Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Tuckwell, with Councillor Chamdal substituting.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chairman agreed that Item 12 would be considered as an urgent item.

It was confirmed that all items marked as Part I would be heard in public, and all items marked as Part II would be heard on private.

Four two-storey, two-bed, semi-detached dwellings with associated parking and installation of vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing detached bungalows.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Four two-storey, two-bed, semi-detached dwellings with associated parking and installation of vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing detached bungalows.

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum.

A petitioner in objection to the application addressed the Committee, and cited the bulk, size and dominance on the street scene as a potential further reason for refusal. Members heard that the car parking arrangements could lead to neighbours parking in front of other houses, and the change to the side roof elevations would have a detrimental impact on the street scene.

The agent for the application commented that the application was designed to not affect neighbours, and was styled on neighbouring properties such as No. 55 Hawthorne Avenue. The Committee were informed that the application would not adversely impact neighbouring properties and meets the Council’s standards for amenity space.

Following a clarification on the parking arrangements, Members moved the officer’s recommendation. This was then moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Two two-storey, semi-detached dwellinghouses with habitable roofspace to include associated parking and amenity space and vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing dwellinghouse.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Two two-storey, semi-detached dwellinghouses with habitable roofspace to include associated parking and amenity space and vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing dwellinghouse.

Officers introduced the report, noted the addendum and commented that an email that detailed a number of plans that were superseded had been circulated to the Committee.

Members heard from a petitioner in objection to the application who stated that the application failed to harmonise with the surrounding area, impacted on the lighting to the properties behind the site, the roof was too high and the property would be just 1.5m from the partition wall. The petitioner commented that the local residents appreciated the applicant had moved the dormer windows from the back to the front, but the proposed development would change street scene and the Committee was asked to preserve the invaluable character of the road by refusing the application.

Councillors noted that the issues surrounding the wall were outside the Committee’s control and the replacement of a building is only relevant if the building is listed. Members commented that the decision rested on the design which was subjective, but the proposed plans appeared to be more in keeping with the neighbouring area than the current dwelling.

The Committee stated that there was a condition on building materials, but requested that the materials must be a colour that suited the street scene. The Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration confirmed that an informative could be added to state that the building materials must be a style and colour that was in keeping with the street scene, and also confirmed that it should be ensured that the car parking area be made with permeable paving in the landscaping condition.

Members moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation, subject to the additional informative and change to condition 10.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to:

1.    An additional informative to state that building materials must be a style and colour that remains in keeping with the street scene; and

2.    Condition 10 being changed to ensure the car parking area being constructed with a permeable paving material.

Two-storey, four-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and detached double garage with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover from Cygnet Close.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Two-storey, four-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roof space and detached double garage with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover from Cygnet Close.

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum, which included the omission of reason for refusal 3.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application and noted that 38 local residents opposed the application. The Committee heard that the petitioner agreed with the officer’s report and key reasons for refusal, but also stated that the application was overdominant, disruptive to the local area, too close to surrounding dwellings and resulted in a loss of amenity for neighbouring properties.

Councillor Carol Melvin, Ward Councillor for Northwood, addressed the Committee and noted that, in addition to the points raised by the petitioner, a number of trees with Tree Preservation Orders would need to be removed for the development to take place. Members heard that all the local Ward Councillors opposed the application and wished for it to be refused.

The Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration confirmed that the addendum omitted reason for refusal 3, but added a further reason for refusal regarding the size, siting and dominant appearance of the proposal.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused, subject to:

1.    The omission of reason for refusal 3; and

2.      The addition of a reason for refusal which stated “The proposal, by reason of its size and siting, would result in an unduly dominant appearance from the neighbouring property, No. 7 Muscovy Place, resulting in a significant reduction in the residential amenities afforded by the property, contrary to Policies BE19 and BE21 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) and the Council’s HDAS Design Guidance”.

Demolition of existing building (containing three self-contained flats) and replacement with a new three-storey building containing one three-bedroom and seven two-bedroom self-contained flats. Proposal includes basement parking (resubmission following 65098/APP/2016/3555).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Demolition of existing building (containing three self-contained flats) and replacement with a anew three-storey building containing one three-bedroom and seven two-bedroom self-contained flats. Proposal includes basement parking (Resubmission following 65098/APP/2016/3555).

The officers introduced the report to the Committee.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, and stated that 107 residents from 51 homes supported the refusal of the application. Members heard that the cul-de-sac has a wide road and strong building line, while the existing property is an attractive building surrounded by hedging at right angles to the road. In contrast, the petitioner commented that the proposed dwelling was out of proportion and keeping with the street scene, would dominate the lower part of the road and street scene and impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, and the proposed basement filled almost the entire plot and would impact on surface water flow and lead to a loss of openness and green space.

The Legal Counsel for the applicant informed the Committee that following the Planning Inspectorate’s decision last year, the concerns raised were addressed. Members heard that the current dwelling was not a listed building, and was in a poor state with no significant value, and the cost of renovation would be substantial and unjustified, therefore the benefits of demolishing the current dwelling and replacing it would outweigh the loss and include the provision of new homes. The applicant’s representative noted that amenity space, access, parking, and flood risk were acceptable and urged the Committee to grant planning permission.

Councillor Melvin, Ward Councillor for Northwood, noted that it was important to keep old buildings for the sake of the local area, and this building was very significant in the street scene. Councillor Melvin informed the Committee that flats at the end of The Drive including a large basement would be unacceptable and only exacerbate the significant flood risk to the area.

The Committee commented that the current building does require renovation, but the current plans, particularly the proposed basement, were not acceptable, and would increase the number of bedrooms at the dwelling from three to 17, which was a substantial increase.

As such, Members moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Installation of timber staircase for access (retrospective).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Installation of timber staircase for access (Retrospective).

Officers introduced the report and the Committee noted that a petition in objection to the application was withdrawn by the lead petitioner prior to the meeting.

Members thanked officers for working with the applicant to find a sensible compromise to the application, and moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation when put to a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Part two-storey, part single-storey side / rear extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include two side dormers.

Recommendation: Approval

The application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

Part two-storey, part single-storey side/rear extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include two side dormers.

The application was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

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.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum, which included the deletion of condition 4.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the deletion of Condition 4.

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).