Agenda, decisions and minutes

None.

None.

Councillor Goddard declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Item 11 – Uxbridge College, due to prior involvement. Councillor Goddard left the room when the item was considered.

Councillor Goddard declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of Item 11 – Uxbridge College, due to prior involvement. Councillor Goddard left the room when the item was considered.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2019 be approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2019 be approved as a correct record.

None.

None.

It was confirmed that all items were marked as Part I, and would therefore be considered in public.

It was confirmed that all items were marked as Part I, and would therefore be considered in public.

Redevelopment to provide 87 residential units in two blocks, together with associated access, car and cycle parking; communal and private amenity space; and landscaping

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED:  That the application be deferred.

Redevelopment to provide 87 residential units in two blocks, together with associated access, car and cycle parking; communal and private amenity space; and landscaping

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. It was confirmed that the plans circulated as part of the meeting pack were incorrect, and a set of updated plans had been forwarded to all Committee Members prior to the meeting. Officers advised that the plans consulted on, and present on the website, were correct.

Planning history of the site was outlined, and the Committee was reminded that consent had been granted on 14/11/2017 for the redevelopment of the site to provide 69 residential units with associated car parking and amenity space.

The application to be considered was seeking permission to redevelop the site to provide 87 residential flats with associated works included landscaping, amenity space and car parking. This was an increase in the number of proposed units and respective car parking spaces, through a simplified and improved design when compared to the extant scheme. The revised scheme would comprise 3 storey units at a maximum overall height of 9m, in line with comments made by officers and the Ministry of Defence. The new scheme provided better communal amenity space, including larger amenity space for family units.

Although local objections and a petition opposing the scheme had been received, there were no objections to the principle of development, living conditions for future occupiers, or impact on the street scene, landscaping, or amenity of nearby occupiers, and the application was recommended for approval.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, and highlighted the following points:

·         Residents had concerns over the size of the development and its impact on local services such as schools, GP surgeries and dentists, which were already overstretched.

·         The development would result in further congestion on what was a very busy road and junction.

·         Although the development made provision for cycle sheds, there were no cycle lanes and pedestrians were in danger from cyclists on pavements, as cyclists were fearful that cycling on the road was too dangerous due to the heavy traffic.

·         The report incorrectly listed screened windows as being on the 3^rd floor of Unit A, but were instead on the ground floor of Unit B. Concerns remained over privacy and overlooking from balconies.

Members asked the petitioner a number of questions, including a request for further information regarding the damage to residential property referred to within the report, and whether there were any properties in Canfield Drive that had extensions. The petitioner was unable to advise on the nature of the damage, but confirmed that most properties within Canfield Drive had single-storey rear extensions.

The Chairman read a statement on behalf of Councillor Allan Kauffman, Ward Councillor for South Ruislip:

·         Councillor Kauffman expressed his concerns that the development would exacerbate existing problems with traffic entering or exiting the development site.

·         Station Approach was a single carriageway and one of the busiest roads in South Ruislip,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

Proposed conversion of the first floor from a former Church and Nursery (Class D1) to 11 residential units (Class C3)

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, inclusive of amended wording relating to residents parking.

Proposed conversion of the first floor from a former Church and Nursery

(Class D1) to 11 residential units (Class C3)

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. The Committee was reminded that the application had been deferred from the meeting held on 9 January 2019 following a request for additional clarity on the Financial Viability Appraisal. This requested detail was addressed within the report, and the scheme was considered to be acceptable. The application was therefore recommended for approval.

In addition, officers recommended that the wording on parking permits be amended in line with the wording set out within the application for Bourne Court, ref. 1927/APP/2018/1232, namely that the permits exclude blue badge holders and that the developers were ensuring that prospective occupiers were notified of the restricted parking.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, inclusive of amended wording relating to residents parking.

Refurbishment and extension of B1 office building including two-storey extension (net increase of 1,120sqm GEA floorspace), recladding of the retained structure and rooftop plant enclosures, and reconfiguration of hard and soft landscaping and vehicular and cycle parking.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Refurbishment and extension of B1 office building including two-storey

extension (net increase of 1,120sqm GEA floorspace), recladding of the

retained structure and rooftop plant enclosures, and reconfiguration of hard and soft landscaping and vehicular and cycle parking

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. The proposal was considered acceptable, and was therefore recommended for approval.

Members requested that officers ensure that all planting was designed to absorb pollution.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Extension to provide an additional floor (5th floor level) comprising hotel facilities, guest bedrooms and new and extended lift shafts together with amendments to car park

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Extension to provide an additional floor (5th floor level) comprising hotel facilities, guest bedrooms and new and extended lift shafts together with amendments to car park

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. The application sought permission for an additional 5^th floor to the Renaissance Hotel, which would include a new restaurant/bar, meeting rooms, lounge, gym, crew room, bedrooms and back of house facilities. The principle of development was acceptable, and there were no concerns over amenity or environment, scale, design, height, or parking. 5 parking bays were proposed to be replaced to provide additional disability standard bays, together with new cycle parking and electric charging points. The application was therefore recommended for approval.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Demolition of the Fitzwalter building and construction of a new STEM building on same site.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved; and

2.    That Condition 11 be deleted.

Demolition of the Fitzwalter building and construction of a new STEM building on same site

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. The application sought to provide a new contemporary, two-story Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths building. The applicant had worked positively with the Council’s officers to develop a scheme that was considered the correct scale, orientation and high quality to meet the educational needs of pupils, with limited impact on nearby residential amenity.

The application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to the deletion of Condition 11 and the noting that there was one active and one passive electric vehicle charging point on site.

The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved; and

2.    That Condition 11 be deleted.

Erection of a 3-storey building within the existing car park to create a new Institute of Technology along with the erection of a single storey link block, the erection of a single-storey car parking deck, the reconfiguration of existing car parking spaces and associated landscaping

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved; and

2.    That the Head of Planning and Enforcement be granted delegated authority to review any objections resulting from the Council’s consultation on the new red line boundary plan.

Erection of a 3-storey building within the existing car park to create a new Institute of Technology along with the erection of a single storey link block, the erection of a single-storey car parking deck, the reconfiguration of existing car parking spaces and associated landscaping

Officers introduced the report and addendum. The application was deemed acceptable, as officers considered that there was no visual impact on the character of the area, or objections to the proposed reconfiguration of the car park. The application was therefore recommended for approval.

In addition, officers advised that a new red line boundary plan had been received, which the Council was now consulting on. It was therefore further recommended that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to review any complaints resulting from that consultation. 

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

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved; and

2.    That the Head of Planning and Enforcement be granted delegated authority to review any objections resulting from the Council’s consultation on the new red line boundary plan.