Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Duducu, Flynn and Morgan. Councillors Stead, Edwards and Yarrow were present as their respective substitutes.

None.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2017 be approved as a correct record.

The Chairman confirmed that item 7 had been withdrawn, and that a late petition on item 9 had been received. The Chairman therefore varied the order of business so that those items with petitions were taken first.

It was confirmed that items 6-10 were marked as part I and so would be considered in public. Items 11 and 12 were marked as part II and would therefore be considered in private.

Two x 3-bed detached bungalows with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Two x 3-bed detached bungalows with associated parking and amenity

space

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the proposed new properties would be chalet bungalows located on two garden plots at the rear of 51 and 53 Pembroke Road, accessed by a route from Pembroke Road. Existing vehicular access would be opened up to allow access to the plots 1 and 2, and officers considered that the proposed new parking arrangements would work for the scheme. Members were informed that although the current garden was very long, it was not uncharacteristic of the area to have large, detached properties with extensive gardens.

Members were reminded that iterations of the application had been before the Committee on a number of previous occasions, including three refusals dismissed on appeal. The current proposal differed slightly from the version most recent recently dismissed on appeal, as the buildings had been reduced from two and a half storeys to bungalows, the width of the dwellings had been reduced by 1.7m, and the width of the hard standing had been reduced by 0.4m, alongside the addition of new planting. However, officers did not consider that the changes addressed the previous reasons for refusal or the issues raised at appeal, and it was therefore recommended that the application be refused.

The Chairman confirmed that a petition in objection to the application had been received, but that the petitioner was not present.

The agent acting on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee, and stated that previous applications had primarily been refused due to concerns over the quantum of development and the effect on views from buildings facing the site. Regarding the principle of development, the agent asserted that the inspector had stated that the loss of garden land as proposed would not cause unacceptable harm, and did not justify a refusal. The inspector had gone on to state that in principle, there was no reason why some form of residential development at the site should not be acceptable.  In response to the pre-application enquiry for the current scheme, the agent stated that Council's officer had confirmed that there was no principle objection to background development, providing that it was of appropriate scale and did not erode the open and green character of the surrounding area.

With regard to the quantum of development, the current scheme was proposing a 60% reduction in floor space from the earlier proposal, and a reduction in height from two and a half storey buildings to bungalows that were no higher than the nearby perimeter hedges. In commenting on the pre-application enquiry, the agent confirmed that the Council's officer had stated that the reduction in the size and scale of the development were welcomed and was considered acceptable in the context of the site. The agent confirmed that the width of the dwellings had been reduced by 1.7m, eaves had been lowered by 2.6m, ridges lowered by 2.6m, and the gap between the proposed dwellings increased by 6.8m.

In relation to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Two storey, 3-bed detached dwelling with habitable roof space and installation of vehicular crossover, parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval

The item was withdrawn from the meeting.

The item was withdrawn from the meeting.

Single storey rear extension with glazed roof. Erection of boundary fence and hedging adjacent to eastern boundary.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to the removal of conditions 3 and 4.

Single storey rear extension with glazed roof. Erection of boundary fence and hedging adjacent to eastern boundary

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the single storey extension proposed would mirror that of the adjoining property. The existing free-standing brick wall was to be removed and replaced by a 1.5m close-boarded fence. Hedging would be planted, and the small picket fence currently present was to be retained until the vegetation had been established, to allow for a larger enclosed area and to provide a better visual amenity for the public realm.

By way of background, officers informed Members that when the RAF Eastcote development was undertaken, there were large communal areas maintained by the management company that were not associated with any particular property. In addition, there were areas located at the side of some houses and flats that were deemed to be 'private amenity areas' but were not large enough for meaningful use. With regard to 1d Kent Gardens, the small area to the right side of the property had been left to the homeowner to maintain. The homeowner had since applied for ownership of the entire land area, up to the pavement edge, which had been refused under delegated authority, though a subsequent compromise was reached through the Council's landscape architect to install a boundary hedge.

Officers confirmed that the application was recommended for approval.

Members requested confirmation that the small parcel of land at the side of the property was definitely owned by the homeowner. Officers confirmed that a review of the title deeds had shown that this land was in the homeowner's possession. It was therefore incumbent on the homeowner to maintain the area, rather than the management company.

The Chairman suggested that conditions 3 and 4, as set out in the report, be removed as neither was needed in light of condition 5. On this basis the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to the removal of conditions 3 and 4.

Erection of two storey detached building with habitable roof space for use as 5 flats: 4 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed flats with associated amenity space and parking, involving demolition of existing building (Outline Planning Application with All Matters Reserved).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: 

1.         That the application be approved; and

2.         That the Head of Planning being given delegated authority to amend conditions relating to the retention of trees on site and the removal of the outbuilding.

Erection of two storey detached building with habitable roof space for use as 5 flats: 4 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed flats with associated amenity space and parking, involving demolition of existing building (Outline Planning Application with All Matters Reserved)

Officers introduced the report, and highlighted the addendum. Members were informed that one additional letter of representation had been received, and that most of the points contained therein had been addressed by officers as set out in the addendum, which included confirmation that Highways officers were content with the revised parking layout.  Similarly, all points raised by the newly received petition had been addressed within the officer's report.

An email objecting to the application had been received from the occupant of one of the adjoining properties, and while the points contained therein had also been addressed within the report, these were expanded on by the officer. With regard to concerns over the design of the application, Members were reminded that the proposal to be determined was for an outline application that sought for all matters to be reserved, to be assessed at a later date.

The email asserted that the application site should not be taken as the midpoint of the survey. The policy was clear in stating that the application site, 66 The Drive, was in fact the midpoint for the purposes of the survey.

The email also raised concerns over the 15m separation distance listed. In response, the officer suggested that this had likely been misinterpreted, and confirmed that the 15m rule related to distance from habitable rooms front and rear.

With regard to the application, it was confirmed that this had previously been deferred by the Committee until further detail on the quantum of development, and whether the development could be accommodated on the site, could be received. Additional plans had since been secured, and showed that the proposal could be accommodated on site and that it would not infringe on a 45 degree line.

Highways officers had previously asked for a minimum of seven parking spaces on site. In response, the applicant had demonstrated that eight parking spaces could be accommodated on the front driveway, and Highways officers had confirmed that the proposed layout met the standard required. It was therefore deemed that local resident concerns over a perceived under provision of parking had been addressed.

The officer concluded by recommending that the application be approved.

A petitioner objecting to the proposal addressed the Committee, and asserted that the latest proposal had not fundamentally changed from previous applications. The proposal was for high density flats, to accommodate twenty-one people, which was out of character with the local area and would impact on the street scene, in what was a rural location.

The Drive was an unmaintained private road, which lacked street lighting, pavements or drainage. Much of the road was less than 4m wide, and it was difficult for cars to pass each other at the north end. This already presented safety concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

This report provides financial information on s106 and s278 agreements in the North Planning Committee area up to 31 March 2017 where the Council has received and holds funds.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

RESOLVED:  That the report be noted.

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).

The Head of Planning and Enforcement explained to Councillors that for this item a greater degree of delegation was sought as further breaches of control had occurred since the report was produced; that he was seeking authority to serve notices against all breaches of control causing harm to the appearance of the streetscene.

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).