions involving demolition of existing side structures.

Officers introduced the application, noting that the application had previously been deferred from the meeting held on 31 May to enable a site visit to be undertaken. Two letters and a petition had been received in relation to the application.

The single storey rear extension would have a width of 15 metres, a part pitch and part flat roof to a maximum height of 3.4 metres and would project beyond the original rear of the dwelling at a depth of 5.5 metres. The proposals were considered to be acceptable and were recommended for approval. Members were also referred to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

There was no petitioner, applicant or agent present to speak in relation to the application.

A Member stated that it had been agreed previously that a shading diagram would be provided to the Committee in relation to the proposals and that this had not been provided.

The recommendation for approval was proposed, seconded and upon being put to a vote, was agreed by 8 votes for to 0 votes against, with 1 abstention.

Resolved: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report and the addendum sheet circulated.

4 x two storey, 4-bed detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space (Outline planning application for access and layout with some matters reserved).

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be refused.

4 x two storey, 4-bed detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space (Outline planning application for access and layout with some matters reserved)

Officers introduced the application which was for outline planning permission for four houses. Only the means of access to the site and site layout was currently under consideration. It was noted that plans showing the siting and floor plans of the houses were only indicative. The application site lay within the 'Developed Area', as identified in the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One and  also lay within an Archaeological Priority Area.

The local street scene was primarily residential in character and comprised mainly of two storey detached dwellings. Therefore, the proposals were considered to be in keeping with the character of the area. The application involved the development of garden land and although this would normally be unacceptable, the proposals needed to be considered in the context of other developments that had taken place in the area. There was no policy in place to prevent the development of garden land where this was in keeping with other development in the local area. There were developments close to application site where garden land development had already taken place.

The Committee was advised that the site already had an extensive number of trees on it. Approval of the application was recommended.

A petition had been submitted in objection to the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The petitioners represented ten out of eleven houses in the particular section of the street relevant to the application.

·         The officer report suggested that previous applications should be taken into account. The petitioners were not aware whether it was the first time that such an application had been considered by the Committee, but it was the first time that such a significant number of residents in the immediate area had objected.

·         Petitioners were not experts in planning matters, but they were experts on the local area and had direct personal experience in relation to traffic levels, access and parking issues. Other developments in the area were also having an impact and were reducing the availability of parking.

·         The proposals were considered to be too intensive for the location and were out of character with the area.

·         Traffic was the main concern of the petitioners. The presence of four houses on the site would make it impossible for the applicant to accommodate adequate on street parking. It was unclear whether eight or 12 parking spaces would be provided. Traffic problems in the close would also increase. The street was too narrow to accommodate extra parking and even pavement parking was likely to obstruct HGVs and emergency vehicles.

·         Extra visitor parking would push resident parking 100 yards towards the public highway. This would restrict access to the road. There would also be increased traffic noise and pollution.

·         The Committee was asked to reject the application.

·         In the event of future applications taking place at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension involving demolition of garage to side.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension involving demolition of garage to side.

Officers introduced the application, which was for an extension to an existing two storey, semi-detached property located on the east side of Raisins Hill. The property was within the Raisins Hill area of special local character. Six letters and a petition had been received in objection to the proposals. The main issues for Members to consider were the impact on appearance and character of the existing property and the street scene and the impact on adjoining occupiers.

The Council's supplementary planning document on residential extensions set out the standards for these aspects. This document required that two storey side extensions for semi detached properties should be set in from the boundary of neighbouring properties by at least one metre and should be set back at least one metre from the main roof elevation, set below the main ridge by at least half a metre and should not be more than half to two thirds the width of the original property. The proposed extension would be set in by more than one metre from the boundary with the neighbouring property, set back from the front elevation by one metre, would have a roof set below the main ridge by half a metre and was not more than half or two thirds of the main width of the original property. Therefore, the two storey side extension would be in full compliance with the Council standards. In relation to the single storey rear extension, the Council standards required that the depth should not exceed 3.6 metres and the maximum height should not exceed 3.1 metres, for a flat roof. The proposed single storey rear extension also complied with Council policies.

The proposals were not considered to impact unduly on the character and appearance of the existing property or the street scene. Both of the adjoining properties had been extended at ground floor level and in one case, also at roof level. The proposed extensions at the application site did not go beyond the extensions at the adjoining properties. The application was recommended for approval.

A petition had been submitted in objection to the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The application proposed the conversion of a three bedroom, one bathroom house into a five bedroom, three bathroom house.

·         The extension would be of a significant size, with a 74% increase in frontage and a 100% floor area increase. It would be an overdevelopment for the area that would not harmonise with the existing street scene.

·         There would be an impact on the street scene and on the area of special local character and the property would be unbalanced when compared to the adjoining semi-detached property.

·         It was considered that a number of policies of the Hillingdon Local Plan could be cited as possible reasons for refusal of the application. These included policies BE5, BE13 and BE19.

·         The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Single storey front, side and rear extensions, raising and enlargement of roof to create first floor with habitable roofspace to include 2 rear dormers, 2 side rooflights, vehicular crossover to front involving demolition of existing front, side and rear elements.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Single storey front, side and rear extensions, raising and enlargement of roof to create a first floor with habitable roofspace to include 2 rear dormers, 2 side rooflights, vehicular crossover to front involving demolition of existing front, side and rear elements.

Officers introduced the applications, which was for front, side and rear extensions for a detached bungalow. The proposal was to raise the height of the roof to allow for the conversion of the bungalow to a two storey dwelling. There would also be single storey front, side and rear extensions and the conversion of the roof to a habitable roof, which would include two rear dormers. A petition had been received in objection to the proposals. The main issues to be considered were the design and appearance of the development, its impact on the street scene and the impact on adjoining properties. The application site was located between a bungalow to the south and a two storey property to the north. Oak Avenue currently contained a mix of two storey houses and bungalows. Therefore, the principle of two storey buildings in the road was not disputed.

The proposed front elevation reflected the design of other two storey properties in the street and the appearance was considered to be in keeping with the area. The depth of the proposed extensions would not breach the 45 degree line of sight from the nearest habitable window of the neighbouring property. There were no windows in the side elevations of either of the two neighbouring properties. The proposed extension would extend beyond the rear elevation of adjoining properties by one metre at single storey level, so would not impact on either of these properties. The dormer windows complied with Council standards. The proposals were not considered to have an adverse impact on the character of the property or the surrounding area or on the amenity of the adjoining properties. Accordingly, approval was recommended.

A petition had been submitted in objection to the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         There had been a similar application for an extension at 34A Oak Avenue in 2003. This application had been refused by Committee and had been dismissed upon appeal. The refusal had been due to a lack of privacy.

·         A subsequent application that had included obscured windows had been refused in 2004. These decisions had set a precedent. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was quoted, which related to respect for one's private and family life.

·         In relation to the proposed crossover, the officer report stated that the proposed crossover would be installed on a residential road that did not have a significantly high influx of traffic or vehicular movement. However, there were already high traffic volumes in the morning and mid afternoon due to children being dropped off at a nearby nursery. A local cricket club also generated significant traffic on weekend afternoons.

In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Erection of detached building to accommodate refuse storage at ground floor and office accommodation above.

Recommendation: Refusal

Resolved: That the application be refused.

Erection of detached building to accommodate refuse storage at ground floor and office accommodation above.

Officers introduce the application, which had been deferred from the Committee meeting held on 11 May 2016 to allow clarification of the differences between the current proposals, the previously refused scheme and the scheme that had been dismissed at appeal. These differences had been set out in detail within the officer report. The length of the building had been reduced by approximately 1.5 metres but the extent of the two storey element had been increased to 11.3 metres, compared to a previous length of 8.6 metres. The first floor of the scheme that had gone to appeal measured 8.51 metres, compared to the 11.15 metre measurement of the current application. The length of the ground floor had been reduced from 12.75 metres to 11.22 metres. The height of the building had been decreased by 200 millimetres and the location of the building had been re-sited. The parking layout had also been altered. The issues for the Committee to consider related to its design, appearance and siting.

The Committee's attention was drawn to comments made by the Planning Inspector who had considered the previous proposal to be out of keeping with the pattern of development in the area and that the design and location would be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality. The pattern of development of the current application was not considerably different to that refused by the inspector and the impact on the conservation area and area of special local character had also not changed significantly. Accordingly, the application was recommended for refusal. Members were referred to addendum sheet circulated. This noted a letter received from the applicant's agent to the Committee Chairman, which had been circulated to the Committee and a proposed amendment to a refusal reason.

In response to a Member question, officers advised that the building was currently proposed to be used as an office, but it was possible that use could be considered for another purpose.

The Committee considered the two storey development proposed to be unacceptable for the location, especially as the length of the two storey element had been increased in comparison to the previous application.

The proposal to refuse the application was proposed and seconded and upon being put to the vote, was refused unanimously.

Resolved: That the application be refused for the reasons set out on the officer's report.

Loft conversion with two side dormers and one rear dormer.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be refused.

Loft conversion with two side dormers and one rear dormer.

Officers introduced the application, noting that the site had a long history of enforcement. The original design of the property was similar to adjoining properties. The applicant had altered the roof, which had been considered to be out of character with the area. Enforcement action had been taken as a result. There had been part compliance with the enforcement notice. The roof had been removed, but the original roof had not been fully reinstated as required by the enforcement notice.

The application currently being considered was recommended for approval, although it was noted that it did not fully comply with the Council's standards. Officers confirmed that this was the first application received by the Council for a particular type of development at the property.

The Committee was not satisfied with the appearance of the proposals and considered them to be out of character with the local area. It was considered that the Committee would not be meeting the Council's design standards by approving the application. It was also noted that the height of one of the dormers in terms of its distance from the roof ridge did not meet the Council's standards by half a metre.

It was agreed to overturn the officer recommendation and to refuse the application. The proposal for refusal was proposed, seconded and upon been put to the vote, was agreed unanimously.

Resolved: That the application be refused due to the design and appearance of the building being out of character with the local area and the impact of the dormers on the host property and on the surrounding area. It was delegated to planning officers to agree the precise wording of the reasons for refusal, in conjunction with the Chairman and Labour lead.