Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Eddie Lavery with Councillor Shehryar Ahmad Wallana substituting.

None.

None.

It was confirmed that all items were Part I and would be heard in public.

First floor extensions on the north west elevation and south east elevations, together with a first floor link extension between the first floor elements to provide 5 additional care home bedrooms, together with reduction of the basement/lower ground floor (as compared to the original planning permission ref. 196/APP/2012/1776, as amended by 196/APP/2013/2958), including 6 smoke/vent shafts (Part Retrospective Application).

Recommendation: Refusal

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

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was granted for 2013 and the development is in the process of being built. The current planning application seeks permission to add three first floor extensions to the previously approved development. The combined extensions would provide a total of five additional care home bedrooms. Officers recommended this application for refusal on visual and amenity grounds.

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:

·         Initially the development was not a care home but a 31 flat residential building which had little impact on its surroundings.

·         Residents have been shocked by the scale, height, intrusive and dominating nature of these buildings.

·         The initial visualisations of the building have been misleading.

·         Residents bordering the development are being directly overlooked by large multiple windows. Properties based at the North and South of the development are being severely overlooked.

·         The traffic and parking report focuses on seven year old data from three homes all with excellent road and public transport links. Parking issues could arise from the proposed development, despite having closer public transport links.

·         High levels of noise outside of legally permitted times has caused residents stress and anxiety.

·         Infringements have been reported to the developers directly, the Council, the Local Ward Councillor, the Environmental Department and the Unsociable Behaviour Department.

The applicant's agent spoke in support of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution the agent spoke and made the following points:

·         The proposals comprise five bedrooms and a corridor at first floor level. The link will improve circulation in the care home by making the flow of movement more efficient and communication between the two halves of the home will be more established.

·         The current arrangement of the development will be an inconvenience to staff working in the home as they will find it difficult to provide quick assistance to residents.

·         The proposed increase in the number of bedrooms makes an efficient use of the site and provides more facilities within the home at more reasonable costs, whilst also creating more rooms for people in need of the service.

·         The planning officers' views in the report were subjective and both the applicant and agent disagreed with the view. The proposed developments were designed in a manner which fits in with the original design and would fit comfortably in their setting.

·         The designs met the commonly accepted standards for distances between windows.  The effects bought about the current proposal were marginal and not significant.

·         The highways report submitted was professional, objective and independent.

·         The original application compromised the building of the link between the homes, but after seeing the building constructed, it now makes common sense to include the link.

A statement from Councillor Duncan Flynn, Ward Councillor for Northwood Hills, was submitted on behalf of the local residents in objection of the planning application. The statement was read out by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

Erection of a three storey building, to create 16 x 2 bed self-contained residential units, together with associated landscaping and parking.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

The application was refused.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Officers also highlighted the addendum. Planning permission was sought for the erection of a three storey building, to create 16 x 2 bed self-contained residential units, together with associated landscaping and parking. Officers made a recommendation for approval.

Some Members expressed concerns at building residential properties on land which was also being used for business purposes. There were factories that were open 24/7 on the site and it was considered that those businesses would be forced to close due to noise concerns that could be raised by residents.  

Members discussed the level of protection companies already working on the site would have. Some Members were also concerned about having a childrens' play area opposite the site, and that the amenity area, air pollution and traffic noise was in a poor situation. Members commented that the design of the proposed works were poor.

Some Members expressed that the application could not be refused on the use of the site, as there site had changed its principle use. The change of use to residential had been established. Further, some Members commented that the noise and air quality issues had been covered in the report.

Officers confirmed that the principle use of the land had been lost. Officers accepted that this was a largely unfettered industrial business area that could operate 24/7 and it was also one of the sites included Hillingdon's proposed Article 4 direction which will go through in November 2017. Any future changes of use will require permission from November 2017. Officers explained that given the comments from EPU, the noise surveys submitted, and the conditions proposed by EPU, it would be difficult to sustain a refusal on the basis that it would create future disturbances on the property from the IBA.

Officer summarised the issues raised by Members. Members would not be able to defend a decision that it was unacceptable to create residential property as the principle use of the land, as an industrial business use, had been removed.  Residential environment in terms of impact on future occupants have been covered in the report, however if Members were not satisfied with the points raised in the report, they could use this as a basis for refusal. The quality of the amenity space had been covered in the report, if Members considered this to be unacceptable, they could use it as a reason for refusal. The issue of design such as appearance and sighting would be difficult to refuse on given the mixed design of developments within the area.

A recommendation to refuse was proposed on the basis of the impact of noise, disturbance, quality of outdoor play areas for children and quality of amenity space being provided for future occupiers

Members moved to overturn the officers' recommendation and seconded, and upon being put to a vote, there were four votes in favour, three against and one abstention.

It was noted that Councillors Peter Curling, Janet Duncan and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.

Demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a 4 storey building with basement parking comprising 40 residential units with associated car parking, amenity space and landscaping. Amended plans and supporting information received.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Officers also highlighted the addendum. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a four storey building with basement parking comprising 40 residential units with associated car parking, amenity space and landscaping.

Members noted that this application was deferred on 14 March 2017 in order to allow the content of the addendum to be incorporated into the officer's recommendation to allow further amendments to be made to the scheme following queries raised by Members during their discussion of the scheme.

Members commented that it was great to see officers and developers working together and that this was a good scheme. Members questioned how refuse lorries would be able to obtain refuse bins and raised concerns about traffic hazards. Members questioned how delivery vehicles would be access the site.

Officers confirmed that vehicles would not be expected to reverse into the site and would have to stop at junctions. Where ever there are lay-by waiting restrictions, Council's vehicles are exempt which would allow them to stop and collect refuse. Delivery vehicles would also be expected to park in the parking spaces.  

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

RESOLVED:

The application was refused as per the officer's recommendation.