Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor John Morse with Councillor Jazz Dhillon substituting. Apologies also received from Councillor Alan Chapman.

Councillor Khursheed stated that he was the Ward Councillor for agenda items 9 and 10 and declared a non pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 12.

Councillor Ahmad-Wallana declared non-pecuniary interests in respect of agenda item 12.

Both Councillor Khursheed and Councillor Ahmad - Wallana indicated that they would leave the room during the discussion of agenda item 12.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the minutes from 12 April 2017 be confirmed as a correct record of the meeting, subject to including the apologies received from Councillor Chamdal.

Agenda item 12 in PART II has been taken as an urgent item following approval from the Chairman.  

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

Conversion of single family dwelling into six-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Retrospective).

Recommendation: Refusal

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

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. The application sought retrospective planning permission for the conversion of a single family dwelling in to a six bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). Officers also highlighted the addendum.

A petition had been submitted in objection of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         There were two types of residents living in Morello Avenue namely pensioners and young professional families.

·         Peace and quiet was very important to the close community and there was a low turnover in this street.

·         The type of people attracted to HMOs would not take into account local resident needs, thus having a negative impact on the community.

·         The Petitioner agreed with the Officer's report.

·         The drainage system in the area was old and tired and blocked almost every year. An increase in use would impact the system and deprive residents from essential services.

·         There was a concern that the property could be used by a larger number of people then indicated. This would impact noise levels and the availability of parking.

·         It was suggested that there were other properties in the area which were being used as HMOs.

Councillor Richard Mills, Ward Councillor for Brunel, addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·         Concerns were raised regarding the size of the kitchen and lounge area which would be shared amongst six people.

·         Having the number and different sets of people would be detrimental to the existing residents living adjacent to the property. This would also cause congestion, noise and impact the availability of parking.

·         This was a retrospective application and appropriate further action needed to be undertaken that the property operated as permitted.

At the outset of Members discussion, the Chairman indicated that some of the matters raised by the petitioner would not be taken into account by the planning committee. The Chairman reminded the Members that they as a Committee, they would only be allowed to take into account material planning considerations such the type of person living in the premises. However matters such as the number of people and intensification of use could be taken into account.

Members noted the suggestion that other properties in close vicinity of the premises were being used a HMOs. Members urged the petitioner and local residents to inform local Ward Councillors if properties were being used in this way, so that appropriate action could be taken. This suggestion was also supported by officers.

Members noted that there were a number of issues in this ward relating to the number of HMOs operating. Members commended the conditions in the report and expressed concerns about the number of bedrooms the property would have and the impact this property would cause on local residents.

A motion for the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

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

Two two-storey, four-bed dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, wall / fence to front, and installation of two vehicular crossovers, involving demolition of existing bungalow.

Recommendation: Approval

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

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. The application sought planning permission for two storey, four bed dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, wall/fence to front, and installation of two vehicle cross over, involving demolition of existing bungalow. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petition had been submitted in objection of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The proposed application would cause an unacceptable detrimental impact on the privacy of several local properties. If the proposed development were permitted, it would allow the petitioner's garden and kitchen to be overlooked by at least four first floor windows, thus eradicating privacy.

·         The proposed three additional driveways did not match the character of the properties bordering the northern edge of the Close.

·         The rear way driveways currently used by local residents on the Close reduces traffic and has benefits for the safety and amenity for its residents. The proposal would negatively affect this.

·         The proposal would result in the removal of at least four car parking spaces.

·         Normans Close is used by a large number of pedestrians and the proposed developments would increase the risk of harm to them.

·         The proposed development would impact the outlook of the building and would remove direct sunlight to properties 2 and 3 Normans Close.

The agent for the application addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         Throughout this application, extensive discussion had taken place with officers at the Council to ensure that high quality and well designed house were developed.

·         Initially the applicant and agent had made an application to develop three properties, but this reduced to two in accordance with advice from officers.

·         The proposed development met local plan policy in terms of design, amenity space and density.

·         These were the types of sites that would meet current housing needs.

·         The dwellings were set back a significant distance from Normans Close to ensure that the open character of the junction remained. 

·         Although there would be some disturbances for a short period during building works, the agent and applicant would adhere to the best practices to ensure minimal disruption. Contact details for site managers would be made available to residents to ensure clear lines of communication.

Councillor Richard Mills, Ward Councillor for Brunel, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the residents. He highlighted the residents' concerns about their  privacy, potential lack of light, overlooking and the availability of parking.

In response to matters raised by Members, officers confirmed that:

·         From the plans before there would be no intrusion to 3 Normans close.

·         The distance to protect against invasion of privacy and the proposed development met the 21 metre policy.  The distance was also acceptable in relation to overlooking standards.

·         The outlook for the property would change but the Council's standards of t outlook and loss of sunlight were being met. In meeting these standards, officer concluded that these considerations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Two-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include three rear rooflights and one side rooflight and porch to front.

Recommendation: Approval

Officers introduced the application and provided an overview of the application. The application sought planning permission for a two storey side extension , single storey rear extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include three rear roof lights and one side roof light and porch to front.

A petition had been submitted in objection of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         There were concerns that the occupier initially had the intention to build the house with multiple occupancy. The petitioner was not convinced that this was the outcome or attention.

·         Concerns were raised about the fact that it was six bed room property and only had two bathroom facilities.

·         Some of the changes proposed exceeded the building recommendations made particularly in relation to the roof line and the rear extension and rear garden.

The agent for the application addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The property would used as a family home and not as a HMO as suggested.

·         Concerns have been raised about highways safety but builders would ensure that deliveries were controlled in a timely way.

Members enquired why the additional developments on the property exceeded maximum height, and the agent explained that the case officer said it was acceptable. The agent explained that if amendments needed to be made this could be achieved. Members accepted the agent's assertion that the property would not be used as a HMO.

Councillor Raymond Graham, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North, addressed the Committee in writing and commented that the proposed development was a overdevelopment which would lead to an exacerbation of street parking problem. The proposed development was out of keeping with the existing immediate area and street scene and agreed with the petitioner concerns that this may become a HMO. He urged the Committee to keep the property as a single family dwelling house within the C3 use Class.

Members considered the conditions suggested in the report explained that there will no HMO and the condition were strong enough. The Legal Advisor also advised that the condition was strong enough and if breached the Council had power to enforce the condition.

Officers assured Members that the current amendments were minor changes which could take place. Further,  there was no impact on adjoining occupiers. Members also noted that the agent were willing to make any amendments.

A motion for the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote there were five in favour and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That the Committee approve the application, with the amendments.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to car hire / mini cab office (Sui Generis).

Recommendation: Approval

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

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. The application sought planning permission for the change of use from retail to car hire/mini cab office. Officers requested that condition five be deleted to strengthen condition four and made a recommendation for approval.

Members raised concerns about the level of traffic congestion, impact on parking and enquired how the condition would be policed. Officers advised that action would be taken against any breaches reported.

The Legal Advisor advised Members that although condition four may be difficult to police it would not be impossible. The Council has a planning enforcement team who can link vehicles to the company, observe those who may be committing breaches of the condition and take the necessary enforcement action against those who commit breaches. 

Members considered that condition four ought to include and reflect residential amenity of the people living above the property.

A motion for the officer's recommendation, subject to amendments, was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote there were five in favour and one against.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee:

1) Approve the application and;

2) delegate authority to the Head of Planning, to strengthen the wording of condition four to include residential amenity factors.

RESOLVED: 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: 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: 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).