Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Edwards declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 11 and left the room during the discussion of this item.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 July 2019 be agreed as a correct record.

None.

It was confirmed that agenda items 1 to 10 were marked Part I and would be considered in public, and agenda items 11 were marked Part II and would be considered in private.

Erection of two-storey building to create two two-bed flats, with associated parking and amenity space, involving installation of vehicular crossover to front and also to front and side 89 and 91 Goshawk Gardens to create additional parking (Resubmission).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of a two-storey building to create two two-bed flats, with associated parking and amenity space, involving installation of vehicular crossover to front and also to front and side of 89 to 91 Goshawk Gardens to create additional parking.

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum which included an amendment to Reason for Refusal 2.

Members were informed that a petition was received in objection to the application, although a petitioner was not present to speak.

The applicant addressed the Committee and stated that that the application complied with policy and had no detrimental impact on any neighbouring property. Members heard that there was no relevant building line, and the application would improve the street scene and local area as a replacement for disused garages to the rear of 89 and 91 Goshawk Gardens. Furthermore, the applicant stated that six parking spaces had to be provided, and these spaces could now be accommodated, but there was not enough time to provide this information.

Responding to Councillors’ questioning, officers confirmed that the building line in question was the protrusion of the proposed dwelling that would be seen from Goshawk Gardens.

The Highways Officer confirmed that three spaces were required for the existing dwelling, and three further spaces for the proposed flats, but in the application before the Committee there were only two spaces allocated for each, and, therefore, there was a shortfall of two spaces.

Members agreed that even if parking issues could be solved, there were other issues with the application before them that could not be, and as such, the officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded. Upon being put to a vote, the recommendation was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of three storey building to create six two-bed self-contained flats, with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Erection of three-storey building to create six two-bed self-contained flats, with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum, which included an amendment to Reason for Refusal 1.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, and cited loss of light and privacy at 1 Cambridge Road, the loss of privacy at the annex at 1 Cambridge Road, and parking concerns as additional reasons for refusal. Members heard that neither the rear windows of 1 Cambridge Road, nor the annex, were marked on the applicant’s plans, and that the proposed dwelling was not in keeping with an Area of Special Local Character made up of one and two-storey buildings.

Councillor Martin Goddard, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North, addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the petitioners and local residents. Councillor Goddard noted that the application was a gross overdevelopment of the plot, and no other three-storey buildings were situated in the road. Members were informed that the application failed to consider neighbouring local residents and led to a number of objections, in addition to the petition against the application, and would lead to further congestion in an area that already faced transport concerns.

Officers confirmed that, due to the site’s close proximity to Uxbridge town centre, the proposed parking was sufficient due to its accessibility to public transport in Uxbridge.

The Committee questioned the impact that the proposal would have on 1 Cambridge Road, and officers commented that this could only be understood with a viewing of the property. As such, a motion to defer the application was moved to allow officers a chance to visit the property and report back on the impact the application would have on the privacy and loss of light at both 1 Cambridge Road and the annex at 1 Cambridge Road. Officers were also requested to consider whether the application breached policy when considering the distance of the proposal to neighbouring properties.

The motion to defer the application was seconded and unanimously agreed at a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Erection of a single-storey rear extension, conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include a rear dormer, three front rooflights and conversion of roof from hip to gable end, and conversion of a single dwelling into one one-bed and one two-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and amenity space (Part Retrospective).

Recommendation: Refusal

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

Erection of a single-storey rear extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer, three front rooflights and conversion of roof from hip to gable end and conversion of single dwelling into one one-bed and one two-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and amenity space (Part Restrospective).

This application was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration, prior to the meeting.

Variation of Condition 13 (Maintenance and management scheme for communal amenity areas) of planning permission reference 70376/APP/2015/3764 dated 13/05/2016 (seven two-storey, three-bed dwellings with habitable roof space, associated parking and amenity space involving the demolition of existing warehouse) to change the condition from pre-commencement to pre-occupation.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Variation of Condition 13 (Maintenance and management scheme for communal amenity areas) of planning permission ref: 70376/APP/2015/3764 dated 13/05/2016 (seven two-storey, three-bed dwellings with habitable roof space with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing warehouse) to change the condition from pre-commencement to pre-occupation.

Officers introduced the application which sought a variation of Condition 13.

Councillors commented that residents should not be expected to bear excessive costs for maintaining the grounds, and were informed that this would be deal with under private law, which controlled what is in maintenance and management schemes.

The Committee agreed that there was no problem with the change in timing of the application, and the officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Change of use of part of Unit 240A from retail (Use Class A1) to restaurant / café (Use Class A3).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Change of use of part of Unit 240a from retail (Use Class A1) to restaurant / café (Use Class A3).

Officers introduced the application and addendum, and noted that the application did not yet include detailed working drawings from the operator of the site, and conditions would need to be added regarding an extraction flue, toilet facilities and a lift.

A petition was submitted in support of the application, and the Head of Town Planning at INTU addressed the Committee and stated that Waterstone’s wished to downsize but remain in the unit, with the surplus section of the unit would be let out. Cote Brasserie wished to move into the unit, and this would help INTU broaden its attraction for customers, increase footfall, and give more reasons to visit the INTU centre.

The Committee heard that a condition requesting a lift was not necessary in the application as there would only be seating or dining on the ground floor, and upstairs would be used for an additional toilet, storage and office space. The petitioner noted the concern that Cote would provide further dining upstairs in the future, and requested a condition to restrict the use of the upper floor to these uses only, and should the upper floor was converted to dining in the future, a lift could be requested at that time.

Responding to questioning from Councillors, the petitioner confirmed that access to Waterstones would be from inside the INTU, while Cote would be accessed from the street.

Members commented that there were no details regarding the accessibility or internal layout of the application, and it was difficult to make a decision without this information. Councillors agreed that they had no issues with the principle of use, but were unable to make a decision on the application before the Committee without further details.

The Committee agreed that the application was in a good location and added vibrancy to the Uxbridge town centre, but would require further information before a decision could be made. However, Members did note that if detailed plans were submitted then an outcome could be reach, and the Committee was encouraged by the plans in principle.

As such, a motion to defer the application was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

RESOLVED:

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

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it 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 1, 2 and 7 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

Councillor Chamdal was in the chair, as Councillor Edwards declared a non-pecuniary interest and left the room during the discussion of the item.

RESOLVED:

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

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it 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 1, 2 and 7 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).