Agenda and minutes

Cllr Anita MacDonald substitute Cllr Jazz Dhillon

Cllr Allan Kauffman declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 6 of the agenda. Cllr Kauffman left the room for this item.

The minutes were agreed as an accurate record and signed by the Chairman.

Item 14  - Enforcement report was considered in private.

Items marked part 1 were considered in public and item 14 in Agenda B was considered in private.

Erection of a three storey building to provide for a new library, adult learning facilities, florist shop, 10 one-bedroom flats, together with associated parking and external works (involving demolition of existing library building).

Recommendation: Approval subject to a Section 106 Agreement

Members agreed it was good to improve Council library facilities but were disappointed that the scheme did not include any social housing. However, the Committee accepted that there were sound financial reasons why this was so.

In response to a number of concerns, officers explained that the application site was located in playing fields and not the green belt and that following a parking management exercise, 20 car parking spaces was the maximum number of spaces the scheme could accommodate.

Members asked about the florist shop included within the proposal and were informed that condition 47 – use of retail unit, set out the Class A1 usage of the 11 m² retail unit.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. On being out to the vote, approval was unanimously agreed.

Resolved - That the application be approved as set out in the officers report and the Addendum.

Redevelopment of site for a mixed use comprising 415 dwellings (class c3), an 80-unit elderly care home (Class C2), playing field and open space with associated car parking (468 spaces) and access arrangements (incorporating junction improvements to existing highways) (Outline application).

(Deed of Variation)

Recommendation: Proceed with a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Agreement

Variation of condition 2 of reserved matters planning permission ref.38402/APP/2008/2733 dated 05/01/2009 to amend the layout, scale and appearance of the previously approved units A1 - A14 (located in the southern section of the site.)

Recommendation: Approval

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote, approval was unanimously agreed.

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

Demolition of 30-32 Chester Road and development of 24-bedroom residential care home, alterations to access and associated landscaping.

Recommendation: Refusal

In accordance with the Council’s constitution representatives of the petitions received in objection to the proposal were invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners included:

• The proposal would increase local traffic due to the anticipated number of visitors, ambulance movements and service vehicles.
• The proposal would create a parking problem in Reginald and Roy roads.
• In addition to traffic and parking problems, road safety problems would be created as Chester Road is the only access road to Reginald and Roy Roads to Green Lane.
• The area was originally conceived as a social housing development. Over time, the character of the estate has changed and increased car ownership has made it increasingly more difficult to park.
• It is unrealistic that most visitors to the proposal would use public transport as the Tube station is a long walk away.
• The influx of 60 elderly and infirm residents to the area would have a profound effect on local General Practioner services and increase waiting times for local residents.
• The proposal would increase air pollution (from vehicles) and noise pollution (from vehicles / kitchen noise).
• A quiet and peaceful neighbourhood which forms part of the Old Northwood Area of Special Character would be destroyed.

The Applicant / Agent were not present at the meeting.

A Ward Councillor was present and addressed the Committee:

• The Ward Councillor supported and endorsed the petitioner’s views.
• The proposal would be over-dominant and would not be in keeping with the local area.
• Visitors to the proposal would cause local parking problems.
• The proposal would be an intrusion into the lives of local residents.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused. 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.

Erection of 1 four-bedroom two storey detached dwelling with associated parking and double garage, with alterations to existing driveway and installation of new vehicular crossover to front.

Recommendation: Approval

At the beginning of the item the Chairman explained that the petition in objection to the application had been withdrawn and so there were no speaking rights on the item.

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. On being put to the vote, approval was unanimously agreed.

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

Installation of 3 sets of vehicular and pedestrian gates.

Recommendation: Refusal

Although there was no petition on the item, in accordance with the constitution a Ward Councillor spoke in objection to the application.

Points raised by the Ward councillor included:

• The proposal would not reflect the pattern of development within the Conservation Area
• The proposed gates would be out of keeping with the surroundings and fail to harmonise with the character and appearance of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area.

The Applicant / Agent were not present at the meeting.

Members referred to the letter and photographs provided by the agent which had been circulated before the meeting and the request for the item to be deferred.

During the course of their deliberations, Members agreed that the proposal was out of keeping with the character of the area and would have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area and surrounding street scene.

It was moved, seconded that the application be refused. 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.

It was moved and seconded that Officer’s recommendation be enforced. On being put to the vote, enforcement action was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – It was agreed that the Officer’s recommendation be enforced, subject to the amendment of section 1.6 of the recommendation and replacing '3 months' with '6 months'.