Agenda and minutes

Councillor Carol Melvin declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Item 10 ‘18 Church Road, Northwood’ as she had discussed the application with residents. She left the room and did not vote on this item.

The minutes of 22^nd June 2010 were agree as a correct record.

None.

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in public with the exception of Item 16 - Enforcement, which was considered in private.

Part single storey, part two storey side/rear/front extensions, involving demolition of existing side/rear extensions.

Recommendation: Approval

Part single storey, part two storey side/rear/front extensions, involving demolition of existing side/rear extensions.

38458/APP/2009/1527

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 proposal will increase the ground floor from 62m² to 127m² which will not conform to HDAS guidance and will be an overdevelopment of the site.
• The proposed 3.6m extension is too large
• The block plans are incorrect and  show the side boundary, and a wooden fence delineates the boundary and not the side boundary
• The proposal will exceed the current building line.
• The proposed development will result in unneighbourly development and adversely effect nearby properties through over dominance, visual intrusion, overlooking and over shadowing.
• The proposed roof extension is not at the same ridge height as the main building, when it should be lower in height than the main ridge.
• Concerns about the drainage and surrounding trees touching the roof.

The Applicant / Agent were not present at the meeting. No Ward Councillors were present.

Members asked for further clarification about the location of the garage and the extent of the surrounding trees and hedgerows. Officers explained the position of the garage would be identical and mature shrubs would not constrain the development.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote, approval was agreed by 5 votes in favour and 1 abstention.

Resolved – That the application be approved as set out in the officer’s report (conditions 13 and 14) and addendum

Construction of a temporary Civic Amenity Facility for use during redevelopment of the Harefield Civic Amenity Site, including temporary change of use of bungalow to office and staff welfare facility.

Recommendation: Approval

Construction of a temporary Civic Amenity Facility for use during redevelopment of the Harefield Civic Amenity Site, including temporary change of use of bungalow to office and staff welfare facility.

29665/APP/2010/617

Members discussed the application and agreed it was important the Green Belt was protected and in particular those species indigenous to the site.  In answer to a query about the access road, Officers explained that earth mounds would be used to delineate the edge of the road surface instead of fencing.

Members discussed the implications of Condition 4 at length and sought assurances about the longevity of the access road and the steps that might be required if pollutants were discovered. Officers explained that Conditions 19 and 20 addressed these concerns.

It was moved, seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote, approval was unanimously agreed as set out in he officer’s report and addendum sheet with the precise details of condition 4 to be agreed by the Chairman in consultation with the Labour Lead.

Resolved –

That the application be Approved as per the agenda and addendum.

Details of Condition 4 will need to be agreed in consultation with the Chairman and Labour Lead.

Erection of a detached cattle shed.

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of a detached cattle shed.

21558/APP/2009/1949

Members discussed the application and asked officers about the likely visual impact of the proposal and the location of the silage tower. In response to these queries, Officers explained that a degree of new planting was proposed to screen the application from residential properties. Officers confirmed that the silage tower would remain in its current location.

Member’s raised the topic of animal welfare and enquired whether the cattle would be confined to the shed for the duration of their lives or if the intention was to use this for a combination of feed storage and housing in bad weather. Officers explained the proposal was an addition to the current farm complex and they understood that the herd would not be increased and the cattle would be kept outside for the majority of the time. Member’s requested that an additional informative be added to safeguard animal welfare.

Resolved –

That the application be Approved as set out in the officer’s report and addendum with an additional informative relating to cattle welfare to follow.

Erection of a two storey four-bedroom detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and associated parking, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of a two storey four-bedroom detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and associated parking, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

12536/APP/2009/1896

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 sheet.  

Single storey side and rear extension involving the demolition of existing garage to rear.

Recommendation: Refusal

Single storey side and rear extension involving the demolition of existing garage to rear.

6532/APP/2010/235

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

Resolved –

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

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to cafe (Class A3).

Recommendation: Refusal

Change of use from retail (Class A1) to cafe (Class A3).

66826/APP/2010/358

Resolved - Deferred. To be reported back to next committee with a list of possible conditions if approved.  

Single storey building for use as office sales desk, showroom and storage facility, external storage racking and associated parking (involving demolition of existing buildings and telecommunications mast and compound).

Recommendation: Approval

Single storey building for use as office sales desk, showroom and storage facility, external storage racking and associated parking (involving demolition of existing buildings and telecommunications mast and compound).

16194/APP/2009/2214

Resolved - Overturned recommendation and application refused on the grounds of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and size, scale and bulk of the proposed building and its impact visually. Wording for reasons to be agreed with the Chairman and Labour Lead.

Single storey side extension, first floor side extension and single storey rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

Single storey side extension, first floor side extension and single storey rear extension.

45820/APP/2010/1061

The Chairman referred to a letter which had been tabled by a local resident and addressed to him and the Labour Lead. He explained that the Committee could not modify the application (as requested) but only determine the proposal as set out in the officer’s report.

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

Resolved –

That the application be approved as set out in the officer’s report.

Part single storey, part two storey rear extension and first floor side extension with ground floor drive through.

Recommendation: Approval

Part single storey, part two storey rear extension and first floor side extension with ground floor drive through.

66229/APP/2010/460

Members discussed the proposal and asked officers for further clarification about the required distance where a two or more storey development abutted a property or its boundary. Officers confirmed that the guidance stated that this distance should be 15 metres to avoid possible over-domination and that in this case, the distance was 14 metres.

Members also had concerns about the first floor side window, facing 77High Road and access to the rear garage Officers explained that this was a secondary window which had been conditioned to be fitted with obscure glass to prevent overlooking and the exit and egress passageway to the garage was 2.2metres wide, which was wider than the current garage door.

The recommendation for Approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed with five Members in favour, with one against.

Resolved –

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

Members received a report updating them on the current position in relation to S106 agreements.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed that the report be noted.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

The enforcement report was presented to Members.      

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

Resolved – That enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed.