Agenda, decisions and minutes

North Planning Committee - Tuesday, 19th June, 2018 7.00 pm

Venue: Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre. View directions

Contact: Anisha Teji  01895 27 7655

Link: Watch a LIVE or archived broadcast of this meeting here

Items
No. Item

21.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence.

22.

Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

Minutes:

Councillor Eddie Lavery declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 6 – St Thomas More R.C Church Eastcote (482/APP/2017/4564) as he knew the applicant. He left the room when this item was heard.

23.

To sign and receive the minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 164 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED – That the minutes from the meeting on 23 May 2018 be agreed as a correct record.

24.

Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent

Minutes:

None.

25.

To confirm that the items of business marked Part 1 will be considered in public and that the items marked Part 2 will be considered in private

Minutes:

It was confirmed that all items would be heard in Part I.

26.

St. Thomas More R.C. Church, Eastcote - 482/APP/2017/4564 pdf icon PDF 141 KB

Car parking area for five spaces with associated landscaping and installation of vehicular crossover.

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED – That the application be approved.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for a car parking area for five spaces with associated landscaping and installation of vehicular crossover. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval. 

 

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. The petitioner referred to a summary document and photographs that had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting. The petition questioned whether the application was necessary and agreed with the highways officers commented that it was not clear why the applicant required a single access when there was already adequate access from within the church car park. This is residential cul de sac, less than five metres wide with at least two metres taken up with residential parking. The petitioner submitted that there was current access to the church and ample additional parking which was already available on the site.  The petitioner submitted that there was no valid reason why an entrance in the Sigers should be considered and the existing car park had sufficient parking with 30 spaces.  The church committee informed residents that the future intention was to have a new development on the site and the erection of a siding gate does not eradicate any concerns. Residents believed it to be erroneous to grant access which would lead to horrendous traffic and congestion. There would be disturbance to the long standing residential environment particularly as the applicant was seeking unqualified access thereby underpinning a D1 activity. The petitioner told the Committee that the application was ingenious and totally unnecessary.

 

The applicant addressed the Committee and told Members that the Diocesan of Westminster was very aware of the importance of preservation of historical buildings and environment, and had great empathy for residents affecting the local area. The applicant submitted that attempts had been made to keep the local characteristics of the area. However, changes to lifestyle and demands for architect planning and design meant that other practical, versatile and meaningful living spaces need to be introduced to suit contemporary lifestyles. The petitioner reiterated that the Diocesan would not be applying to create a cross over unless they considered it to be absolutely necessary. The petitioner submitted that the application was not intended to add additional pressure to existing highways in the area. It was the church’s full intention to ensure that any work carried out was done to a high standard and displayed sensitivity to the street and location.

 

In response to Member questions, the applicant confirmed that there was a planning pre app regarding the future location of the site but this application was submitted to tease out who owned the ranch and strip of land. The site would be used as a residential block for retired priests. It was also confirmed that there was an overspill for parking when mass was held. This application was mainly to ensure that a cross over was available in this location.

 

The Vice Chairman read the written representation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

27.

38 & 40 Ducks Hill Road, Northwood - 71798/APP/2018/803 pdf icon PDF 167 KB

Erection of a three storey building to create 9 x 3-bed self-contained flats

with car parking within basement, with associated parking and landscaping, installation of vehicular crossover to front and detached summerhouse to rear, involving demolition of existing houses (Resubmission).

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED – That the application be approved.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the erection of a three storey building to create nine x 3-bed self-contained flats with car parking within basement, with associated parking and landscaping, installation of vehicular crossover to front and detached summerhouse to rear, involving demolition of existing houses. This was a resubmission. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for refusal.

 

A petitioner spoke in objection of the application and submitted that the development would adversely impact the character of the area due to its out of character, overbearing and intrusive nature. The development would be significantly larger than the neighbouring buildings and would create a visually dominant and intrusive structure affecting neighbouring gardens and patio space. The petitioner urged the Committee to undertake a site visit to understand the impacts of this development. The petitioner read a statement from the residents which indicated that the report and amended plans did not mitigate the concerns raised. The petitioner referred to the appeal decision in 9 February in which it was stated that the main issue was the unacceptable effects on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring residential properties, with reference to being over bearing and visually intrusive.  The petitioner also identified what provisions of the UDP would be compromised. In light of the large potential impact, the petitioner asked for the decision to be deferred pending a site visit.

 

The agent addressed the Committee and highlighted the changes made which influenced officers to make a recommendation for approval. The application was in line with all policy and  guidance. This was the third application, and the applicant/agent had done their best to address previous issues for refusal. The impact on other property was confirmed by the inspector as being acceptable. This type of development had already been accepted by the inspector who endorsed the visual impact and design. The gent quotes parts of the inspector’s reasoning to support his arguments. The agent submitted that the application exceeded all planning requirements and all the technical aspects of the proposal continued to be addressed. The agent asked for the application to be approved given the significant changes made.

 

The Chairman directed Members attention to the appeal decision which gave one ground to consider. He informed the Committee that the applicant was correct, with the exception to the impact on number 36, the appeal inspector was happy with all other matters.

 

Members noted the changes made and considered that the applicant had addressed the issues regarding overbearing by reducing the building to two storey. It was considered that significant changes had been made.  However, some Members still considered that there was an overbearing issue and it would have been advisable to take it back a metre or so as it was still close. Members questioned the height and the windows on the site. Officers acknowledged Members ‘concerns but commented that they could not see any issues with the windows  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

28.

31 Frithwood Avenue, Northwood - 8032/APP/2017/3739 pdf icon PDF 207 KB

Part two storey, part single storey rear extension, enlargement of roof space involving alterations to elevations and change of use from a Bed and Breakfast (Use Class C1) to extra care facility comprising 13 units and an internal communal facility (Use Class C2) (Reconsultation)

 

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED – That the applciation be refused.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for a part two storey, part single storey rear extension, enlargement of roof space involving alterations to elevations and change of use from a bed and breakfast  to extra care facility comprising 13 units and an internal communal facility. Officers made a recommendation for refusal.

 

A petitioner spoke in objection of the application and referred to photographs circulated prior to the hearing. He submitted that the main concern was the hindrance this application would cause to resident parking. The photographs showed the parking issues in the area as a result of the local school. There were already 14 cars that were regularly parked on the road, and if the application was granted the extra care facility would bring in an additional 16 – 18 cars. The petitioners did not accept the assertion that most of the staff would be cycling or using public transport. There would be a huge impact on local residents.

 

There was no applicant/agent present for the item.

 

The Chairman reminded Members that parking was not a refusal reason in this application, it was being refused on design grounds and the absence of legal agreement and management plans to operate the premises as a care facility.

 

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

 

RESOLVED – That the application be refused.

29.

Land forming part of 43 the Drive, Northwood - 70975/APP/2018/1295 pdf icon PDF 197 KB

Erection of 2 x 3-bed semi-detached dwelling houses with associated parking and amenity space following the demolition of existing outbuilding (Resubmission)

 

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED – That the applciation be refused.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the erection of two x 3-bed semi-detached dwelling houses with associated parking and amenity space following the demolition of existing outbuilding. This was a resubmission. Officers highlight the addendum and made a recommendation for refusal.

 

A petitioner spoke in objection of the application with 85 signatures from Northwood residents. People were upset and angry that another application had been submitted. This application was virtually identical to the application last year and there is no logical reason to approve it. It was submitted that by  changing the property’s purpose from a swimming pool to a dwelling would contradict the permitted development certificate that they have. The independent approved inspector for the site referred it back to the Council as the owner builder had done nothing right.  The petitioner stressed that the building should be torn down. The proposed developments would make the drainage problem worse and not help the low water pressure some residents encountered, impact parking and showed a disregard for the area. The trees and greenery formed an integral part of the character of the area, and needed to be protected and the wildlife. The petitioner hoped that the Committee would agree.

 

There was no applicant/agent present for the item.

 

Members commented that they agreed with the concerns raised by the petitioner.

 

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

 

RESOLVED – That the application be refused, subject to the clarification listed in the addendum.

 

30.

51 Wieland Road, Northwood - 17990/APP/2018/1101 pdf icon PDF 98 KB

Variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref: 17990/APP/2015/645 dated 24/04/2015 to permit changes to the basement and fenestration (Part two storey, part first floor rear extension, construction of basement, conversion of garage to habitable use, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 2 rear roof lights, alterations to front elevation and demolition of existing rear element)

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred.

Minutes:

 

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref: 17990/APP/2015/645 dated 24/04/2015 to permit changes to the basement and fenestration (Part two storey, part first floor rear extension, construction of basement, conversion of garage to habitable use, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 2 rear roof lights, alterations to front elevation and demolition of existing rear element). Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval

 

The Head of Planning drew the Committee’s attention to a briefing sheet on the local plan part II. He advised the Committee that the plans before the Committee did not cite policies from the emerging part II local plans. Members were referred to paragraph 216 of the national planning policy framework. The Head of Planning highlighted that reference was made to the word “may”, and talked the Committee through the three key criterias, highlighting that although draft policies had been published and been subject to public consultation, they had not gone through an inspector evaluation process.

 

A petitioner spoke in objection of the application on behalf of the Gateshilll Residents Association and submitted that the submissions due to be made would be made primarily on the comments in the officer’s report, not the comments on the local plan part II. The petitioner referred to documents that were circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting. The petitioner stated that Senior Council had been putting together the development management policies since 2014. The policies that officers made were sent out for public consultation twice and on neither occasion where any amendments made. The petitions submitted that policies did have weight and covered requirements for developments to harmonise with existing street scenes, complement amenity and character of residential area and to be unobtrusive. These are the existing current policies. The petitioner accepted that permission was granted but submitted that the application differed form the application approved. There were significant changes. In summary, the petitioner requested officers to clarify the full length, full width and additional full width of the basement proposals as it would damage the amenity of neighbours and that the front and side light wells and the removal of conifers as they were all contrary to BE 5/6, 13, 15 and 19. The petitioner asked the Committee to refuse the application.

 

The agent addressed the Committee and submitted that permission for this development had been lawfully commenced and the proposal for an enlargement for an approved basement together with alterations were highlighted by the officers are relatively minor. It was critical to consider the permission granted on appeal for the replacement dwelling, which included a large basement of a comparable size. The inspector raised no issues with the size of that basement. The agent highlighted that a scheme was put forward last year for another replacement dwelling, with a basement and although Members refused that application it was not on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

31.

Audit House, 260 Field End Road, Ruislip - 19365/APP/2017/3088 pdf icon PDF 162 KB

Erection of rooftop extensions to existing building to provide 9 (4 x 2-bed and 5 x 3-bed) residential flats (Class C3), facade alterations and associated works at Audit House.

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED – That the application be approved.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the erection of rooftop extensions to existing building to provide nine residential flats, façade alterations and associated works at Audit House. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

 

Members clarified that this was situated in the midst of a set of office blocks, which were all becoming houses.

 

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

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved as per officer's recommendations and subject to the changes in the addendum.

 

32.

Canada House, 272 Field End Road, Ruislip - 3894/APP/2018/498 pdf icon PDF 167 KB

Erection of rooftop extensions to existing building to provide 9 (8 x 2-

bedroom and 1 x 3-bedroom) units (Use Class C3), facade alterations and associated works

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED – That the application be approved.

 

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the erection of rooftop extensions to existing building to provide nine units, facade alterations and associated works. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

 

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

 

RESOLVED – That the application be approved, subject to changes in the addendum.

 

33.

4 Ashburton Road, Ruislip - 15579/APP/2018/642 pdf icon PDF 159 KB

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension, single storey front extension, 4 x detached garages to rear and conversion of dwelling from 1 x 4-bed to 1 x 2-bed and 3 x 1-bed dwellings with parking and amenity space. (Resubmission)

 

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED – That the application be refused.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for a part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension, single storey front extension, 4 x detached garages to rear and conversion of dwelling from 1 x 4-bed to 1 x 2-bed and 3 x 1-bed dwellings with parking and amenity space. This was a resubmission. Officers made a recommendation for refusal.

 

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

 

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per officer's recommendations.

 

34.

178-182 High Street, Ruislip - 28388/APP/2018/1303 pdf icon PDF 112 KB

Change of use of part of ground floor from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A2 (Letting Office) including new entrance and alterations to rear and side elevations.

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED – That the application be approved.

 

Minutes:

Officers had regard to the officer’s report. Planning permission was sought for the change of use of part of ground floor from shops to letting office including new entrance and alterations to rear and side elevations. Officers made a recommendation for approval.

 

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

 

RESOLVED – That the application be approved as per officer's recommendations.