Agenda and minutes

Councillor Brian Stead substitutes Councillor Allan Kauffman.

Councillor Jazz Dhillon substitutes Councillor Anita MacDonald.

Councillor David Payne declared a non-prejudicial interest in the following items:

Item 6: RAF Eastcote, Lime Grove, Ruislip.

Item 7: RAF Eastcote, Lime Grove, Ruislip.

Item 12: 41 Rushdene Road, Eastcote.

Cllr Payne left the room while these items were considered and did not vote on any of the three items.

The minutes of 20^th May 2010 and 1^st June 2010 were agreed by the Committee.

None.

It was confirmed that all items marked 6 – 13 would be considered in public, while items marked 14 – 16 would be considered in private.

Provision of glazed conservatories to Plots 338, 344, 345 and 349 (Application to vary parts of the approved layout under Reserved Matters approval ref:10189/APP/2007/3046 dated 13/03/2008) (Details of siting, design external appearance and landscaping in compliance with Condition 2 of  Planning Permission ref:10189/APP/2007/3383 dated 21/02/2008: Residential Development).

Recommendation: Approval

Officers presented the report to Members. Members did not have any comments.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved for the reasons listed below. On being put to the vote, approved was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – That the application be approved as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Provision of glazed conservatories to Plots 262, 265, 278-282 (Application to vary parts of the approved layout under Reserved Matters approval ref:10189/APP/2007/3046 dated 13/03/2008) (Details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping in compliance with condition 2 of outline planning permission ref:10189/APP/2007/ 3383 dated 21/02/2008: Residential Development).

Recommendation: Approval

Officers presented their report to Members. Members did not have any comments.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved for the reasons listed below. On being put to the vote, approved was unanimously agreed.

Two storey three-bedroom, end-of-terrace dwelling with associated parking and amenity space and single storey rear extension with roof lantern to existing dwelling and alterations to existing crossover.

Recommendation: Refusal

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 new dwelling would negatively affect the street scene.
• Parking would be a problem for residents of the street, as more cars would need to be parked on the street.
• The current visual gap between the houses would be lost if the new dwelling was erected.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and raised the following points:

• The new dwelling would cause the street to become overcrowded
• Available parking spaces would be reduced leading to problems for current residents.
• The visual spacing in the street scene would be damaged
• The new dwelling would cause overshadowing on neighbouring houses.

Further issues raised by Members included the lack of space on the street to erect a large dwelling as requested.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused for the reasons listed in the report. On being put to the vote, refusal was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – That the application be refused as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Conversion of existing dwelling to 2 one-bedroom flats involving part two storey, part single storey rear extension with alteration to existing side elevation.

Recommendation: Refusal

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 current street was currently occupied by families – the introduction of flats would lead to a fundamental change to the street culture.
• Street parking would become an issue for current residents as the availability of parking would decline.
• The plans for the flats did not meet the Council’s requirements and so should be deemed unfit for living in.
•  

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and raised the following points:

• The current dwelling seemed too small to be divided into flats
• The conversion would damage the street scene layout.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused for the reasons listed in the report. On being put to the vote, refusal was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – That the application be refused as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

Conversion of dwelling to 3 one-bedroom and 1 three-bedroom flats to include conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 2 rear and 1 front rooflights and new gable end window to side and part two storey, part single storey side and rear extensions.

Recommendation: Refusal

This application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting, and was therefore not considered by the Committee.

Single storey rear extension with 2 rooflights, first floor side extension, front porch, conversion of integral garage to habitable space with new window to front and enlargement/alterations of existing loft space to include 1 rooflight to side and Juliette balcony and new gable end window to rear.

Recommendation: Refusal

Members discussed the application and decided that the porch of the dwelling was very large and out of character with the other dwellings in the street. Members agreed that extensions must keep in character with surrounding dwellings. 

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused for the reasons listed in the report. On being put to the vote, refusal was unanimously agreed.

Single storey rear extension.

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers informed Members that the height of the single storey rear extension had been altered since the application was heard last time.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused for the reasons listed in the report. On being put to the vote, refusal was unanimously agreed.

Conversion of dwelling to 2 three-bedroom dwellings involving a two storey side extension, part two storey, part single storey side extension and associated detached garages to rear.

Recommendation: Refusal

Officers presented their report to the Committee. Members found that the application did not meet the Council’s requirements. Parking availability would decline should this application be approved. The design and appearance of the application failed to keep in character with the surrounding dwellings.

Officers informed Members that the spelling of the address, 1 Lichfield Road, would be amended in refusal reason 1, should the application be refused.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused for the reasons listed in the report. On being put to the vote, refusal was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – That the application be refused as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

The enforcement report was presented to Members.

It was moved and seconded that the enforcement be imposed. On being put to the vote, enforcement was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – That the enforcement be imposed as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

The enforcement report was presented to Members.

It was moved and seconded that the enforcement be imposed. On being put to the vote, enforcement was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – That the enforcement be imposed as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.

The enforcement report was presented to Members.

It was moved and seconded that the enforcement be imposed. On being put to the vote, enforcement was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – That the enforcement be imposed as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.