Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Brian Stead declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item number 10 and stated that he would be leaving the room during discussion of the item.

Councillors David Yarrow and Jazz Dhillon each declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item numbers 6, 7 and 8 and stated that they would be leaving the room during discussion of the items.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 March 2016 be agreed.

No matters had been notified in advance or were urgent.

It was confirmed that agenda items numbered 6 to 13 were Part I and would be heard in public. Agenda item number 14 was Part II, Members' only and would, therefore be heard in private.

Erection of part two storey, part single storey side and rear extension; erection of single storey front porch extension; and installation of 4 side roof lights.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be refused.

Erection of part two storey, part single storey side and rear extension; Erection of single storey front porch extension and installation of one side roof light.

Officers introduced the application in relation to Maylands Drive, a two storey detached property. The Committee was advised that the descriptions on the front sheet of the agenda were incorrect but that the descriptions on the actual reports were correct.

The application was for a part two storey, part single storey side and rear extension, front porch and one roof light. The main issues for Members to consider were the impact of the proposals on the character of the property and street scene and the impact on neighbouring occupiers.

A previous planning application at the site had been approved in 2012. A number of enforcement notices had since been served in relation to works at the site. These had included an unauthorised part two storey, part single storey side and rear extensions and front porch.

Planning permission had been granted for a front porch with a depth of 1.2 metres, width of 2.625 metres and height of 3 metres, sloping to 2.3 metres. The as built measurements were depth 1.23 metres, width 2.54 metres and a maximum height of 3.54 metres. The constructed extension was, therefore, slightly deeper and taller than the approved plans. The current proposal was to keep the width and the depth as built, but to reduce the height to 2.9 metres, including a flat roof. The proposed change was considered to be acceptable.

The single storey element of the scheme had been granted permission with a depth of 4 metres. It had been built to this depth, with the current application proposing to retain this measurement. The difference between the consented scheme and the as built scheme was the height of the development. The permission granted was for a maximum height of 3 metres, sloping down to 2.25 metres. The as built measurement was 3.8 metres, sloping to a height of 3.04 metres. The current proposal was to keep the as built height but to modify the design. The changed design had led officers to consider that that element of the scheme was acceptable.

The main issues of concern related to the two storey elements of the scheme, in particular the side extension part of the proposals. The as built scheme had a gable roof to the rear with the proposed scheme having a hip roof. Officers were of the opinion that the proposed changes were not sufficient to overcome the conclusions of the Planning Inspector that the extensions overwhelmed the original house to such an extent that they were akin to the construction of a new dwelling. They were so extensive that the character and appearance of the original dwelling was no longer evident. With regard to the two storey, side rear element of the extension, the inspector considered that it made the house appear cramped on its plot, due to the small gap between the building and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Erection of part two storey, part single storey side and rear extension; erection of single storey front porch extension; and installation of 4 side roof lights.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Erection of single storey rear and side extension; single storey front porch extension and installation of one roof light.

Officers introduced the report, which was presented to the Committee in conjunction with agenda item number 8, 65665/APP/2016/821.

The application sought permission for a single storey extension. The two storey element shown on previous plans would be removed. Changes proposed in relation to the design and height of the front porch and to the rear extension single storey element also formed part of this application. The first floor elements would be removed, with this part of the extension all becoming single storey. This removed the objections of officers and of the planning inspector to the scheme and accordingly, it was recommended for approval.

The recommendation for approval was proposed, seconded and upon been put to the vote, was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

Erection of part two storey, part single storey side and rear extension; erection of single storey front porch extension; and installation of 4 side roof lights.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Erection of part two storey, part single storey rear extension and single storey side extension; single storey front porch extension and installation of one roof light.

Officers introduced the report, which was presented to the Committee in conjunction with agenda item number 7, 65665/APP/2016/822.

The application sought permission for a single storey extension. Compared to previous schemes at the site, changes were proposed to the porch. The proposed two storey element of the extension would only be at the rear of the property, with the side element of this being removed. These changes removed the objections of officers and of the Planning Inspector to the scheme. Accordingly, the application was recommended for approval.

In response to a Member question, it was confirmed that the side extension came right up to the front of the house, but that it was single storey and that it was considered to be acceptable.

The Committee agreed that additional conditions should be added to the approval to specify that the house should be retained as a single dwelling and not sub-divided. It was also agreed that permitted development rights for outbuildings and additional extensions should be removed.

A Member said that during a previous site visit, she had been concerned about the increase in height of decking and areas to the rear, which gave very extensive views into neighbouring properties. The Member agreed that permitted development rights for outbuildings should be removed. Officers proposed that the Head of Planning and legal advisor would brief the Chairman and senior Labour Committee Member regarding the possible removal of other permitted development rights.

The Committee was seeking to protect against the overlooking and over dominance of the property compared to neighbouring dwellings. The removal of permitted development rights would be only to achieve that outcome. It was recognised that Maylands Drive had limited parking and that any sub division of the property could exacerbate this.

The recommendation for approval was proposed, seconded and upon been put to the vote, was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be approved as per the officer's recommendation, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in report and subject to additional conditions to remove permitted development rights for outbuildings and to ensure that the dwelling could not be sub-divided.

2.    That authority be granted to the Head of Planning to work with the Chairman and Cllr. Janet Duncan (acting in place of the Labour Lead who had declared a non-pecuniary interest in the item) to agree the additional conditions requested by the Committee.

Erection of a war memorial, including an inscribed  black stone memorial wall, associated lighting and paving.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Erection of a war memorial, including an inscribed black stone memorial wall, associated lighting and paving.

Officers introduced the application which sought permission for the erection of a war memorial within the grounds of Brunel University. The memorial was currently in place in Osterley and was dedicated to the staff and students of Borough Road College (now Brunel University) who had died in World War I and World War II. The proposal was for the relocation of the memorial within the landscaped grounds of the university. There were protections for the memorial, due to its status as a war memorial and there were rules that the university would need to adhere to in order to have the memorial relocated. Officers considered that the proposals were acceptable and accordingly, they were recommended for approval.

The Committee welcomed the proposals and questioned whether memorial services would take place at the memorial.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote, was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

Installation of car wash to include a double canopy, wash screen, associated cabins, storage structure, water tank and fence (Retrospective).

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Installation of car wash to include a double canopy, wash screen, associated cabins, storage structure, water tank and fence (Retrospective).

Officers introduced the application, which sought retrospective planning permission for a car wash with buildings attached to it. The car-wash facility included an open-sided green-coloured plastic double canopy, mounted on posts, a wash screen with green-coloured frames, a grey coloured storage structure, a green-coloured water tank and fence.

A previous application had been refused at the site in 2010. This had subsequently been granted on appeal. The location of this proposal was different to that of the proposals currently under consideration. The proposed structure was larger than the one that had been previously granted. Members were asked to consider the impact of this on the green belt.

The Planning Inspector had considered that the proposals were ancillary to the use of the car park and the garden centre. Therefore, the principal use was not inappropriate, but the question for Members to consider was whether the size or visibility of the proposed structures was such that they had an impact on the openness of the green belt. The inspector had considered that the landscaping around the site contributed towards hiding the structure. This included large trees. It was difficult for the structures to be seen from outside the site or from other parts of the green belt. On this basis, the application was recommended for approval.

The Chairman confirmed that the Planning Inspector's decision had been circulated to Members in advance of the meeting and that hard copies were available.

The Committee considered that the site was not fulfilling a green belt function. Although the structure was quite large, it was a useful facility and it was ancillary to the large garden centre. It was requested and agreed that a condition would be added to specify that the structure should be painted a darker shade of gree.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote, was agreed unanimously.

Resolved: That: The application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report and subject to an additional condition which would specify that the structures must be painted a darker colour green than they currently were.

Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension and conversion of dwelling to 1 x 3-bed and 1 x 2-bed houses with associated amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

Resolved: That the application be refused.

Two storey side extension and single storey rear extension and conversion of dwelling to 1 x 3-bed and 1 x 2-bed houses with associated amenity space.

Officers introduced the application which related to land adjoining 26 Windsor Avenue, at the junction with Richmond Avenue. The application was for a two storey side extension, to be used as a separate two bedroom dwelling. The proposals were considered to amount to the filling of a corner plot of land and were not considered to conform to planning policies due to the design, appearance and impact upon the street scene. The rear of the proposed building was very close to the site boundary. The size and scale of the proposals were considered to be unacceptable.

Planning permission had been granted in 2007 for a two storey side extension, but that had been for a smaller extension than the current proposals and would, therefore, have maintained the openness of the corner plot. Windsor Avenue had low transport accessibility, which would mean that the development would require the provision of two parking spaces. It would be difficult, if not impossible for this to be accommodated in the space available and for amenity space to be retained to the Council's required standard. Taking all the factors into consideration, officers recommended that the application be refused.

It was confirmed that the land on which it was proposed to construct the dwelling did not currently have a separate title of ownership. It was normal for extensions that were proposed to be used as a separate dwelling to be referred to as "land adjacent to."

The following verbal changes were requested and agreed in relation to the officer report:

1)    Deletion of paragraph 7.02 from the word "furthermore" on line 5 onwards. This was to reflect that officers were not of the opinion that the design of the proposals was incongruous as it reflected the design of the existing property.

2)    That refusal reason number 2 be amended to make it more explicit that the proposals were considered to be detrimental to the street scene.

The recommendation for refusal was proposed, seconded and upon been put to the vote, was agreed unanimously.

Resolved: That: The application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report, subject to the changes to the report noted above.

Retention of existing detached building and use of site and building for storage of cars.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Retention of existing detached building and use of site and building for storage of cars.

Officers introduced the application for the site, which had previously been granted permission for car storage. An additional building had been erected, which was considered to be acceptable. Retrospective permission was being sought for this.

Members were referred to the addendum sheet circulated. This proposed that planning condition 2 be deleted as it was covered by condition 3. It was also proposed that condition 4 be amended to add that the site could not be used for airport parking.

There had been issues connected to the movement of large vehicles associated with the previous application. It had been conditioned that those vehicles travelling to and from the site should not operate before 8am. It was verbally proposed and agreed that this should be added as part of the condition 3, which would become condition 2 due to the deletion of the current condition 2.

The recommendation for approval was proposed, seconded and upon been put to the vote, was agreed unanimously.

Resolved: That the application be approved as per the officer's recommendation, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in report, the addendum sheet circulated and verbal changes agreed above.

Resolved: That: the report be noted.

Enforcement Report

1. That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report was agreed.

2. That the Committee resolved to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in this report into the public domain, solely for the purposes of issuing the formal breach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

This item is included in Part II as it contains information which a) is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and b) contains information which reveals that the authority proposes to give, under an enactment, a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person. The authority believes that the public interest in withholding the Information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraphs 2 and 6a of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).