Agenda, decisions and minutes

None.

None.

Councillor Tuckwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 10 – Northwood Health & Racquet Club, as he was a member of the David Lloyd club, but not the location in question. Councillor Tuckwell confirmed that he would remain in the room and would deliberate on the item.

Councillor Flynn declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 10 – Northwood Health & Racquet Club, in that he was a member of the David Lloyd club in question. Councillor Flynn confirmed that he would leave the room when the item was due to deliberation.

Councillor Tuckwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 10 – Northwood Health & Racquet Club, as he was a member of the David Lloyd club, but not the location in question. Councillor Tuckwell confirmed that he would remain in the room and would deliberate on the item.

Councillor Flynn declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 10 – Northwood Health & Racquet Club, in that he was a member of the David Lloyd club in question. Councillor Flynn confirmed that he would leave the room when the item was due to deliberation.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 5 April and 10 May 2018 be approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 5 April and 10 May 2018 be approved as a correct record.

It was confirmed that Item 6: 27 Ducks Hill Road, had been withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the applicant.

It was confirmed that Item 6: 27 Ducks Hill Road, had been withdrawn from the agenda at the request of the applicant.

It was confirmed that items 1-15 were marked as Part I, and would therefore be considered in public. Items 16-18 were marked as Part II, and would therefore be considered in private.

It was confirmed that items 1-15 were marked as Part I, and would therefore be considered in public. Items 16-18 were marked as Part II, and would therefore be considered in private.

Three storey building with basement level to form 7 x 2-bed flats with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing chalet bungalow.

Recommendation: Refusal

The item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

The item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

Erection of a two storey building with habitable basement and roof space to create 1 x 3-bed and 3 x 2-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and installation of vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing dwelling house.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in the addendum.

Erection of a two storey building with habitable basement and roof space to create 1 x 3-bed and 3 x 2-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and installation of vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing dwelling house.

Officers introduced the report and addendum, which set out comments from a Ward Councillor and proposed additional and amended conditions to address the Ward Councillor’s concerns that related to privacy of neighbouring residents.

In order to protect neighbours’ privacy, a condition was proposed to ensure that all side windows facing no. 9 Sandy Lodge Way were obscure glazed and non-openable below a height of 1.8m. The remaining concerns of the Ward Councillor were confirmed as addressed within paragraph 7.07 of the officer’s report. Condition 8, which dealt with landscaping, was also proposed to be added to, to set out areas of defensible space in front of ground floor habitable windows, to protect the amenities of future occupiers.

The Committee was informed that, with the addition of the above conditions, the impact of overlooking on neighbouring properties was negligible. The proposal was considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and for these reasons it was recommended that the application be approved.

A petitioner addressed the Committee, key points of which included:

·         The petitioner was the owner and resident of no. 9 Sandy Lodge Way, and was speaking on behalf of over 50 local residents who had signed the petition against the proposed development.

·         The application sought to demolish a family style home and replace it with four flats with a large basement and associated parking, in a large development which was out of character with the western side of Sandy Lodge Way and adjacent roads.

·         Residents were concerned that further flatted developments within the area would create a poor neighbourhood environment and reduce the standard of living and enjoyment of the area.

·         Residents were disappointed by the application, in light of planning policy which identified the need for more family homes with garden space within the Borough.

·         The current owners already had permission to develop two detached houses on this plot, meeting the planning policy aims, and at the previous Planning Committee meeting at which those houses were approved, the owners expressed the desire to build the two family houses as they had struggled to find suitable homes in the area. The subsequent decision to develop flats on the site contravened that claim, and suggested a purely financial motive contrary to planning policy aims.

·         In terms of density, Sandy Lodge Way was already at the limit of 10% flatted developments, and the proposed development would take the number of flatted developments over 10%. Together with a further flatted development at 8 to 10 Sandy Lodge Way, whose application predated this one, the number would be closer to 15%.

·         The officer’s report had not accounted for the fact that almost all of the current flatted developments were in a relatively condensed part of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Part two storey front extension, first floor side/rear extensions, first floor side extensions, single storey rear extension, enlargement of rear dormer, detached outbuilding to rear for use as a gym/games room and alterations to elevations

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Part two storey front extension, first floor side/rear extensions, first floor side extensions, single storey rear extension, enlargement of rear dormer, detached outbuilding to rear for use as a gym/games room and alterations to elevations

Officers introduced the report, confirming that 39 Wieland Road was a substantial five bedroom, two and a half story detached house located on a residential street within the Gatehill Estate. The area was characterized by large, individually designed properties located within large plots, and the site fell within an area of special local character wherein any form of new development was required to be of a similar scale and reflecting the materials, design, features, architectural style, and building heights predominant within the area.

The Council’s conservation officer had been consulted and had considered that the proposal was overly large and would result in a discordant collection of structures that would detract significantly from the original house. The proposed extensions would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the special architectural qualities of the host dwelling and as such would fail to contribute positively to the area of special local character. In addition, the applicant had made no provision for the long term protection of trees at the rear of the property. For these reasons, the application was recommended for refusal.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, the key points of which included:

·         The petitioner was speaking on behalf for the Gatehill Residents Association.

·         Gatehill Farm Estate was located in the north of the London Borough of Hillingdon and had been designated as an area of special local character, with specific policies created to preserve and enhance the area.

·         39 Wieland Road had been substantially extended in the past, and the proposed triple storey extension to the front at ground, first and second floor level, was unacceptable in terms of size, treatment and character. There are no other instances of anything similar on the estate and so it would be out of character.

·         The planning application proposed numerous extensions to the side, the rear, and the roof which fail to be subordinate, symmetrical or matching to the original house in any way.

·         The redevelopment would be an incongruous and damaging addition to the architectural composition of the property and the visual amenities of the street scene and the surrounding area, and would have a detrimental impact on the protected trees.

·         The application was inappropriate, and so it should be refused on the grounds of size, scale, design, bulk, and prominence.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Pergola to side (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Pergola to side (Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the application sought retrospective approval for the erection of a structure described by the applicant as a pergola, located to the side of the dwelling. The pergola was a substantial open-sided covered patio which had been raised to the level of the house, 5 metres deep and 2.9 metres high, with a gently sloping pitched roof.

Officers confirmed that the structure was located within the Gateshill Estate, which was an area of special local character, and while not particularly visible from the street, was located on a prominent corner position of the road, and was highly visible ground and first floor windows within neighbouring properties.

Constructed with a polycarbonate roof and with open sides, the pergola was deemed to be disproportionate and to not relate well to the form of the existing house, was incongruous, and not considered to be subordinate to the existing dwelling and wider character of the area of special local character.

The addendum was highlighted, which confirmed that the applicant had submitted a letter that had been circulated to all Committee members prior to the meeting, together with new photographs that had been included within the officer’s presentation.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, the key points of which were:

·         The petitioner was speaking on behalf of the Gatehill Residents Association, who believed that the application breached many of the Council’s planning policies, both in general, and specific to Gatehill Farm Estate .

·         18a Elgood Avenue was positioned at the lowest possible part of the road on the Gatehill Farm Estate, where the east and west part of the road were raised, and so the structure was highly visible from both the ground floor and the first floor rooms of neighbouring properties.

·         The structure was disproportionate in size and did not relate to the existing house in shape or form.

·         The structure was large-scale and built with unsympathetic materials which were harmful to the character of the area. The roof was polycarbonate with open sides, appeared incongruous, and was not considered to be subordinate to the existing dwelling.

·         The structure was detrimental to the wider character of the area of special local character and on that basis should be refused.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Erection of a combined heat and power unit enclosure

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Erection of a combined heat and power unit enclosure

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the site was a multi sports and health complex within a countryside conservation area, which formed part of the Greenbelt. The proposal was small in relation to the rest of the site, and fully complied with the aims of the national planning policy framework, London Plan, and Local Plan policies, which sought to encourage the provision of new and/or enhanced sports facilities. It was considered that the proposal would result in an acceptable impact on the visual amenities of the site, and would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of occupiers and neighbouring residential properties.

The addendum was highlighted, which proposed to delete conditions 4 (landscaping) and 5 (sound insulation/mitigation) as these were not required.  Officers concluded by stating that the application was recommended for approval.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Regularisation of roof alterations

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Regularisation of roof alterations

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the proposal sought to retain an unauthorized small side-facing box dormer and two rear-facing gable end roof extensions.  The side-facing element of the L-shaped dormer would be removed, whilst the rear facing section would be retained.

It was deemed that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area, would provide adequate levels of sunlight and daylight to the property, and would not result in the loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. For these reasons, it was recommended that the application be approved.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of the Secretary of State's Appeal Decision ref: APP/R5510/W/16/3155076 dated 11/11/2016 (LBH ref: 38324/APP/2016/407 dated 24-06-2016) (Erection of detached building to accommodate refuse storage at ground floor and office accommodation above) for minor elevational variations, relocation of refuse store and infilling of undercroft to create garage

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved; and

2.    That the Head of Planning and Enforcement be delegated authority to add an additional condition mandating that the property should only be used for the purposes as set out on the plan.

Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of the Secretary of State's Appeal Decision ref: APP/R5510/W/16/3155076 dated 11/11/2016 (LBH ref: 38324/APP/2016/407 dated 24-06-2016) (Erection of detached building to accommodate refuse storage at ground floor and office accommodation above) for minor elevational variations, relocation of refuse store and infilling of undercroft to create garage

Officers introduced the report. It was considered that the proposed alterations would not have any detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the building, would not be highly visible from the street scene, and would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. For these reasons, it was recommended that the application be approved.

Members suggested that the Head of Planning and Enforcement be granted delegated authority to add a further condition to prevent future residential use of the site.

The officer’s recommendation, inclusive of the additional condition as set above, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved; and

2.    That the Head of Planning and Enforcement be delegated authority to add an additional condition mandating that the property should only be used for the purposes as set out on the plan.

Two storey side/rear extension and conversion of dwelling into 1 x 2-bed and 1 x 1-bed self-contained flats, involving demolition of existing garage and conservatory and installation of external staircase.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Two storey side/rear extension and conversion of dwelling into 1 x 2-bed and 1 x 1-bed self-contained flats, involving demolition of existing garage and conservatory and installation of external staircase

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the application was a re-submission following a prior refusal. While the new proposal had in part addressed some of the previous reasons for refusal, the proposal remained unacceptable.

The revised proposal now included an external staircase, which was open and in a prominent position that, due to overall size and height, was incongruous and which failed to harmonize with the architectural composition of the original dwelling. The proposal was deemed to be detrimental to the character, appearance, and visual amenity of the street scene in the surrounding area. In addition, the proposal failed to provide sufficient parking provision for the proposed units which would therefore result in an increase in on-street car parking in an area where such parking was at a premium. This would result in conditions that would be detrimental to the free flow of traffic and to highway and pedestrian safety. For these reasons, it was recommended that the application be refused.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Creation of first floor level and raising of roof.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Creation of first floor level and raising of roof

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that permission had previously been granted in 1999 for a building extension (not implemented) and the installation of a number of football pitches (since implemented). Permission was now being sought for a further extension to accommodate a training academy on site.

The site was located in a Greenbelt, and while certain developments were acceptable in principle within Greenbelt land, training academies were not listed as such, and so the principle of the development was not acceptable.

In terms of design, the proposed roof alterations would not appear to be subordinate features and therefore would result in incongruous and disproportionate additions that would be detrimental to the architectural composition of the existing building, and to the visual amenity of the street scene.

In addition, the existing facility was often used for events, and the additional 360 square metres of what could be used as event space could generate significant traffic movements. Highways officers were not satisfied that there had been an adequate and up-to-date assessment of the transport impact, and the increased floor space was considered likely to generate large traffic volumes and parking demand that would be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety.

For these reasons, the application was recommended for refusal.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Tree preservation order no. 769 (tpo 769): 20 Burwood Avenue, Eastcote

Officers introduced the tree preservation order, and recommended that order be approved.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).