Agenda and minutes

Cllr Allan Kauffman substitute Cllr Paul Buttivant

Cllr Anita MacDonald substitute Cllr Jazz Dhillion

Cllr Michael Markham substitute Cllr Pat Jackson

Cllr David Payne substitute Cllr Tim Barker

Councillor Carol Melvin declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 6 ‘Former Reindeer Public House, Northwood’ as she has discussed the application with residents. She left the room and did not vote on this item.

Councillor Edward Lavery declared a non-prejudicial interest in item 8 ’Former Kings Arms Garage Site, Rickmansworth Road, Harefield’ as he knew the petitioner professionally.

The minutes of 20 May 2010 were unavailable.

None.

Erection of a part two, part three, part four storey building comprising of 1

one-bedroom flat, 4 two-bedroom flats and 7 three-bedroom flats, with

associated surface and basement car parking, secured cycle parking, bin

store and alterations to vehicular access.

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a Section 278 Agreement.

Erection of a part two, part three, part four storey building comprising of 1 one-bedroom flat, 4 two-bedroom flats and 7 three-bedroom flats, with associated surface and basement car parking, secured cycle parking, bin store and alterations to vehicular access.

18958/APP/2009/2210

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• The residential amenity and car parking spaces for the proposal are inadequate.
• There is uncertainty whether the proposal will be finished to the requisite standard.
• The proposal will have a massive frontage and will look like a warehouse.
• The proposal will block out the southern sunlight to current the Green Lane flats.
• The proposal is contrary to BE23. The kitchen and bathroom window of one flat will overlook the car park. This property will be affected by noise and poor air quality.
• The proposal lacks sufficient amenity space for children to play adequately or safely.
• A significant proportion of the amenity space will be concrete.
• The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.
• The (possibility of) Developers losses are not material planning reasons.
• The provision of 13 car parking spaces is inadequate and is 5 short of the number required by the UDP policy.
• The proposal will restrict access to the local roads.
• The proposal does not make adequate provision for refuse collection.

Points raised by the applicant:

• The aim of the proposal is to provide high quality homes for those people wishing to downsize their property.
• Following discussions with the Council, the proposal has been redesigned and reduced in size.
• The proposed development will enhance the character and appearance of the street scene through the building design and use of landscaping.
• The overall scale, height and massing of the proposal has been significantly reduced compared to the previously refused scheme.
• The proposal will help to regenerate the area.
• Careful consideration has been given to the materials employed in the design.
• The design protects the privacy of occupiers and owners through the use obscure glazing and uses full height privacy screens on balconies where appropriate.
• The scheme will contribute £10,000 towards the expansion of community facilities and £28,000 towards local open space and recreation improvements.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting. The following points were raised:

·        The objections raised by the petitioners were supported.

·        The report is inaccurate.

·        There is not a reasonable transition between the commercial centre and the residential development the proposal adjoins.

·        There are insufficient car parking spaces in the proposal. Where will residents’ guests park?

·        The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

·        There is insufficient amenity space.

·        The pitch of the roof is too acute and reducing the amount of available sales space is not sufficient reason to allow this.

·        The proposal is not sympathetic to the area. It is out of character and the turret design will not match the street scene.

·        There is insufficient amenity space for children to play

·        The proposal is contrary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

New single storey warehouse, incorporating site re-levelling, re-using and improving existing road access point with associated parking, 2 lorry servicing bays and covered cycle facilities, including demolition of existing single storey warehouse with ancillary two storey offices and surrounding outbuildings.

Recommendation: Approval

New single storey warehouse, incorporating site re-levelling, re-using and improving existing road access point with associated parking, 2 lorry servicing bays and covered cycle facilities, including demolition of existing single storey warehouse with ancillary two storey offices and surrounding outbuildings.

63619/APP/2010/381

The recommendation for Approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be approved as set out in the officer’s report and addendum subject to amendingCondition 9 by inserting the number "13" between the words "out of" and "spaces" and adding an additional informative as follows:

You are advised that there would be a need for the applicant to enter into a section 278 Agreement with the Council to carry out any works on the highway.  The applicant is also advised to contact the Council's Highways Department to discuss any works to the Highway which are to be carried out through the Council at the developer's expense.

Conversion of existing listed building incorporating new two storey extension with habitable roofspace comprising 3 one-bedroom flats and part use as Class A1 (Retail) for use as convenience goods store, to include associated parking, involving demolition of existing single storey detached building and extension to listed building.

Recommendation: Refusal

Conversion of existing listed building incorporating new two storey extension with habitable roof space comprising 3 one-bedroom flats and part use as Class A1 (Retail) for use as convenience goods store, to include associated parking, involving demolition of existing single storey detached building and extension to listed building.

3877/APP/2009/2442

At the start of the item, the Chairman explained that the petition which had been submitted enabled a representative of the petitioners to speak on agenda Items 8, 9 and 10 which were all related. If the petitioner did so, then the agent would have a right to reply on each occasion.  The petitioner waived this right and chose to speak on Item 8 only.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• The officer recommendations for refusal were supported.
• The suggestion that the applicant would use 8 metre long lorries for deliveries was unrealistic. The petitioner managed a food retail store nearby, which was a quarter of the size of the proposed development. This still required deliveries by a 10 metre long lorry, 4 times per week. The applicant has underestimated the number of deliveries required.
• There is a need to protect the historic town centre.
• The number of deliveries required will cause traffic problems and might impede emergency vehicles using the local hospital.
• The applicant has a history of using vehicles larger than 8 metres when delivering to retail outlets within the Borough at Eastcote, Ruislip Manor and West Ruislip.

Points raised by the agent:

• The main issue raised by the petitioner is the size of the delivery vehicles. The applicant now proposes to use 8 metre lorries which overcomes this concern.
• The smaller turning circle of these lorries will ensure the tree with the preservation order at the rear of the proposed development will not be affected by vehicular movements.

Members asked officers for further clarification about vehicular movements during deliveries. Officers explained that using a sweep entry method, 8 metre delivery lorries could be used in the short term. In the long term however, tree growth would make these unsuitable. Officers confirmed that 10 metre delivery lorries would collide with the protected tree.

In response to a query about enforcing the use of smaller lorries, the Highways Engineer explained that the applicant had a proven history of using larger vehicles for most deliveries and these ranged between 12.6 to 14.25 metres. The point was made, that smaller lorries would ensure that more deliveries were required.

The Legal Officer advised that the ability to objectively monitor the situation to establish any breach and the relatively onerous nature of monitoring on a ongoing basis could be problematical and that the imposition of a condition dealing with the issue may risk appeal.

Given the alterations to the rear car park design and loss of 3 car parking spaces to facilitate delivery vehicles, Members queried where potential customers might park? Officers explained that customers would need to park in the surrounding area on nearby roads.

The recommendation for Refusal was moved, seconded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Conversion of existing listed building incorporating new two storey extension with habitable roofspace comprising 3 one-bedroom flats and part use as Class A1 (Retail) for use as convenience goods store, to include associated parking, involving demolition of existing single storey building (Application for Listed Building Consent.)

Recommendation: Refusal

Conversion of existing listed building incorporating new two storey extension with habitable roofspace comprising 3 one-bedroom flats and part use as Class A1 (Retail) for use as convenience goods store, to include associated parking, involving demolition of existing single storey building (Application for Listed Building Consent.)

3877/APP/2009/2443

The recommendation for Refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be Refused as set out in the officer’s report.

Demolition of the existing detached car wash facility building (Application for Conservation Area Consent.)

Recommendation: Refusal

Demolition of the existing detached car wash facility building (Application for Conservation Area Consent.)

3877/APP/2009/2444

The recommendation for Refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be Refused as set out in the officer’s report.

Revised layout plan for the site frontage involving a replacement crossover to access the off-street parking area and landscaping (amendment to application 51162/APP/2009/466).

Recommendation: Approval

Revised layout plan for the site frontage involving a replacement crossover to access the off-street parking area and landscaping (amendment to application 51162/APP/2009/466).

51162/APP/2010/124

The recommendation for Approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was approved.

Resolved – That the application be Approved as set out in the officer’s report.

None.

None.