Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Manjit Khatra with Councillor Robin Sansarpuri substituting.

Councillor Roy Chamdal declared a non pecuniary interest in Item 6 - 17 Orchard Waye, Uxbridge as he had spoken to the residents about the application and left the meeting whilst the application as discussed.

There were no matters notified in advance or urgent.

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

Raising of roof to create first floor.

Recommendation: Approval

Raising of roof to create first floor.

Officers introduced the report providing a brief summary of the application.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting.  The agent/applicant was present at the meeting but did not wish to address the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

·         The petitioner advised that if the two-storey extension was not to be built and the garage was to be retained there was no objection

·         There had been 14 planning applications on this site in the last 3 years.

·         The previous applications had been refused as the site was within a flood plain and the lack of parking being provided.

·         There was already permission to build a two side extensions as party wall notification had been received advising that the building work would start on 11 May 2015.

·         Would this application be allowed if the extensions already granted were built, bearing in mind the impact this would have on the local community.

·         Residents had concerns that there would be no off street parking for a 4 bed detached house.

·         There were concerns that the property when extended would be turned into a Home in Multiple Occupation (HMO).

·         Residents do not object to an additional floor being added to the property.

In answer to the concern regarding off street parking officers advised that although this application included the retention of the garage, it was suggested that a condition be added to require that it be retained. The addition of the condition to retain the garage was agreed by the Committee.

A member asked whether it would be possible to take away Pd rights as the site was in a flood plain.

Officers advised that there would need to be justification for taking away Pd rights from this property, when adjoining properties had Pd rights. 

In answer to a question raised in relation to a condition being to restrict the property to a single unit officers advised that an Article 4 Direction existed in Brunel Ward, which required permission to turn any property into an HMO so a further condition was not necessary.

The recommendation for approval with an additional condition was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved - That the application was approved subject to the conditions set out in the officer's report and an additional condition as follows:-

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the existing garage at the site shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

REASON

To ensure adequate parking is provided for the property in compliance with policy AM14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Saved UDP Policies (November 2012).

Two storey rear extension (Resubmission).

Recommendation: Refusal

Two storey rear extension (Resubmission).

Officers introduced the report providing a brief summary of the application and informing the Committee that the extension had already been built.  The only change from the previous application refused in January was a re-figuration of the room layout.

The petitioners and the agent were not present at the meeting.

A member asked whether the 45º angle affected light to the adjoining property and suggested that an additional reason for refusal should be considered.

Officers advised that the application complied with the 45º angle and therefore an additional reason for refusal could not be justified on this ground.

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

Resolved - That the application was refused for the reason set out in the officer's report.

Demolition of existing two storey side element, erection of 2 x two storey side extensions, raising of and alterations to roof and change of use from office (Use Class B1) to provide 1 x 2-bed self contained flat, 5 x 1-bed self contained flats and 3 x studio flats with associated parking and amenity space(Use Class C3)

Recommendation: Approval

Demolition of existing two storey side element, erection of 2 x two storey side extensions, raising of and alterations to roof and change of use from office (Use Class B1) to provide 1 x 2-bed self contained flat, 5 x 1-bed self contained flats and 3 x studio flats with associated parking and amenity space(Use Class C3).

Officers introduced the report providing a brief summary of the application.

In accordance with the Council's constitution the agent addressed the meeting.  The petitioner was not present at the meeting.

The agent made the following points:-

·         The petition submitted against the application was in relation to parking and traffic issues.

·         The parking being provided had been reduced by 2 spaces.

·         There had been considerable discussions with officers in relation to the application.

·         The application would enhance the appearance of the building and the visual amenity/appearance in the neighbourhood.

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

Resolved - That the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission ref:  70144/APP/2014/2473, dated 05/09/14 (Installation of a 17.5m high monopole telecommunications mast supporting 3 no. antennas, the installation of a radio equipment cabinet and development works ancillary thereto).

Recommendation: Approval

Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission ref:  70144/APP/2014/2473, dated 05/09/14 (Installation of a 17.5m high monopole telecommunications mast supporting 3 no. antennas, the installation of a radio equipment cabinet and development works ancillary thereto).

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application.

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

Resolved - That the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

Raising of roof, two storey front extensions, single storey side extension, single storey rear extension and habitable roofspace to include the installation of a rear dormer and 4 rooflights involving part demolition of existing dwelling and alterations to roof of remaining element.

Recommendation : Refusal

Raising of roof, two storey front extensions, single storey side extension, single storey rear extension and habitable roofspace to include the installation of a rear dormer and 4 rooflights involving part demolition of existing dwelling and alterations to roof of remaining element.

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application.

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

Resolved - That the application be Refused for the reason set out in the report.

Demolition of existing single storey side element of 78 Ryefield Avenue and erection of two storey, 4-bed attached dwelling with habitable roofspace with associated parking and amenity space, installation of rear dormer to existing dwelling, installation of crossover to front and alteration to existing crossover.

Recommendation: Refusal

Demolition of existing single storey side element of 78 Ryefield Avenue and erection of two storey, 4-bed attached dwelling with habitable roofspace with associated parking and amenity space, installation of rear dormer to existing dwelling, installation of crossover to front and alteration to existing crossover.

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application.

A member raised concerns about the introduction of the Juliette balcony, and the affect this would have to adjoining properties in relation to loss of privacy.  It was suggested that an additional reason for refusal should be added to reflect this.

Officers suggested that a reason for refusal about the perception of overlooking in relation to the height and the expanse of the window and asked that the wording be delegated to officers. This was agreed by the Committee.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused with an additional reason for refusal, with the wording to be delegated to officers on the perception of overlooking to adjoin properties. On being put to the vote refusal was agreed.

Resolved - That the application was refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report and an additional reason for refusal as follows:-

The provision of balconies at second floor level would lead to such a perceived increase in overlooking that it would be detrimental to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties contrary to policies BE19, BE21 and BE24 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (November 2012) and the adopted Supplementary planning Document HDAS: Residential Layouts.

Variation of condition 5 of planning permission ref: 20576/APP/2013/ 3566 dated 5/8/2014 (alterations to existing building and change of use to bed and breakfast) (Section 73 application to allow modifications to approved scheme).

Recommendation: Refusal

Variation of condition 5 of planning permission ref: 20576/APP/2013/ 3566 dated 5/8/2014 (alterations to existing building and change of use to bed and breakfast) (Section 73 application to allow modifications to approved scheme).

Before the application was discussed the Chairman asked the Committee to consider deferring the application to enable a site visit and further consideration being given to the submission submitted by the applicant.

It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred and on being put to the vote deferral was agreed.

Resolved - That the application was deferred for further consideration of the submission by the applicant and a site visit.