Agenda, decisions and minutes

None.

None.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting on 14 October 2021 be approved as an accurate record subject to amending Councillor Alan Chapman’s attendance.

None.

It was confirmed that agenda items 6 – 8 were marked Part I and would be considered in public.

Erection of a detached three-bedroom house

Recommendations: Refusal

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

Officers introduced the application, highlighted both addendum sheets 1 and 2, and made a recommendation for refusal. It was noted that both applications 10622/APP/2021/1490and 10622/APP/2021/1491had been referred to the Major Applications Planning Committee due to substantial public interest and this was permitted in accordance with the Council’s scheme of delegations. It was also noted that both applications were subject to a non-determination planning appeals.

A petitioner in objection of the applications addressed the Committee and referred to photographs that had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting. There were 21 formal objections and 154 petition signatures against the applications. The petitioners agreed with the officer’s recommendations and explained the significance of the photographs submitted. Concerns were raised regarding the proximity of buildings resulting in a loss of sunlight and daylight, overshadowing, and encroaching on neighbouring properties. It was noted that picture 3 on the DAS Planning Design Heritage and Access Statement had been mislabelled. Reference was made to the land registry title and clarification was provided on boundary plans. The proposed position of the electric parking bay was a concern as this was used by pedestrians and children causing safety and security risks to residents. Concerns were also raised about the ecology report as there were numerous protected species. It was submitted that the ecology on the site was vast and the Committee was asked to protect this area. Petitioners requested that the application be refused in accordance with officer’s recommendation.

The Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration confirmed that the Committee was not disadvantaged by any non-determination appeal proceedings.

Following Member request, clarifications were provided on the plans in relation to the site layout and car parking spaces. The Committee agreed that the refusal reasons were clear.

Had an appeal against non-determination not been lodged the application would have been refused. Subject to the additional information in the addendums, the officer’s recommendation, was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation, subject to the additional information addendum sheets 1 and 2.

Erection of a detached three-bedroom house (Application for Listed Building Consent)

Recommendations: Refusal

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

Erection of a detached three-bedroom house (Application for Listed Building Consent)

Agenda item 7 was heard and discussed in conjunction with agenda item 6. The minutes for both items have been recorded under agenda item 6.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation, subject to the additional information addendum sheets 1 and 2.

Partial demolition, refurbishment and extension of the existing Cottage Hospital to provide a state-of-the-art health centre and the comprehensive redevelopment of the remaining Site to provide residential (Use Class C3) accommodation and ancillary works including car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works.

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred for a site visit.

Partial demolition, refurbishment and extension of the existing Cottage Hospital to provide a state-of-the-art health centre and the comprehensive redevelopment of the remaining Site to provide residential (Use Class C3) accommodation and ancillary works including car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the addendum that detailed amendments to the proposed conditions in the report. Three verbal updates were also provided on conditions relating to overheating, an automatic light switch off and public footpath. A recommendation for approval + section 106 was made.

A petitioner in objection of the application addressed the Committee and spoke on behalf of both Northwood and Northwood Hills Residents Association. It was stated that the petitioners were in support of the additional healthcare provision and the letters of support were only in relation to the healthcare aspect of the application.  The issue was with the separate residential development and the petitioner highlighted the policies that had been breached. It was submitted that the hospital was being used as part of the financial study of the residential development and the Committee was urged not to accept this application as it could set a precedent.

The petitioner submitted that the proposed housing mix did not meet the policy requirements and did not meet the London plans in terms of responding to local housing needs. It was noted that affordable housing should be provided onsite, and the applicant had not demonstrated why this was not the case. There were strong objections to the officers’ report in respect of affordable housing and the compatibility of the development with the street scene. The application was a clear overdevelopment of the site, would be taller than other buildings nearby and the loss of light was unacceptable. It was noted that the North Planning Committee had recently refused an application to raise roof heights and the proposed window layout would also be contrary to policies. Concerns were raised regarding the proposed layout of the childrens’ space requirement, parking space and cycle access. It was submitted that the application was a clear overdevelopment, with the wrong housing mix and failed to meet many policy requirements. It was noted that there had also been early discussions to develop part of this site as a retirement development. The Committee was urged to refuse the application.

Prior to Member clarification questions, the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration advised the Committee that financial viability appraisals were required where developers had not met affordable housing requirements. Appraisals were then referred to external consultants for review and the findings of the review were shared with officers. In this application, the consultants were satisfied that appropriate input had been provided.

The applicant and architect for the application addressed the Committee and noted that the application was for a new healthcare facility supported by residential housing. It was submitted that residents needed modernised healthcare facilities and this application was a response to the NHS’s long-term plan of replacing and refurbishing existing buildings. The application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.