Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Khatra (no substitute), and Councillor Duducu (Councillor Edwards substituting).

None.

The clerk suggested amendments to the minute 163, Land Between 2 & 6 Woodside Road, as outlined in the addendum:

"Members sought clarity on the boundary requirement. Officers confirmed that the proposal complied with the 1.5m requirement, though Members challenged this due to the inclusion of an exterior chimney breast on the south elevation, which appeared to reduce the distance between the properties. 

During discussion relating to the outcome of any potential appeals, Officers highlighted that the conservation officer had been heavily involved with the application and had not raised any concerns.

Members discussed the application, with some Members deeming the proposal to be acceptable in light of the revisions made and the comments of the conservation officer."

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2017 be approved as a correct record, subject to the amendments as set out above.

The Chairman confirmed that item 10, 53-55 The Broadway, had been withdrawn by the Head of Planning prior to the meeting.

The Chairman confirmed that item 13, 81 Field End Road, had been accepted as an urgent item as, following the lodging of an appeal for non-determination by the applicant, it was important that the views of the Committee were reported to the Planning Inspectorate in a timely manner.

It was confirmed that the items of business marked Part I would be considered in public, and the items marked Part II would be considered in private.

2-bed, detached bungalow with associated amenity space and parking.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

2-bed, detached bungalow with associated amenity space and parking.

Officers introduced the application, confirming that the site was currently vacant and overgrown, with the boundary fencing (made up of chain link fencing) in disrepair. The site fronted an adopted service road that ran along the rear of shops fronting Field End Road. The road was used to service those shops, as well as to provide access to two nearby car parks. Planning permission was sought for the development of a 2 bed detached bungalow with associated amenity space and parking.

Members were reminded of the site's extensive planning history, of which the most pivotal decisions were considered to be the 2006 and 2009 appeal decisions. In 2006, an appeal was dismissed concerning a building with four one bedroom flats. The Inspector ruled that there would not be harm to neighbours amenity, however the Inspector thought it would be a cramped development and that the proposals would not respect the local character. The appeal was therefore dismissed.  In 2009 consent was granted on appeal for a two storey office development. The Inspector felt it was a suitable location for new office development and would satisfactorily relate to surrounding commercial development.

Officers considered that, in principle, the site was suitable for commercial development, but not suitable for residential development. Due to the characteristics of the site it was felt that a residential unit would be out of character with the surrounding built form, and the application was recommended for refusal for this reason.

A petitioner addressed the Committee on behalf of the residents of the Close, in objection to the proposal. The petitioner pointed that, whilst the site did have an extensive planning history, it was only the most recent application, from October 2015, that was associated with the current applicant.

Reasons for objection included concerns over the potential for drainage and flooding issues within garden areas, following the introduction of paved area around the perimeter. In addition, the service road was prone to flooding, and it was not considered that the proposed soakaway would prove sufficient to remove the excess water. The area was busy with pedestrians using the nearby shops, and residents had safety concerns due to the high volume of traffic that would result, were the application to be approved.

All properties backing onto the service road had a tree line that provided a barrier for sound and privacy. The application proposed the removal of trees on the application site, and residents were concerned that this could have a detrimental effect on the roots of the trees on the adjacent properties, which in turn could seriously affect residents' rights to privacy were those trees to be damaged and removed.

The current proposal was only 1m away from residents' boundary line, and 5m in height. In its report from 2015, the Council stated that a 1.5m boundary line would make it difficult for trees to adequately screen the site from nearby residential properties. This was also highlighted by the Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 173.

Redevelopment of entire site to create 7 new flats. (Outline Planning Application with All Matters Reserved).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Redevelopment of entire site to create 7 new flats. (Outline Planning

Application with All Matters Reserved).

The officer introduced the report, confirming that the application, with all matters reserved, was seeking outline permission to demolish an existing detached house and erect a two storey block with accommodation in the roof space to provide 7 x 2 bed, 4 person residential units. All matters concerning layout, appearance, scale, access, and landscaping, were reserved and could not be assessed at this stage.

The Committee was informed that, whilst there was no objection to a residential scheme on the plot in principle, this particular scheme would breach the Council’s 10% threshold for flat conversions on this stretch of road, and it was felt that this would erode the road’s traditional residential character. The application was therefore recommended for refusal.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal, raising a number of concerns. These concerns included the potential for the resultant multi occupation house to spread across a wider footprint than currently, the impact on traffic flow on what was already a busy road, car parking issues, and impact on pedestrians.

The petitioner referred the Committee to the mooted long term plan to widen Swakeleys Road which, if ever instigated, would result in 271 Swakeleys Road losing its front garden parking space.  In addition, tarmacking of garden spaces was now almost universally condemned. The road itself was highly residential, with many family homes of an arts and crafts design. Residents were concerned that the character of the road would be detrimentally affected by squeezing such developments onto sites that were too small. It was felt that the current 271 Swakeleys Road property was aesthetically pleasing, with many fine features, and the Committee was requested to refuse the application.

The applicant addressed the Committee in response, and informed Members that permission was sought for the redevelopment of the site to 5 x 2 bedroom flats, and 2 x 1 bedroom flats. The existing house was on a fairly large plot, set back 15 metres from the front boundary line at its closest point. The proposed development would be of similar character to nearby newly developed sites.

With regard to the Council’s 10% threshold, the applicant asserted that guidelines advised that the application site should be taken as a midpoint on a 1km stretch of road. However, on the south side of the property (travelling towards Swakeleys roundabout) the applicant’s property was the fifth property on the road, with less than 500 metres of housing on this side. Therefore, calculations had been undertaken from the last house on the road, taking the 1km allowance from 279 Swakeleys Road to 161 Swakeleys Road. In this case, there were 90 properties on this stretch of road, which according to the guidelines, would allow for 9 flattened conversions. The applicant asserted that the proposal would fall within the 10% threshold, once the guidelines were adjusted to fairly take into consideration the site’s location, and asked that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.

Two storey, 4-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace involving demolition of existing bungalow

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Two storey, 4-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace involving

demolition of existing bungalow

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the development area was within the Gatehill Farm East Area of Special Local Character, currently occupied by a bungalow. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of that bungalow, and the erection of a 2 storey, 4 bed detached dwelling with habitable space in the roof.

The proposal was considered acceptable in principle, however due to its overall size,  scale, bulk, height, and design, it would result in a cramped development which would fail to harmonize with the architectural composition of the adjoining dwellings and would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the street scene and the wider Gatehill Farm Estate Area of Local Character.

In addition, it was considered that due to its size, scale, bulk and proximity, the development would be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining dwelling ‘Woodcote’ by reason of over-dominance, overshadowing, visual intrusion and loss of outlook. For these reasons it was recommended that the application be refused.

A petitioner addressed the committee on behalf of the residents who had signed the petition as well as the Gatehill Residents Association, in objection to the application. Recently, the area of Gatehill Farm Estate Area of Special Local Character had been consistently threatened by a number of proposed applications that were not in keeping with the area. This was the second application for redevelopment of Pincio. The first application was refused due to similar concerns over size, scale, bulk and design, and proximity to the adjoining property.

The second application has a larger footprint than the first, refused application, with a higher roofline, and would result in an even more cramped development. Such a large development, on such a narrow plot of land, would give limited scope for any landscaping that could soften the impact, and was contrary to policy.  The proposal set out excessive hardstanding at the front of the property for car parking, which did not abide by HDAS policy which stated that at least 25% of a front garden must be maintained for soft landscaping. In addition, the proposal suggested the removal of trees and vegetation that was not all in the ownership of the applicant. For these reasons, the Committee was requested to refuse the application.

In the interest of fairness, the Chairman read a statement behalf of the applicant, responding to the petitioner.

The applicant asserted that, before submitting the application, discussions were held with a case officer and a member of the conservation team, and all subsequent recommendations from these discussions were duly incorporated into the proposal. In addition, GRA representatives, engaged at an early stage, complemented the design and helped finalise the landscaping scheme.

Regarding the petition, and the concerns raised over the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property ‘Woodcote’, the applicant asserted that proof had been submitted that showed that it was in fact a different  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

Erection of 2-storey detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and the excavation of a basement following the demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Erection of 2-storey detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and the

excavation of a basement following the demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the application sat within the Gate Hill Farm Estate of Special Local Character. Whilst the proposal development was for a large building, it was felt to be replacing an equally large building. The proposed dwelling followed a neo-Georgian style, and whilst this was not typical of the area, the area itself was home to various architectural styles and so was considered to be acceptable. It was not considered that the proposal would result in an overbearing impact on the adjacent properties to the detriment of their residential amenity.

The site did benefit for an existing permissions for significant extensions to the existing properties, which as still extant. The suggested changes from the permitted extension to this new scheme were broadly similar, though was set 1.5m further away, with edges ‘squared off’, and with the proposed footprint under the new application no deeper or wider than the existing building or the permitted extension from 2015. As such, the impact on residential amenity was actually slightly less than previously approved. It was therefore recommended that the application be approved.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal. Members were reminded that a similar proposal was due to be considered at the North Planning Committee meeting held on 11 January 2017m and was recommended for refusal before being withdrawn prior to that meeting. It was now under consideration again, under slightly different plans. The officer’s report in respect of the previous application recommended refusal due to design, bulk, and impact on the local street scene. In addition, the report stated that the development would result in overbearance towards the neighbouring property. This new application was only 5% smaller than the previous proposal, but was four times the size of its immediate neighbours, and nearly twice the size of the largest house in the vicinity.

The proposed new building was 0.9m from the southern boundary, a breach of the proposed policy requiring a distance of 1.5m between the property and the boundary. Guidance from LBH planning officers had confirmed that the proposed policy must be treated as a material planning consideration.

Amendments to the design since January included a deeper roof, which would be visible from the road and overbearing to the neighbouring property to the north. The supporting detail accompanying the application suggest that the floor would be a loft, but the size and scale would in fact make it a whole storey. Houses within the area were predominantly made up of attracted, arts and crafts style properties. The proposed development was not in keeping with this existing aesthetic. The front elevation would be built on the building line, with a porch in front of the building line, contrary to HDAS policy. The officer’s assertion that the proposed property was Georgian design was suggested to be incorrect. For these reasons, it was requested that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 176.

Change of use of 1st and 2nd Floors to Class D2 (gym).

Recommendation: Approval

The item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

The item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

Retention of a 3 Bedroom Chalet Style House as Residential Use from Ancillary Offices for a Garden Centre.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Retention of a 3 Bedroom Chalet Style House as Residential Use from

Ancillary Offices for a Garden Centre

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the site was located within on flood plain with a green belt, and was previously used for storage and administrative purposes. The building had been now been converted, without planning permission, to a 3-bed house, contrary to the principles of green belt policy. It was therefore recommended for refusal.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

RESOLVED:

1. That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed;

2. That the Committee resolve 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).

RESOLVED:

1. That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed;

2. That the Committee resolve 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).

Demolition of existing Doctors' Surgery and construction of new three storey (plus basement level parking) mixed use development comprising 9 residential apartments, a Doctors' Surgery and a Pharmacy.

Recommendation: That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that, had an appeal for nondetermination not been lodged, the application would have been refused for the reasons set out in the report.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Demolition of existing Doctors' Surgery and construction of new three storey (plus basement level parking) mixed use development comprising 9 residential apartments, a Doctors' Surgery and a Pharmacy.

The Chairman confirmed that the item had been accepted as an urgent addition to the agenda, following the applicant lodging an appeal for non-determination.  It was therefore a requirement that the Planning Committee's views be included in the submission to the Planning Inspectorate, which was due before the next scheduled North Planning Committee meeting.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that a similar application for the same site was presented to the Committee on 3 March 2016, and that on that occasion Members determined that, had an appeal for non-determination not been lodged, the application would have been refused as the proposed building was considered an overdevelopment of the site that would have resulted in the loss of open space. That application was also considered to have a detrimental impact on the siting of a nearby Grade II listed building, and on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The current application was a very similar scheme, with the main differences being that the irregular triangular shape building previously proposed had been squared-off at the corners, and the building had been set back further from Walsh Lodge, which had moved it closer to Deane Croft Road and the north western boundaries. The previous flat roof design had been revised to a mansard/crown roof.

Following the re-siting of the building closer to the trees on the north western boundary, the Tree Officer had advised that this could result in pressure from residents in the future to remove and/or carry out works to the trees. Since the previous appeal, it had now been established that the rearmost first floor side

facing window in the adjoining first floor flat at Walsh Lodge did not serve a habitable room, but a small kitchen which only had standing space. This, combined with the other changes made to the scheme, would no longer warrant a reason for refusal based on adverse impacts on adjoining residential amenity.

However, it was considered that the proposed changes had not overcome the Inspector's justification for dismissing the previous appeal on grounds of the building being intrusive and being detrimental to the openness of the site. As such, the officer's recommendation was to inform the Planning Inspectorate that, had an appeal not been lodged, that the application would have been refused for the reasons as set out in the report.

The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to the addendum, which contained the comments from the Eastcote Residents Association that had been omitted from the officer's report.

A petitioner addressed the Committee on behalf of the Eastcote Residents Association and the Eastcote Conservation Panel, in objection to the application.  The petitioner asserted that the new application did not address any of the concerns relating to height, size, bulk or overall design that had been raised against the previous application, and that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 180.