Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Flynn and Councillor Melvin, with Councillor Chamdal and Councillor Tuckwell substituting.

Councillor Tuckwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 8 as a Trustee of the Scout Association, and confirmed that he would leave the room during the discussion of the item.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2019 be approved as a correct record.

None.

It was confirmed that items 1-16 were marked as Part I and would be considered in public, while Item 17 was marked Part II and would therefore be considered in private.

Two two-storey, three-bed detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing bungalow.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that, had an appeal for non-determination not have been lodged, the application would have been recommended for refusal.

Two two-storey, three-bed dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving the demolition of existing bungalow.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum. Members were informed that an appeal for non-determination had been lodged, and as such, the Committee could now only advise the inspectorate on how it was minded to determinate the application.

A petitioner addressed the Committee and requested the application be refused by virtue of the impact on local heritage, parking, and the size, scale, bulk, design and intrusive nature of the development. The petitioner stated that the application would be cramped both externally and internally, and its siting on a busy crossroads led to concerns about road safety. Reversing from the property would be dangerous and there would be reduced visibility for both cars and pedestrians as the proposed dwelling was closer to the road than the current bungalow.

Councillor Barnes, Ward Councillor for Cavendish, spoke in objection to the application and noted her support for both the residents and officer’s comments. Councillor Barnes expressed concern regarding road safety, and the safety of pedestrians by a cramped, busy road.

Councillor Makwana submitted written comments to the Committee as a Ward Councillor for Cavendish, and endorsed the officer’s report and recommendation.

The Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration noted that the existing highways arrangements tied the Committee’s hands, but the application would affect the street scene.

Members moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation at a vote.

RESOLVED: That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that, had an appeal for non-determination not have been lodged, the application would have been recommended for refusal.

Change of use from unrestricted Class B8 open storage to a restricted use for positioning of up to 68 containers for self-storage use.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Change of use from unrestricted Class B8 open storage to a restricted use for positioning of up to 68 containers for self-storage use.

Officers introduced the report, and Councillor Bianco, Ward Councillor for Northwood Hills, addressed the Committee to state his agreement with the report. Councillor Bianco noted that the changed use of the application would be a travesty, and there were serious concerns about its impact on the Green Belt, while residents would be affected by the impact from the lorries at the site.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of one four-bed detached dwelling, one three-bed detached dwelling and two three-bed semi-detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing Scout Hut. (AMENDED PLANS 28/05/19).

Recommendation: Approval + S106

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Erection of one four-bed detached dwelling, one three-bed detached dwelling, and two three-bed semi-detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing Scout Hut (AMENDED PLANS 28/05/19).

Councillor Tuckwell had declared a non-pecuniary interest in this application and left the room during the discussion of the item.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, and stated that residents were concerned about overlooking, siting close to the boundary, and the mass of the proposed dwellings. The Committee heard that the application was out of keeping, and there were inaccuracies in the plans submitted by the applicant. The petitioner also noted that the lime trees were protected by Tree Preservation Orders, and these trees will impact on the proposed dwellings’ light, which will lead to pressure to fell the trees. The Committee also heard that the proposed three-storey building was out of keeping as the area was full of two-storey buildings, and it would lead to overlooking.

The agent for the application noted that this was an opportunity for new high-quality homes in the area, and it also allowed the rehoming of the Scout Hut to a purpose-built site with s106 money. The footprint, scale and mass of the application had significantly decreased, and all the protected trees were to be retained. Members heard that the application was policy compliant with highways, and replaced a current unsightly site with something that had social benefits.

Councillor Corthorne, Ward Councillor for West Ruislip, addressed the Committee and stated that many residents were upset with the application. While Councillor Corthorne confirmed that the site for the new scout hut was good, this was not the primary consideration, and that the argument for refusal was based on the application’s impact on amenity and local character. Councillors heard that the application would have an impact on nature, and would also impact local traffic. Members were asked that if the application was not refused, then the impact on visual amenity be mitigated with screening.

The Head of Planning, Transportation and Recycling confirmed that the major issue with the application was regarding trees, as the application complied with highways and neighbour impact standards.

The Committee noted that they were concerned with the impact that the trees would have on the application with overlooking would lead to a future concern, and that four homes on a small plot would lead to overlooking and may have a detrimental impact on the area.

Members agreed that the scout hut relocation was a bonus, but the application may have an unacceptable impact on the trees. To better understand the proposals and see the impact for themselves, Councillors suggested a site visit.

Officers agreed that the Committee must ensure that there was not a loss of high-value trees, and Councillors moved and seconded a deferral to allow a site visit. The motion for a deferral was then unanimously agreed by the Committee.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Single storey side/rear extension, first floor side extension and conversion to two one-bed and one two-bed self-contained flats.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration.

Single storey side/rear extension, first floor side extension and conversion to two one-bed and one two-bed self-contained flats.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum, which contained an additional condition.

The Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration noted that Flat 2 in the proposal was less than 51 sqm, but bigger than a studio. Therefore, it was suggested that the description of the application be changed to one two-bed, one one-bed and one studio, although there was no changes to the external layout of the application. Members heard that the agent could not be contacted about this change, and it was requested that, should the Committee be minded to agree the application, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to agree this change with the applicant and agent.

A petitioner spoke in objection to this application, and stated that it was an overdevelopment that would exacerbate traffic concerns and cause issues for local school children and the nearby driving test centre. Members heard that the application was out of keeping, and cannot accommodate four vehicles. The Committee was also informed that, should the application be approved, no further material alterations should be considered in the future.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee and stated that the proposal included sufficient parking, amenity space and soft landscaping. The units included four off-street parking spaces and the vehicular crossover was considered acceptable by officers. Members were informed that there was minimal impact to the street scene, sunlight and outlook, and should the application be granted, the applicant would agree that the change to the description would be acceptable.

Councillor Morgan, Ward Councillor for Northwood Hills, spoke at the meeting and confirmed that the proposed application would impact on the view from residents opposite the plot. Furthermore, the size of one of the one-bedroom flats did not meeting the Council’s standards, and should be refused on these grounds, as well as the issue that it would have on parking and the dangers it may pose to local schoolchildren.

Officers confirmed that delegated authority could also be allowed to ensure that landscaping to the frontage be kept to 1m in height.

The Committee expressed concern that the application be changed from a one-bedroom flat to studio, and it was discussed whether the application should be considered based on the plans in front of Members.

Councillors noted that the plans were compliant, and although there was sympathy with residents, it would be very difficult to refuse.

As such, the officer’s recommendation, subject to delegated authority, was moved and seconded. Upon being put to a vote, there were seven votes in favour of the motion and one against.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transporation and Regeneration to:

1.    Change the description of the application to replace one one-bedroom flat with one studio flat; and,

2.    Ensure that landscaping to the frontage of the flats be kept to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Three-storey building compromising of six two-bed flats with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing garages.

Recommendation: Approval + S106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to S106 agreement.

Three-storey building comprising six two-bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing garages.

Officers introduced the application to the Committee.

Responding to questioning from the Committee, officers confirmed that the entrance to the garages would be wide enough for both refuse and emergency vehicles, and that a contaminated land condition be added to deal with any concerns regarding asbestos.

Members noted that the application was on a site with disused garages, and although there were concerns regarding the three-storied application, it was difficult to refuse.

The Committee questioned what the differences between this application and a previously refused application where, regarding the privacy of surrounding homes. Officers confirmed that the previous application was refused by virtue of size, scale, height, bulk and loss of privacy to 54-46 Southbourne Gardens, and the overdominance of 1-3 Green Lawns. The new plans show that there is a suitable distance between the application and 1-3 Greeen Lawns, and 54-56 Southbourne Gardens is also a suitable distance away.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to a S106 agreement.

Part two-storey, part single-storey side / rear extension, enlargement of roof space to create additional habitable roof space, creation of basement level, porch to front and single-storey outbuilding to rear for use as a gym.

Recommendation: Approval

This item was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

Single-storey rear extension, erection of an external spa garden to include two one-storey buildings for use as saunas and swimming pool with pool terrace.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Single-storey rear extension, erection of an external spa garden to include two one-storey buildings for use as saunas and swimming pool with pool terrace.

Officers introduced the application, and Members moved and seconded the officer’s recommendation. Upon being put to a vote, the application was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Proposed telecommunications removal and replacement.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Proposed telecommunications removal and replacement.

The application was introduced to the Committee, and Councillors moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation.

That the application be refused.

Two two-storey, three-bed dwellings with habitable roofspace, with associated amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval + S106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to a S106 agreement.

Two two-storey, three-bed dwellings with habitable roofspace and associated amenity space.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum.

Members noted the road is unique with distinct characteristics, and as such, the enhancement of Condition 3 was suggested to request a sample of materials for the application to ensure it matched existing properties.

The officer’s recommendation, subject to the enhanced condition, was then moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to a s106 agreement and the amendment of Condition 3 to request a sample of materials to be used in the application.

RESOLVED: That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.

Tree Preservation Order No 777: Oak at Catlins, High Road, Eastcote, HA5 2EY

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum.

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

RESOLVED: That Tree Preservation Order 777 be confirmed.

RESOLVED: That the S106 Quarterly Monitoring Report be noted.

RESOLVED: That the S106 Quarterly Monitoring Report be noted.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the enforcement action, as recommended in the officer’s report, be agreed; and,

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 purpose of it 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; and,

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 purpose of it 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).