Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Henry Higgins and from Councillor Carol Melvin with Councillor Steve Tuckwell substituting.

In relation to item 6, it was noted that the Head of Planning and Enforcement would present the report since the planning officer Matt Kolaszewski lived in close proximity to the site in question. Mr Kolaszewski left the room during the deliberations of this item.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 19 February 2020 be approved as an accurate record.

None.

It was confirmed that the items of business marked Part 1 (items 1 – 11) would be considered in public and the items marked Part II (item 12) would be considered in private.

Installation of 1 x 20m monopole, 2 x cabinets, a meter cabinet and ancillary works thereto (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance.

Recommendation : Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Installation of 1 x 20m monopole, 2 x cabinets, a meter cabinet and ancillary works thereto (General Permitted Development Order 2015) for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance.

Officers introduced the report. It was noted that the proposed monopole would not cause harm to pedestrian or highway safety. However, given the siting and character of the surrounding area, it was considered that the monopole would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the immediate street scene, the surrounding Green Belt and the nearby Ickenham Village Conservation Area. Members were advised that the proposed monopole was very tall and would be noticeably above the treeline.

A petitioner statement in objection to the application was read out by the Chairman. Key points included:-

·         The siting of a mast on the corner of Swakeleys Drive and Warren Road would blight the street scene and there were more suitable places for this development;

·         The Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development in England suggested ‘Placing a mast within or adjacent to an existing group of trees’ and advised that ‘care should be taken to avoid the unnecessary loss of existing trees’;

·         It was considered that a site adjacent to the nearby existing cabinets and on the edge of the wooded area beside the River Pinn would more closely follow the Code’s guidance.

Members agreed that the siting of the mast was inappropriate. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) and 5 (Side Windows) of Secretary of State's Appeal Decision ref: APP/R5510/W/17/3171932 dated 28/07/2017 (LBH ref: 70377/APP/2016/4221 dated 22/07/2017) Two storey, 3-bed detached dwelling, use of habitable roof space, ancillary works and provision of new vehicle access from Woodside Road.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) and 5 (Side Windows) of Secretary of State’s Appeal Decision. Two storey, 3-bed detached dwelling, use of habitable roof space, ancillary works and provision of new vehicle access from Woodside Road

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum.

A petitioner’s statement was read out by the Chairman. Key points highlighted included:

·         Several of the 13 conditions set out by the Planning Inspector had been ignored. This application sought to address some of the breaches;

·         The Enforcement Team was thanked for persuading the applicant to amend his plans to ensure that all side-facing windows were obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.8 metres;

·         It was noted that, in the addendum, conditions 6,7,9 and 10 were to be carried forward to the approval notice for this application;

·         In view of the actions taken by planning officers, no further objections were raised.

Members were happy with the proposal and raised no objections.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Single storey extension to storage shed (Retrospective).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Single storey extension to storage shed (Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. Members were informed that, apart from the addition of some camouflage netting, the application was identical to that previously submitted which had been refused.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. Key points raised included:

·         The application had previously been refused and the addition of camouflage netting changed nothing;

·         The applicant had cut down numerous trees at the site;

·         The new application had done nothing to address the issues raised previously relating to size, scale and siting.

The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application. Key points raised included:

·         A separate independent petition had been submitted in support of the application;

·         The extension was to the rear of the shed;

·         Its maximum depth was 2.75m which was below the 3m guidance;

·         The extension met all but one of Hillingdon’s Permitted Development Guidelines – the exception related to its 5m depth (Hillingdon Guideline is 4m max);

·         The extension measured 5m x 2.5m x 2.75m;

·         The extension was screened by a row of pine trees and fell well within the boundary;

·         The extension was only visible from secondary windows at number 15 and passed the 45 degree test. It was screened by trees and shrubs and could not be seen from the public viewpoint;

·         The extension was small and was not detrimental to the amenity of the neighbour. Refusal on the grounds of overdominance could not be justified.

Ward Councillor John Morgan spoke in objection to the application highlighting the fact that the addition of nylon netting was the only change to the previous application which had been refused. Councillor Morgan believed the extension to be unacceptable due to its size, bulk, height and overdominance of the neighbour’s property.

Members noted that the changes in this application were minimal and suggested that the applicant should work with planning officers to come up with an acceptable proposal.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Creation of 2 formal hospital gardens including planting, furniture and paths.

Recommendation: Approval

Creation of 2 formal hospital gardens including planning, furniture and paths.

Officers introduced the application. Members were advised that Harefield Hospital lay within the Green Belt and part of the application also lay within the Harefield Village Conservation Area. It was considered that the gardens and associated furniture would not compromise the open character of the Green Belt and and the proposal would not be detrimental to the amenities of surrounding residents.

Members approved of the proposal and raised no objections.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Change of use from A1 shop to Beauty Salon (Sui Generis)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Change of use from A1 shop to Beauty Salon (Sui Generis)

The officer’s presentation was deemed unnecessary. Members approved of the change of use and raised no objections.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Retention of hard landscaping and provision of soft landscaping

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Retention of hard landscaping and provision of soft landscaping.

Officers presented the report. It was noted that landscaping officers and flood water management had raised no objections.

Members approved of the proposal and raised no concerns.

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, 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).