Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Duncan Flynn with Councillor Ian Edwards substituting.

Councillor Ian Edwards declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 6 - 26 Broadwood Avenue, Ruislip - 16080/APP/2017/1893, as he was a resident in Broadwood Avenue, although he did not know the applicant. He remained in the room and took part in discussions on the item.

The minutes of the meeting on 12 September 2017 were agreed as an accurate record.

Agenda item 7 had been withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. 

It was confirmed that Agenda Items 1-13 were marked as Part I and would be considered in public. Agenda Item 14 was marked as Part II and so would be considered in private.

Part two-storey, part single-storey side / rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include one side dormer, two rear dormers, four front roof lights, six side roof lights and alterations to elevations.

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers introduced the application and provided an overview. The application sought planning permission for part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use, to include 1 side dormer, 2 rear dormers, 4 front roof lights, 6 side roof lights and alterations to elevations. Reference was made to the addendum to the report.

A petitioner addressed the Committee and objected to the application on the following grounds:

·         The overall size and height of the new building was overbearing in nature, an intrusive form of development and was detrimental to the street scene.

·         It was difficult to understand how the original house had been demolished and a substantially enlarged house in terms of width, depth, height and breadth be built on the site, which was significantly different from the original planning permission received.

·         Some of the detailing included within the plans were not consistent with the extensions as built.

·         There was a loss of privacy because of the increased height, length and volume had created direct lines of sight into neighbouring properties.

·         Design and materials used were not in keeping with the street scene.

·         Reference was made to Condition 3 of the original application which required materials to match the original dwelling.

The agent for the applicant was in attendance and addressed the Committee with the following comments:

·         The footprint of the whole building was in accordance with the planning permission.

·         No work had commenced until planning permissions had been given.

·         The roof lights in the side elevation were obscure glazed and fixed shut.

·         Broadwood Avenue contained a wide variety of building types so there was no consistency.

·         There was a variety of roof types in the street.

·         The applicant had made every effort to work with the planning case officer and it was accepted that the house was 30 cm higher than the planning permission granted.

Photographs of the development were distributed by the agent of the applicant but the Chairman explained that these had not been verified by Planning Officers.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be refused.

Two two-storey, five-bed detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover.

Recommendation: Refusal

The item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

Part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension, conversion of roofspace to habitable use, porch to front, part conversion of garage and alterations to front and rear landscaping.

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the application and provided an overview. The application sought planning permission for a part two storey, part single storey rear extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use, porch to front, part conversion of garage and alterations to front and rear landscaping.

A petitioner addressed the Committee and objected to the application on the following grounds:

·         The development was of an excessive size/bulk, over dominant, visually intrusive. 

·         The proposal was for an 8 bedroom house to replace the four bedroom house.

·         Out of keeping with the local street scene.

·         There was a significant impact on 9 Hedgeside Road with a loss of light and outlook from No.9.

·         Limited side access to the building would give limited space for construction vehicles which would impede access to Farm Road.

·         Details of the objections in the officer's report were incorrect.

The Committee discussed the application and after discussion the Chairman reported that the report did not cover all the concerns raised by the objectors. The Committee asked that the Head of Planning and Enforcement be given delegated authority to reconsult with the necessary associations and bring any new issues raised to the Committee.

Reference was made to the proposed balcony and the loss of privacy which could result from this.

It was moved, seconded, that consideration of the application be deferred for officers to provide further information and detail for the report. When put to a vote, this was unanimously agreed. 

RESOLVED - That consideration of the application be deferred to enable officers to provide further information and detail in the report and the Head of Planning and enforcement be given delegated authority to reconsult with the necessary associations and bring any new issues raised to the Committee.

Variation of condition 5 (Windows) of planning permission ref: 71125/APP/2016/360 dated 02/02/2016 (two storey, four-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace including dormer to rear and two side roof flights, with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing garage and alterations to existing access).

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the application and provided an overview. The application sought planning permission for a variation of condition 5 (Windows) of planning permission Ref: 71125/APP/2016/360 dated 02/02/2016 (Two storey, 4-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roof space including dormer to rear and 2 side roof lights, with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing garage and alterations to existing access).

A petitioner addressed the Committee and objected to the application on the following grounds:

·         The windows installed were not in accordance with the conditions as originally stipulated and were openable below 1.8m.

·         Concern was expressed that the application was for the removal of the condition which would result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring property (no.16).

·         The windows adjacent to the neighbouring property were not fully obscured and the windows overlooked the property at no. 16.

·         The orangery windows should also be obscured glazed and fixed shut which directly faced the patio at no. 16.

·         The bedroom window on the first floor to the rear of the property should have been an obscure panel, consisting of four sections. Instead it has a clear panel with only two sections of glass. This bedroom was therefore visible from the garden at no.16.

·         There should be full enforcement of Condition 5.

The agent for the applicant was in attendance and addressed the Committee with the following comments:

·         The applicant had never applied to remove Condition 5; the application was for a variation of the condition.

·         The windows would all be obscured glazed.

·         The applicant had worked hard to comply with the objector's concerns

The Committee discussed the application and asked for clarification on the windows, namely the distance that the windows were openable and whether they were obscured.

The Head of Planning and Enforcement asked that, subject to approval of the application, officers be asked to determine whether the correct windows had been put in.   

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, was agreed (5 for, 4 against).

RESOLVED - That the application be approved, subject to the Head of Planning and Enforcement ensuring that the windows had been installed in accordance with condition 5.

Rear conservatory and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include four side roof lights and two rear roof lights.

Recommendation: Approval

 Officers introduced the application and provided an overview. The application sought planning permission for a rear conservatory and the conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 4 x side roof lights and 2 rear roof lights. Reference was made to the addendum to the report and the revision to Condition 3.

A petitioner addressed the Committee and objected to the application on the following grounds:

·         The house had been already substantially extended and was occupied by three generations of family. The increased occupancy would create parking problems for the neighbours.

·         The proposed loft extension was out of all proportion to the size of the roof.

·         In relation to the conservatory, the glazed roof and sidewalls were generally well received, however, a request was made for an extra condition to be added to any approval which would prevent further incremental alterations to materials and design of the conservatory.  

The Committee discussed the application and referred to the revision of Condition 3 in the addendum, relating to the proposed roof lights being of "Conservation type" roof lights. In addition, the Committee agreed that an additional condition (RES 14) be added to any approval which would prevent alterations on materials and design of the conservatory.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved, subject to the inclusion of a condition which would prevent alterations on materials and design of the conservatory and the amendment to Condition 3 detailed in the addendum.  

Alterations to single-storey rear extension to include amended roof design, changes to the rear elevation and installation of window to side elevation (retrospective application).

Recommendation: Approval

Officer introduced the application and provided an overview. The application sought planning permission for alterations to single storey rear extension to include amended roof design, changes to the rear elevation and installation of window to side elevation (retrospective application). In addition there was an addendum to the report which included an additional condition relating to the approved window in the north east elevation facing no. 8 Greenheys Close should remain obscure glazed.

The Committee discussed the application and asked that the words "fixed structure" be included after the "Installation of a window in the north east elevation". 

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved, subject to the additional condition detailed in the addendum relating to the approved window in the north east elevation.

Single-storey extension, involving removal of decking.

Recommendation: Approval

Officer introduced the application and provided an overview. The application sought planning permission for a single storey extension, involving the removal of decking.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved.

Recommendation: That TPO 761 is confirmed

The Committee was provided with a report which requested consideration on whether to confirm or not TPO 761 at 68 Wallington Close, Ruislip.

RESOLVED - That approval be given to the confirmation of TPO 761.

RESOLVED:

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

2. That the Committee resolved to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in the 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).