Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies received from Cllr Roy Chamdal, with Cllr Edward Lavery substituting.

Apologies received from Cllr Roy Chamdal, with Cllr Edward Lavery substituting.

There were no declarations of interests.

There were no declarations of interests.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting dated 6 February 2019 were agreed as an accurate record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting dated 6 February 2019 were agreed as an accurate record.

Agenda item 6: 89 and 91 and Land Adjacent 89 & 91 Goshawk Gardens, Hayes - 74301/APP/2018/3913 was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

Agenda item 14: enforcement report was also withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

Agenda item 6: 89 and 91 and Land Adjacent 89 & 91 Goshawk Gardens, Hayes - 74301/APP/2018/3913 was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

Agenda item 14: enforcement report was also withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

It was confirmed that the items of business marked Part I (items 1 - 12) would be considered in public and the items of business marked Part II (item 13 ) would be considered in private.

It was confirmed that the items of business marked Part I (items 1 - 12) would be considered in public and the items of business marked Part II (item 13) would be considered in private.

Two storey, 2-bed, attached dwelling and two storey building to create 2 x 2-bed self-contained flats with associated parking, involving demolition of existing garages

Recommendation: Refusal

This item was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

Raising and enlargement of roof to create habitable roof space to include 1 x rear dormer, 1 x front dormer and conversion of roof from hipped to gable end

Recommendations: Refusal

 RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the raising and enlargement of roof to create habitable roof space to include 1 x rear dormer, 1 x front dormer and conversion of roof from hipped to gable end. Officers made a recommendation for refusal

The agent/architect for the application addressed the Committee. Members noted the photographs submitted by the agent that were circulated to all parties prior to the meeting. A summary of the key points made are detailed below.

The agent/ architect stated that they were also the architect for 29 Manor Lane and the petition specifically raised the fact that 29 Manor Lane was owned by a Councillor. The applicant intended to live in the house for the foreseeable future and planned to grow in the house to accommodate all family.  The petition had been signed by 22 signatories who were all nearby residents, and they shared the concerns that the local authority was able to approve a similar scheme at 29 Manor Lane but made a recommendation for refusal for a similar scheme at 31. It was submitted that this petition had not been considered in light of the recently approved scheme. The scheme, context and constraints were the same and amendments had been made following consultation with planning officers. With the recent construction at 29 the bungalow was now subordinate and the agent highlighted this on the photographs. This has created darker colder rooms at the ground floor which are now overshadowed.

It was submitted that the applicant was seeking to improve the quality of family life by moving the bedroom from the ground floor to the first floor, which would still remain as a bungalow. Introducing windows would also bring in more natural daylight. It was submitted that the property would not become a two storey house, but a shallow style bungalow similar to number 29. The officer stated that the dormer at number 29 was approved under permitted development rights therefore its impact was on the adjacent fielding and historical setting could not be considered. The impact on neighbouring properties would be little. The effect on number 31 was considered and the dormer size was reduced. Overall, the proposal created a substantially smaller building to surrounding sites, the house and rear garden at number 31 is overlooked by surrounding buildings and is subordinate, the proposals are no different to a number of other local properties. The applicant sought a recommendation for approval as it would improve the quality of life and would improve overshadowing caused by the dominant side extension at number 29. The Committee was asked to look at the application, not on in the light of planning policies, but also in light of context, site, conditions and other recent developments.

The Head of Planning clarified the position in regards to planning permission for 28 Manor Lane. In summary, it was highlighted that the dormer was built above the bungalow and amounted to permitted lawful  ...  view the full minutes text for item 206.

Conversion of existing dwelling into 1 x 3-bed dwelling and 1 x studio flat, involving alterations to front and rear elevations and associated amenity space

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the conversion of existing dwelling into 1 x 3-bed dwelling and 1 x studio flat, involving alterations to front and rear elevations and associated amenity space. Officers made a recommendation for refusal.

Members considered that the application was unsatisfactory giving rise to poor amenity space.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to a flexible retail/office/restaurant/clinic/ health centre/gymnasium use (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/D1/D2)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED – That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation subject to amending conditions 5 and 6.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to a flexible retail/office/restaurant/clinic/ health centre/gymnasium use (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/D1/D2). Officers made a recommendation for refusal.

Members were mindful that the developer may find it difficult to let these properties therefore flexibility would be helpful.

Members discussed whether given the location of the proposal near the bus garage, the servicing unit with hours between 08:00 – 18:00 on Monday – Friday and not on Sundays and bank holidays was appropriate. Members commented whether restricting the use of A3 was appropriate given the start time of buses.

In light of the comments made, the Committee considered editing conditions 5 and 6 to make them more workable. The Committee agreed changing the hours of use from 08:00 to 07:00 and allowing deliveries and collections from 08:00 – 18:00 all days of the week (including bank holidays).  

Officers clarified that refuse collection was done by a private contractor previously. There was space for a small van/transit at the rear for deliveries and for any larger vehicles there was a bay available near Poundland.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to:

1)    amending the hours of use in condition 5 to 07:00 to 23:00; and

2)    amending the days for deliveries and collections in condition 6 to Monday – Sundays and bank holidays.  

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension and conversion of dwelling to 8-bed House in Multiple Occupation

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation and amendments in the addendum.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension and conversion of dwelling to 8-bed House in Multiple Occupation. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for refusal.

Members requested clarification on the occupancy of a HMO under 10 metres.  It was noted that in accordance with policy the potential occupancy in this application could make 15 and not 9.

Members considered the reasons for refusal incorporated in the report and addendum. It was noted that overlooking could be overcome by conditions and therefore would not formulate a refusal reason.

Members were mindful that the proposal was too big and considered it to be unacceptable.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation and the amendments in the addendum.

Two storey side and part single storey, part two storey rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 2 rear dormers and 2 front dormers

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED – That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for two storey side and part single storey, part two storey rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 2 rear dormers and 2 front dormers. Officers made a recommendation for approval.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation.

Change of use from light industrial (Use Class B1) to 8 x 1 bedroom self contained flats (Use Class C3) involving the addition of a mezzanine (Prior Approval)

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with the deletion of the section 106 agreement

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the change of use from light industrial (Use Class B1) to 8 x 1 bedroom self-contained flats (Use Class C3) involving the addition of a mezzanine (Prior Approval). Officers made a recommendation for approval and section 106.

The Head of Planning explained that as this was a prior approval, issues such as windows, overlooking were not considerations in this application. The real issues related to highways and transportation. The scheme of delegation required any legal agreements to be referred to Committee. The applicant’s agent had exchanged correspondence with officers about whether it was justifiable for the Council to request a legal agreement. It was a matter for the Committee to decide on whether the legal agreement was required.

Members discussed whether there was a need for the sec 106 legal agreement.

It was noted that there was a shortfall for two parking spaces and there was no indication that there were parking stress issues in this area.

The officer's recommendation for approval with deletion of the sec 106 agreement was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED – That the application be approved with the deletion of the sec 106 agreement.

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 2 and 6(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1085 as amended).

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 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 2 and 6(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1085 as amended).

This item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

This item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.