Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Alan Chapman and David Yarrow (Councillors Lavery and Graham were in attendance as their respective substitutes).

None.

RESOLVED:

-        That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2016 were approved as a correct record.

The Chairman advised the Committee that an additional item had been acepted, and would be considered in Part II of the meeting.

It was confirmed that items marked Part I would be considered in public, and items marked Part II would be considered in private.

The Chairman varied the order of business, and planning application 28718/APP/2016/2454 - 85 Haig Road, was considered first.

Change of use from Use Class C3 (Dwellinghouses) to Use Class C4 (HMO).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application was refused as per the officer's recommendation.

Change of use from Use Class C3 (Dwellinghouses) to Use Class C4 (HMO).

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum.

Members were informed that the main issues relevant to the application were the quality of accommodation proposed, the impact on the amenities of neighbours, and the impact on highways. Although the impact on amenities and highways was negligible, two of the bedrooms within the property were of a poor standard with relation to the level of outlook and privacy, in conflict with the Council's Houses and Multiple Occupation SBD. The officer recommended that the application be refused on this basis.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, and informed Members that the appellant had already completed the proposed work on the property. The construction work instigated had resulted in a loss of privacy for neighbours due to the appellant trespassing on their property during construction. The appellant's suitability to act as a landlord was brought into question, as the petitioner asserted that the appellant had failed to ensure his current tenants were supplied with water and electricity, and had failed to provide removal of refuse which had resulted in a problem with vermin that affected both tenants and neighbours.

In addition, the petitioner raised concerns that an HMO at the property would have a detrimental effect on the value of the other properties within the area, in contravention of a covenant restriction within the deeds of the existing properties, which stated that nothing should be done to decrease the value of the properties within the area. It was put to Members that if the application was successful, the area would see an increase in vehicles parked within the area, which could block vulnerable or elderly residents from accessing services such as the park and ride service.

Members sought clarity regarding the internal changes to the property, including the actual use of the rooms and the visibility from the windows. The petitioner confirmed that they had been inside the property and seen the changes, that it was likely that the room proposed as a storage room was instead being used as a bedroom, and that the view from the new bedrooms was very limited.

Members confirmed that the application was located within the Brunel ward, not Hillingdon East, and therefore may not have been recognised as being part of Article 4 of the Brunel HMO.

The Committee expressed concerns that the application would lead to substandard housing, and moved the officer's recommendation. This was seconded, put to a vote, and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application was refused as per the officer's recommendation.

Single storey attached garage to side/rear involving alteration to existing vehicular crossover

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application was approved with amendment to the conditions.

Single storey attached garage to side/rear involving alteration to existing vehicular crossover

Officers introduced the report. Members were informed that the application had been brought to the planning committee meeting of 1 November 2016, where it had been deferred to a subsequent meeting to allow for the attendance of a Flood and Water officer able to address the Committee's concerns relating to flooding.

Officers confirmed that the main issues to be considered by the Committee related to the potential impact on the character and appearance of the original building and street scene, the impact on the conservation area and residential amenities, the impact on highways, and the potential increased risk of flooding.

A petitioner addressed the committee, confirming that they were representing over 50 local residents who were objecting to the application due to the potential for increased flooding. Members were informed that when the building was originally built in 1960, an integral garage was included, which allowed for an area at the side of the house to be allocated as a soakaway. As the river was prone to flooding, a soakaway at the rear of the property was not suitable, and allowing the proposed structure to be built would remove the current soakaway area.

The petitioner confirmed that the land sloped downwards from houses 59 to 55, which was also the direction of the river flow. When the Committee had undertaken their site inspection alongside the Flood and Water officer, the officer had suggested that the gardens were flooded when the river burst its banks. This was incorrect, as the gardens flooded due to rainfall. The Committee was referred to photographs showing site flooding following two hours of heavy rain within June 2016, and the petitioner suggested that without the soakaway area, such issues would be exacerbated. The proposed flood alleviation measures, including a water butt to catch water from the proposed roof, and pea shingle as a replacement for a grass and earth soakaway, were deemed to be insufficient.

The petitioner asserted that if the application was allowed, the applicant would be greatly increasing the risk of their own property flooding, as well as that of neighbours, and respectfully requested that the application be refused.

Councillor Sweeting then addressed the Committee on behalf of the petitioners, reiterating the necessity of retaining the current soakaway area. By removing this area, water from the roof of house number 57 would no longer be dissipated through the ground, and would instead be pooled elsewhere. Councillor Sweeting drew the Committee's attention to the photographs submitted by the petitioner, which showed the scale of flooding following heavy rain.

The Councillor referred to the information provided by the Flood and Water officer, and asserted that the information did not address where the water would go once the soakaway area was removed. Councillor Sweeting concluded that the proposed flood alleviation measures were not suitable, and suggested that to allow the application would substantially increase the risk of flooding for residents of the area. On this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 146.

Two storey building comprising 2 x two-bedroom and 3 x one-bedroom flats, to include parking provision, involving demolition of existing dwelling

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application was approved with amendment to the conditions.

Two storey building comprising 2 x two-bedroom and 3 x one-bedroom flats, to include parking provision, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum, confirming that conditions 2C and 2D within the addendum were erroneous and could be safely disregarded.

The officer confirmed that an application for the site had been approved by the Committee in 2010, subject to conditions and a S106 agreement covering Parking Permit Restrictions for future occupiers and a financial contribution towards the enhancement of Educational facilities. As the S106 was never signed, permission was never granted for the development. The development had now been completed, and the applicant was again seeking planning permission. The item had been brought to a meeting of the Committee in August 2016, and was deferred to allow for local residents to be consulted. The consultation had now been completed, and no additional comments had been received.

The officer confirmed that it was not considered that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area or on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupants, and complied with the relevant UDP and London Plan policies. It was therefore recommended that the application be approved.

Members were supportive of the application, and moved that the officer's recommendation, including the conditions within the addendum, be approved. This was seconded, put to a vote, and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application was approved with amendment to the conditions.

Retention of existing outbuilding and use of this as office with shower and toilet facility ancillary to the existing HMO.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application was approved with amendment to the conditions.

Retention of existing outbuilding and use of this as office with shower and toilet facility ancillary to the existing HMO

The Officer introduced the report, highlighting that the main issues for consideration by the Committee were whether the retention of the existing building and its use as an office would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding street scene and local amenities. Officers considered that the application would not have a detrimental impact, and it was therefore recommended that the application be approved.

Members were concerned that the property would not be used for its stated purpose, and that it would likely be subject to an enforcement notice due to improper use. It was moved, and seconded, that the application be approved subject to the replacement of the S016 agreement by a breach of condition notice, to ensure that the building was not used as a residential unit, and would not include bed or shower facilities. This was put to a vote and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application was approved with amendment to the conditions.

Conversion of existing house to two self-contained flats.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application was refused with amendment to the reasons for refusal.

Conversion of existing house to two self-contained flats.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the application had been called in by a local councillor. The application did not include any external changes to the property, did not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene or residential amenities, and was considered acceptable with regard to highways impacts. The main consideration was therefore the standard of living being provided, and while the application met the relevant internal space and quality standards, the proposal failed to provide sufficient amenity space commensurate to the size and layout of the units, and failed to demonstrate that adequate space for waste and recycling facilities could be provided. The officer's recommendation was therefore that the proposal be refused.

Members sought clarity regarding amenity space and provision for parking within the proposal. Officers confirmed that whilst a large garden was present at the property, access to the garden did not comply with the relevant guidance, and this had therefore been cited as a reason for refusal within the report. With regard to parking, the proposal included a single parking space per dwelling, though this had been deemed sufficient as the site was located within close proximity to the train station. It was highlighted that parking controls currently in place would ensure that cars would not be able to park and block carriageways due to a lack of parking spaces.

Members discussed the officer recommendation, and endorsed the recommended reasons for refusal. However, Members were concerned that officers had not given sufficient regard to the living conditions for the occupants of the downstairs flat, and felt that parking space was not sufficient for the proposed two dwelling development. On this basis, together with the officer's recommendation, it was moved that the application be refused. This was seconded, put to a vote, and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application was refused with amendment to the reasons for refusal.

Single storey side extension and chiller unit to rear

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application was deferred.

Single storey side extension and chiller unit to rear.

The addendum was referenced, wherein it was confirmed that the application plans needed further review. It was therefore moved that the item be deferred. This was seconded, put to a vote, and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application was deferred.

Retention of existing single storey rear extension

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application was approved as per the officer's recommendation.

Retention of existing single storey rear extension.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the main points of consideration were the impact of the extension on the character and appearance of the original building and local street scene, impact on residential amenities for neighbours, and amenity space for occupiers.

The officer confirmed that the extension was not considered to cause harm to the character and appearance of the building or local area, and did not impact on the privacy of neighbours. The proposal met guidance in relation to internal space and construction, with one exception relating to the height of the roof that was deemed to have no detrimental impact. Therefore, the recommendation was that the application be approved.

The officer recommendation was moved, seconded, and put to the vote, where it was unanimously approved.

RESOLVED:  That the application was approved as per the officer's recommendation.

Erection of advertisement hoarding measuring maximum height of 3.05m

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application was approved with amendment to the conditions.

Erection of advertisement hoarding measuring maximum height of 3.05m

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the main points of consideration were the impact of the proposal on public safety and visual amenity. Advertisement hoardings would be required during construction, though would not be illuminated and would not be situated immediately adjacent to any existing residential properties, and therefore would not have a detrimental impact on amenity. The hoardings were to be present on site until March 2017, as set out in the conditions. However, as it was likely that the hoardings would need to be in place beyond this date, it was recommended that the condition be amended to allow a greater period of time.

The Council's highways engineers had been consulted and had not expressed any concerns over highways safety and had not submitted any objections to the proposal. Overall, the proposal would not detract from residential or visual amenity and was therefore recommended for approval, with amendment to the condition relating to the advertising hoardings.

The officer recommendation, with amended conditions, was moved, seconded, put to the vote and unanimously approved.

RESOLVED:  That the application was approved with amendment to the conditions.

Variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref: 3650/APP/2013/2962 dated 25/06/2014 (Two storey, 6-bed, detached dwelling involving demolition of existing detached dwelling) to alter the roof design to create habitable roofspace

Recommendation: Refusal

This item was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

RESOLVED: That the officer's recommendation was agreed.

RESOLVED:

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 6(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

RESOLVED: That the officer's recommendation was agreed.

RESOLVED:

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 6(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

RESOLVED: That the officer's recommendation was agreed.

RESOLVED:

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 6(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

RESOLVED: That the officer's recommendation was agreed.

RESOLVED:

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 6(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

RESOLVED: That the officer's recommendation was agreed.

RESOLVED:

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 6(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).