Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Neil Fyfe and Councillor Mo Khursheed, there were no substitutes.

Councillor Brian Stead declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 7, as the application was in his ward and remained in the meeting to discuss and vote on the application.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2013 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no matters notified in advance or urgent.

It was confirmed that all items marked Part 1 would be heard in public and all Items marked in Part 2 would be heard in private.

Two storey, 3-bed, attached dwelling with associated parking amenity space involving installation of vehicular crossover to front (Resubmission).

Two storey, 3-bed, attached dwelling with associated parking amenity space involving installation of vehicular crossover to front (Resubmission).

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners and the agent addressed the meeting. The petitioner objecting to the proposal made the following points:-

• The boundary details were not correct.
• The plot in question was a side garden for No 203, West End Lane.
• Only detached property of its kind still existing in Harlington.
• The plot had been put on separate deeds to give a false impression.
• Parking was at full capacity in the area.
• There were access issues with the Council owned field.
• Previous application showed true boundary.

The applicant /agent made the following points:-

• Had provided the Committee with additional information to support their application.
• Had used policy and guidance to measure floor space.
• The generous ceiling height should have been taken into account.
• The proposals did not include No 203, West End Lane as the application was a different site.
• The reason for refusal could have been addressed by a condition.

Members discussed the application and questioned the true boundary of the application.  Members were mindful of the loss of amenity space for the proposed site.  Officers informed the Committee that land ownership was a private matter and that the applicant had served the correct certificate.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused as per the officers’ recommendation and addendum.  Replace word ‘bungalow’ with ‘2 storey dwelling’ in correction to reason 1 for refusal.

Relocation of bin storage area for temporary period.

Relocation of bin storage area for temporary period.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.  The application seeked temporary planning permission to relocate an existing bin store.  A permanent relocation would be identified as part of the future redevelopment of the school.

Members discussed the application and requested an additional condition regarding tree maintenance.  Delegated authority was granted to the Head of Service for the final wording.

The recommendation 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 including an amendment to condition 1 to include replanting of vegetation at the expiry of the three year period and an additional tree protection condition. 

Single storey detached outbuilding to rear for use as a gym and store (Retrospective).

Single  storey  detached  outbuilding  to  rear  for  use  as  a  gym  and  store (Retrospective).

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting. The petitioner supporting the proposal made the following points:-

• The outbuilding was intended to be used as a gym and children’s play area.
• The outbuilding would not be occupied.
• The noise impact would be minimum as the equipment used could not be heard within 5 metres.
• There were other outbuildings, swimming pools and extended garages on the street.
• The closest dwelling was 10 metres away.
• Had erected fences 4 metres on to their own boundary.

A local Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and made the following comments:-

• No 17 Maylands Drive was on higher ground than No 15 Maylands Drive.
• Had previously requested the Committee to make a site visit to see the impact on No. 15 Maylands Drive.
• The application in question should be linked to other applications which were subject to enforcement.
• Should not be able to build illegally.

Members discussed the item and agreed that the plans submitted with the application were confusing as they included buildings that were subject to enforcement.  The legal officer present stated that the plans should reflect what was proposed. 

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

Resolved – That the application be refused as per the officers’ recommendation, addendum and additional informative relating to accurate plans.

Replacement structure over existing enclosed pool.

Replacement structure over existing enclosed pool.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The recommendation 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.

The recommendations as set out in the officer report were moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

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 this report into the public domain, solely for the  purposes of issuing the formal breach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

The report relating to this decision is not available to the public because it contains information which reveals that the authority proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; and (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

The recommendations as set out in the officer report were moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Members noted other outbuildings in the pictures provided to the Committee and requested that officers investigate further and report back at a later date.  

Delegate authority was granted to the Head of Service to undertake minor revisions to the wording of the enforcement notice.

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 this report into the public domain, solely for the  purposes of issuing the formal breach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

The report relating to this decision is not available to the public because it contains information which reveals that the authority proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; and (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).