Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Cllr Carol Melvin, Cllr Brian Stead substituted.

From the public gallery Cllr Andrew Retter declared a personal interest in item 10 “Haydon School, Wiltshire Lane, Eastcote”, as his son attended the school. Cllr Retter did not speak, vote on or discuss this item with the Committee.

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as an accurate record.

No matters had been identified as urgent or in advance of the meeting.

It was confirmed that all items on the agenda were marked Part 1 and were considered in public

Reserved matters (details of appearance and landscaping) in compliance with condition 2 of outline planning permission ref: 66033/APP/2009/ 1060 dated 29/10/2010: Erection of a two storey building to provide 23 one and two-bedroom apartments, together with associated parking, involving the demolition of existing day centre building.

This application was withdrawn by the Applicant prior to the meeting. This application was not discussed by the Committee.

Erection of a single storey detached one-bedroom dwelling with associated parking and amenity space.

Erection of a single storey detached one-bedroom dwelling with associated parking and amenity space

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 style of the development was out of character with the surrounding dwellings
• The development would create a less sustainable community
• The development would destroy the harmony of the cul-de-sac
• The application would not be balanced with the other dwellings in the cul-de-sac.

The applicant was not present at the meeting.

Members agreed that the application was out of character with the area and believed the proposal to appear cramped and squashed.

Members stated that the report summed up the reasons for refusal and were concerned that further proposals may arise if this was granted.

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be refused.

Resolved –

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

Two storey six-bedroom detached dwelling with basement level and habitable roofspace with detached garage to front, involving the demolition of existing dwelling.

Two storey six-bedroom detached dwelling with basement level and habitable roofspace with detached garage to front, involving the demolition of existing dwelling.

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 style of the development was out of character with the surrounding dwellings
• The size and site of proposal were overdeveloped and were detrimental to the street scene.
• Petitioners believed there was an issue with overshadowing on neighbouring properties.
• Should the proposal be approved it would create a precedent for future developments in the area.

The applicant was not present at the meeting.

Members believed it would be dangerous to turn down the application when the surrounding dwellings were already large in size.

Members stated that the report summed up the reasons for approval.

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

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

Part two storey, part single storey rear extension, single storey side/front extension, front porch, alterations to existing elevations and conversion of roofspace for habitable use with 2 rear, 2 side, and 3 front rooflights and 3 skylights.

Part two storey, part single storey rear extension, single storey side/front extension, front porch, alterations to existing elevations and conversion of roofspace for habitable use with 2 rear, 2 side, and 3 front rooflights and 3 skylights.

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 objectors were concerned and disappointed with the proposed application
• The depth of application and the roof space were too large for the site and would appear out of character with the surrounding dwellings
• The extension would be over-dominant on the street
• The proposal failed to meet Council requirements

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

Points raised by the petitioners:

• The street was not in a conservation area and residents were therefore able to propose changes to their properties, within reason
• The street scene has changed since the houses were first built and would continue to change in the future
• Planning requirements had been adhered to by the applicants
• The increases roof space did include a substantial increase in space but the crown roof part was not a substantial increase and would not have had an impact on neighbouring properties.
• Many neighbouring properties had very large over ground and underground extensions.
• The original HIP roof had been retained on either side of the property

The applicant was present and addressed the Committee:

• Many of the residents on the street had been consulted and signed petitions supporting the application
• Three letters of support had also been submitted to the Council
• The applicant had held discussion with neighbours regarding the proposed extension
• There were no issues with overlooking from the dwelling.

Officers confirmed that 10 letters in support of the application had been submitted to the Council via post and email.

Members agreed that the applicant had done enough to satisfy the Council’s planning policies and the proposed application met Council requirements. The Committee agreed that the proposed application was no worse than other sites on the street which were much larger and grossly over-developed. Members said the proposal was therefore not out of character with the surrounding dwellings and there was no justification of refusal.

Members stated that the report summed up the reasons for approval.

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

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

Details in compliance with condition 4 (fence colour) of planning permission ref: 9556/APP/2010/1370 dated 06/08/2010: Installation of mesh fence and automatically locking gate and new window to existing elevation.

Details in compliance with condition 4 (fence colour) of planning permission ref: 9556/APP/2010/1370 dated 06/08/2010: Installation of mesh fence and automatically locking gate and new window to existing elevation.

Members were in agreement over the new installation of mesh fencing and the colour of the fence.

Members stated that the report summed up the reasons for approval.

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

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

Part two storey, part single storey side extension, part two storey, part single storey rear extension with 1 rooflight, single storey front extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use with 1 front and 1 rear rooflight, involving demolition of existing integral garage and store

Part two storey, part single storey side extension, part two storey, part single storey rear extension with 1 rooflight, single storey front extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use with 1 front and 1 rear rooflight, involving demolition of existing integral garage and store.

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 style of the development was out of character with the surrounding dwellings
• The symmetry of the pair of houses had already been damaged by earlier decisions.
• The proposal exacerbated the symmetrical imbalance and neither house was in harmony with the street scene.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution the agent was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the agent:

• The only loss of light was from secondary windows.
• The property would create a balance in the street scene.

A Ward Councillor was present and raised the following points:

• The proposed site failed to harmonise with the surrounding area
• The application was unsymmetrical and therefore did not harmonise with the surrounding area.
• Car parking arrangements were inadequate

Members asked Officers whether car parking spaced were adequate, to which Officers said they were satisfied with the proposed parking arrangements.

Members agreed that they could not make a decision without visiting the area and witnessing the dwelling for themselves. The Committee agreed that the symmetry of the roof could only be judged if they were to visit the site and look at neighbouring dwellings

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be deferred until a site visit had taken place.

Resolved –

That the application be deferred until a site visit had taken place by the Committee.  

Retention of additional classroom and assembly area with library for pre-preparatory school, together with first aid room and staff toilet, without complying with condition 4 of planning permission ref: 10795/APP/2001/1600 dated 21/11/2001 (which limits pupil numbers at the school to 350 and staff to no more than 40) to allow the retention of the current numbers of 405 pupils and 65 full-time equivalent staff (Retrospective application)

The Head of Planning had advised that due to a large influx of correspondence and numerous petitions since the Committee agenda was published the decision was taken to withdraw this application from the agenda. The Committee did not discuss this application.

Application for alterations to the previously approved scheme for the residential units 1-4 of the enabling development (previously approved within scheme ref: 7610/APP/2002/1816 dated 28/01/2008 for the conversion of the existing Breakspear House to 10 flats, the erection of 7 dwellings and erection of single storey extension to Lower Lodge, incorporating conversion of existing house to 9 flats, erection of 8 dwellings and erection of a two storey extension to Lower Lodge, single storey extension to Upper Lodge together with surface level and underground parking) involving alterations in the internal residential room layouts and the design and layout of the rear gardens.

Application for alterations to the previously approved scheme for the residential units 1-4 of the enabling development (previously approved within scheme ref: 7610/APP/2002/1816 dated 28/01/2008 for the conversion of the existing Breakspear House to 10 flats, the erection of 7 dwellings and erection of single storey extension to Lower Lodge, incorporating conversion of existing house to 9 flats, erection of 8 dwellings and erection of a two storey extension to Lower Lodge, single storey extension to Upper Lodge together with surface level and underground parking) involving alterations in the internal residential room layouts and the design and layout of the rear gardens.

Members stated that the report summed up the reasons for approval.

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved –

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

None.

None.