Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Allan Kauffman. Councillor Brian Stead attended in his place.

There were no declarations of interest notified.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2011 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There had been no items notified as urgent.

It was confirmed that items would be considered in Part 1 and Part 2.

Erection of part 2, part 3, part 4 storey blocks, plus accommodation in roof space, to provide 71, one, two and three bedroom flats, together with associated parking and landscaping (involving demolition of existing buildings)

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of part 2, part 3, part 4 storey blocks, plus accommodation in roof space, to provide 71, one, two and three bedroom flats, together with associated parking and landscaping (involving demolition of existing buildings)

This application was withdrawn from the agenda at the applicant’s request.

Erection of a first floor side extension to provide 2 two-bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of a first floor side extension to provide 2 two-bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal addressed the meeting and raised the following points:

• The proposed development concerned a health and fitness club, which was a commercial enterprise and not a residential unit
• Discharge from restaurants already impacted on residents in Kaduna Close
• The tennis courts in the adjoining tennis club had had grass laid two years ago and had been the only existing leisure activity in the area
• The car park in the rear of the site had never been resurfaced
• Worked very hard to run the tennis club and provide a very valuable amenity to the local area
• Concerned that building works would cause severe disruption to the area
• Urged the Committee to refuse this application, as it had no place in an already constrained site.

A representative of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area Advisory Panel addressed the meeting raising the following points:

• Supported the reasons for refusal set out in the officer’s report
• The overall size and design of the proposed development would be overdominant, visually intrusive and would fail to harmonise with the character and appearance of the original building
• Concerned about the effect the development would have on trees that were covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO20), as trees severely cut back would affect the view of the River Pinn which was in the Conservation area
• Concerned about the lack of amenity space for the proposed development and substandard accommodation for future occupiers
• The proposed development would lead to increased parking issues in Kaduna Close, which already housed a sporting facility in a dead end road
• Considered that traffic impact assessment should have been conducted and included in the officer’s report
• Asked the Committee to refuse the application as recommended in the officer’s report.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petition received in support to the proposal addressed the meeting and raised the following points:

• That small business enterprises made up 60% to 70% of the national economy compared to mega organisations which in their view dictated to local authorities
• Suggested that for a small business to survive, it was important for it to be able to maximise its investments and make careful use of its assets
• That the applicant had taken the tennis club and local residents into consideration 
• That the application had been put together by using planners, local development officers and estates agents

The applicant’s representative made the following points:

·        Spoke as one of the owners of the proposed development

·        Suggested that many of the objection appeared to be irrelevant

·        That only two neighbours had objected

·        Suggested that one of the Ward Councillors had taken a personal interest to ensure application was refused

·        Considered that they had not been treated equally and that the Human Rights Act of 1994 had not be taken into consideration

·        Suggested that the officer’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

Two storey 3 x bed detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front of No 26a.

Recommendation: Refusal

Two storey 3 x bed detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front of No 26a

This application was withdrawn from the agenda at the applicant’s request.

Erection of a front porch (Part retrospective application).

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of a front porch (Part retrospective application)

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

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Boundary wall to front/side (Part retrospective application).

Recommendation: Refusal

Boundary wall to front/side (Part retrospective application)

The Committee raised objection to the proposal for the vehicle cross-over being used for vehicle exit and entrance.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Replacement of existing 15m high mobile phone mast with a 17.5m high mast with 3 no. antennas, replacement of one equipment cabinet and installation of one new equipment cabinet.

Recommendation: Approval

Replacement of existing 15m high mobile phone mast with a 17.5m high mast with 3 no. antennas, replacement of one equipment cabinet and installation of one new equipment cabinet

In introducing the report, officers advised that an application that had been refused in 2005 was granted on appeal in 2006.

A Ward Councillor of the application site addressed the meeting and made the following points:

• Suggested that consideration must be given to the impact this application would have on residents, particularly those living in Acre Road
• At 17.5metres high, the proposed development would be exceptionally large and would not resemble a telegraph pole or a lamp post
• The proposed cabinet would result in the loss of even more green hedges and paces
• Urged the Committee to refuse this application because of the detrimental impact it would have on the health of residents in the area.

In response to a question about the size of the green equipment cabinet, officers advised that the current 1.4metre cabinet would be replaced by a 1.7metre cabinet.

A member commented that as such applications were on the increase, the Council should engage on an open discussion with other boroughs to develop a dialogue with telecom companies.

Officers advised that liaison with other boroughs was already in place where chief planning officers from other boroughs met regularly with the Association of London Borough of Hillingdon’s planning officers.

It was noted that this type of application was a London wide issue which could be included on the agenda in order to open up possible discussions with operators.

The Chairman asked for the Head of Planning, Trading Standards and Environmental Protection to include this issue on the agenda with a view to Hillingdon Borough taking the lead.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of replacement warehouse and alteration to existing parking layout (involving demolition of existing warehouse).

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of replacement warehouse and alteration to existing parking layout (involving demolition of existing warehouse)

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

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting.

Installation of new shopfront and awning (Part retrospective application).

Recommendation: Approval

Installation of new shop-front and awning (Part retrospective application)

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

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A1/A3 (Retail/Restaurants and Cafes).

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A1/A3 (Retail/Restaurants and Cafes)

In introducing the report, officers advised that the inspectors at recent appeal decisions had considered mixed use to be acceptable.

The Chairman sought clarification about the split usage on this application to which officers explained that 60% would be for non-retail use (including take away service for coffee).

A Member added that this sort of retail outlet could only add to the longevity of high streets.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Installation of  1, internally illuminated fascia sign, 1, externally illuminated projecting sign and 1, awning to front.

Recommendation: Approval

Installation of 1, internally illuminated fascia sign, 1, externally illuminated projecting sign and 1, awning to front

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

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Enforcement Report

Resolved

1. That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed.

2. That the Committee resolved to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in the officer’s report  to be released into the public domain, solely for the purpose of issuing the formal enforcement notice to the individual concerned.

Enforcement Report

Resolved

1. That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed.

2. That the Committee resolved to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in the officer’s report  to be released into the public domain, solely for the purpose of issuing the formal enforcement notice to the individual concerned.

None.

None.