Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies received from Cllr Oswell with Cllr Eginton substituting.

There were no declarations of interest.

None.

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

Installation of 9 x internally illuminated signs and 1 x non illuminated sign.

Recommendation: Split Decision

RESOLVED - The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation, subject to the amended conditions as agreed by the Members.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the addendum. The application sought permission to install 9x internally illuminated signs and 1x non illuminated sign.

A petitioner addresses the Committee in objection of the proposal and made the following points:

-       Local residents did not accept the number and size of signs, illuminated or otherwise which had appeared on this site;

-       The main issues concerned night time lighting. Unlike nearby sites which are built in built up areas, this site is in a conservation area with the river pin behind and close to residential homes. The distance to the back of the homes is only some 22 m and may residents will suffer as a result of the illuminated signs, particularly in the winter when tree foliage will not protect them from the sites.

-       Outside daytime the lights are stronger as they are surrounded by a unlit area. In winter months this brightness will be felt for a longer period.

-       The site is trading and all signs have been installed, along with others that have no permission. Whilst waiting the Committee's determination on this application MRH agreed not to turn on the canopy lights.

-       Petitioners requested the ESSO sign continue to be unlit outside day light hours. Illuminated front COOP sign has been installed contrary to the officers report, which should also be unlit outside of day time hours. Petitioners requested that a condition was added to this effect.

-       Welcome the recommendation for pump lighting to be refused.

-       Overall the petitioner requested for all lights to be unlit at night as canopy and shop lighting were sufficient. Suggested a lights ot be off between 10 - 6 in the winter and summer months.

The Chairman of the Eastcote Conservation panel addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       The Eastcote Conservation panel fully agreed the concerns raised by the petitioner and local residents.

-       They have an aim to preserve all aspects of the conservation area.

-       The new layout of the shop has affected the local area and removed from the rear of the site means that there is no "buffer" between the lighting and the river. The light level of the pin far exceeds the optimum.

-       This area is also a site of importance for nature conservation and is covered by blue ribbon policies and blue chain policies. This excessive lighting is contrary to the policies.

-       The company has not obliged with conditions previously imposed. The lack of fulfilling conditions shows how uncooperative the company has been.

-       This current application has 6 lit panels, including synergy, coop, Costa coffee, esso and two petrol price indicators.   Which is 5 more then previous and the duplication is not necessary.

-       Contested that extra lighting would be detrimental to the river, local residents and the conservation area.

-       It is obvious that there is petrol station and there is no need for excessive lightening.

The agents working on behalf of the applicant for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Outbuilding to rear for use as an office/games room.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED - The application was refused as per officer's recommendation.

Officers introduced the report, which sought planning permission for an outbuilding to be used as an office/ games room. Officers made a recommendation for refusal.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 1 x front and 3 x rear dormers and conversion of roof from hip to gable end with a Juliette Balcony.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED - The application was refused as per officer's recommendation.

Officers introduced the report, which sought planning permission for a conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 1 x front and 3 x rear dormers and conversion of roof from hip to gable end with a Juliette Balcony. Officers made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner in objection of the application addressed the Committee and raised concerns about properties directly overlooking their garden. Any windows along the front of property would directly look into the petitioners garden, it will also block out direct light into the room. The number and size of the windows proposed will disrupt privacy. Increase in traffic and parking are also causing concerns as driveways are being blocked and pavements.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Change of use of the 1st and 2nd floors to a 24 hour gym (Class D2).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the report, which sought planning permission for the change of use of the first and second floor to a 24 hour gym from an office. Officers made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner, Chairman from Northwood Hills Residents' Association addressed the Committee, in objection of the application and made the following points:

-       There was concern about the numbers that the applicant indicated who would be accessing the gym by public transport and vehicle.

-       Assessment of late and demand is also a concern for concern the applicant believes that the number of membership could rise 2177 members of which 25 percent will be outside the area. This will cause noise pollution and traffic congestion.

-       The petitioner uestioend the traffic comparative statement, as it was being compared to a different area which did not include roundablt and high schools.

-       The traffic situation in Joel Street is bad and has been visited has been commissioned and outside consultancy firm is asked to give reocmmendaiton on how to improve traffic congestion.

-       16 car park spaces is just about feasible. With 10 full time staff and 5 full time staff this will impact the available parking. Also the impoact of the pub being opened.

The applicant's agent addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-       This site was being used as a office space and the number of people visiting the offices is compatative to people who would be visiting the gym.

-       The benefits of the scheme will include offering people with hectic work patterns to access the gym.

-       It is estimated that people using the site at any one given time would be 100. During peak hours it is expected that 20 members of staff at any one tie.

-       There is no restriction on current operation use. The ground floor use as pub does not have restrictions. Extensive work with the council has ironed out an y issues. A list of proposed conditions will protect residents neighbouring the sites.

-       The applicant is committed that the gym did nt impose an adverse impact on local amenity of neighbours.

-       The proposal would increase business in the local area.

Councillor Bianco, Ward Councillor for Northwood Hills addressed the Committee. He explained that Northwood Hills was not a town centre and is a suburb. Out of hours its was sometimes busy , this and one other building only has not got residents above it. All other shops have resdiental properties. In the last type years Northwood Hills has seen significant imoprivment , which included iporving the car parking for the shops and alot was doen too improve that car parking. The number shave been improved and this had lef to a revivial in the umber of shops that ae occupied. 20 staff on site and most of them will come back by car. Parking is a significant issue and a 24 hours gym will be cause issues for local residents.

Members discussed the practicalities  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Removal of fascia to rear elevation; alterations to single storey rear extension including pitched roof with crown; new brickwork to match existing; retention of extension once altered.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - The application was approved as per officer's recommendation.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. The application sought permission for the removal of fascia to rear elevation; alterations to single storey rear extension including pitched roof with crown; new brickwork to matching existing; retention of extension once altered. Officers made a recommendation for approval.

A motion for the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation.

Roof extensions to provide additional space at first floor level

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - The application was approved as per officer's recommendation.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. The application sought planning permission for roof extensions to provide additional space at first floor level.

A motion for the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation.

Two x 2-storey dwellings with habitable roof space, outbuildings to rear, installation of vehicular crossover to front and associated landscaping works, involving demolition of existing bungalow.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED - The application was refused as per officer's recommendation.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. The application sought planning permission to build two x 2 storey dwellings with habitable roof space, outbuildings to rear, installation of vehicular cross over to front and associated landscaping works, involving demolition of exisiting bungalow. Officers made a recommendation for refusal.

A motion for the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation.

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).

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).