Agenda, decisions and minutes

Minor Applications Planning Committee
Wednesday, 4th August, 2021 6.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Telephone 01895 250636 - email (recommended)  democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

29.

Apologies for Absence

Decision:

Apologies had been received from Councillor Mohinder Birah with Councillor Jagjit Singh substituting.

Minutes:

Apologies had been received from Councillor Mohinder Birah with Councillor Jagjit Singh substituting.

30.

Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

Decision:

No interests were declared by the Members present.

Minutes:

No interests were declared by the Members present.

31.

To sign and receive the minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 151 KB

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2021 be approved as a correct record.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2021 be approved as a correct record.

32.

Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent

Decision:

None.

Minutes:

None.

33.

To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in
Public and that the items marked Part 2 will be considered in private

Decision:

It was confirmed that all items were in Part 1 and would be considered in public.

Minutes:

It was confirmed that all items were in Part 1 and would be considered in public.

34.

40 Station Approach, South Ruislip - 27354/APP/2021/1291 pdf icon PDF 335 KB

Erection of a three-storey building comprising a dental surgery and 6 residential units (3 no. 1-bed units, 1 no. 3-bed unit and 2 no. 2-bed units), car and cycle parking and associated works, temporary permission for the siting of a modular building to the rear of the site for use as a dental surgery during the demolition of the existing dental surgery and construction of the proposed dental surgery.

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Minutes:

Erection of a three-storey building comprising a dental surgery and 6 residential units (3 no. 1-bed units, 1 no. 3-bed unit and 2 no. 2-bed units), car and cycle parking and associated works, temporary permission for the siting of a modular building to the rear of the site for use as a dental surgery during the demolition of the existing dental surgery and construction of the proposed dental surgery.

 

Officers introduced the application noting that a previous related application had been refused on the basis of its size and scale, particularly the design of roof elements, and the loss of a family unit on site. The application in front of Members was a revised version of the previous application which had been reduced in size and amended to include a family unit on the ground floor. With the proposed changes and given that other developments on the surrounding roads had no real cohesive design properties, officers deemed the application to be acceptable. The application was recommended for approval. It was noted that whilst the proposed building works would take place, dental surgery facilities would continue to be provided on the site by means of a temporary building.

 

A petition had been received objecting to the development however the lead petitioner was not present. The applicant was in attendance and addressed the Committee. A number of points were raised, including:

 

  • The applicant had worked proactively over the last year with officers in delivering an application that was policy compliant and could be recommended for approval by officers.

 

  • A number of proposed benefits to the surrounding area were outlined as a result of the application including six residential units, a dental surgery on the ground floor to reaccommodate the existing surgery in an improved space and ample cycle and car parking for residents.

 

  • The developer had worked with the dental surgery from the early conceptual stage to ensure that the space met their needs and standards.

 

  • It was noted that the development met national space standards as well as providing both shared and private amenity space which exceeded the London Plan requirement.

 

  • The site was accessible to local amenities including shops, services and good transport links and was deemed an accessible brownfield location appropriate for redevelopment.

 

Councillor Steve Tuckwell, Ward Councillor for South Ruislip, was present and addressed the Committee. A number of points were raised, including:

 

·         It was highlighted that the officer’s recommendation to approve the application had only materialised following significant design changes to the scheme which were driven from a combination of a residents’ petition and the previous diligence of the Committee.

 

·         Removing what was effectively the fourth floor and setting back the third floor facing Northolt Avenue were welcome design changes that were seen to improve the design of this prominent corner plot in a key part of South Ruislip. The three-bedroom apartment was also welcomed.

 

·         The proposed roof garden was considered a token external amenity space and not respectful of the neighbouring roof configuration.

 

·         Concerns were raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

35.

72 Harefield Road, Uxbridge - 25767/APP/2021/491 pdf icon PDF 286 KB

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of building to provide 6 x 2-bed and 3 x 3-bed flats with associated parking and amenity space

 

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Minutes:

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of building to provide 6 x 2-bed and 3 x 3-bed flats with associated parking and amenity space.

 

Officers introduced the item noting that the principle of the development was deemed acceptable, but issues arose from the scheme’s design and impact on adjoining occupiers. The design was not deemed compatible with the surrounding properties, although it was noted to have taken some design cues from the adjacent property, the front gables and roof had significant differences and the rear element of the scheme, particularly the depth of extension and a very large crown roof, specifically warranted reason for refusal by way of it’s impact on adjoining occupiers. The application was recommended for refusal.

 

Two petitions objecting to the development had been received. The lead petitioners’ nominated individual was present and addressed the Committee with their concerns, key points included:

 

  • It was highlighted that of the two petitions objecting to the proposals, the ePetition had received 83 signatures and the paper petition had received 60. Further to this, there had been 28 letters of objection, it was noted that this was a strongly opposed development locally.

 

  • Petitioners acknowledged the officers recommended reasons for refusal and alluded to further areas of concern which could be considered as reasons for refusal.

 

  • On car parking, the location of 10 of the 12 parking spaces was highlighted as a major concern being proposed at the back of the property adjacent to residential gardens. It was deemed a small car park being placed directly in the middle of a residential area. On this subject, further concerns were raised around air quality around the adjacent gardens and the adverse impact that 12 cars would have.

 

  • 12 extra vehicles would contribute to traffic congestion in the local area, specifically on a section of Harefield Road that is often subject to congestion pressures. It was specifically noted that there were already three junctions leading onto Harefield Road, the development would effectively add a fourth with 12 vehicles manoeuvring in and out of the car park.

 

  • With regard to the impact the development would have on the daylight and sunlight levels of adjacent properties, it was noted that the height of the building would block the view of sunsets from a number of properties on Cambridge Road and Fairfield Road.

 

  • It was noted that proposed balconies would project over the adjacent back gardens prompting concerns over noise and nuisance.

 

The applicant was also present and addressed the Committee, key points raised included:

 

·         The application in front of Members was a result of extensive consultation with planning officers and the original plans had been submitted by way of the pre-application advice service. Feedback from the pre-application process resulted in several design changes including reducing the rear projection of the building and amending the original tiled pitched roof to a crown roof with a dummy pitch. The applicant was surprised to see that the recommendation was for refusal given what was seen as the necessary alterations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

36.

78 Manor Way, Ruislip - 36051/APP/2021/1364 pdf icon PDF 241 KB

Proposed raised patio and fencing

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Minutes:

Proposed raised patio and fencing.

 

Officers drew Members’ attention to the addendum where it was noted that a petition had been received objecting to the application since the agenda had been published. Officers introduced the report noting that under permitted development, patios can be constructed in the garden area up to a height 30cm. The application granted in 2019 was for a single storey extension and a raised patio of just over 30cm, when the patio area was constructed it was raised to just over 50cm which had led to the application in front of Members which would reduce that patio area to 40cm in height. Officers deemed that a refusal reason based on overlooking could not be justified. The application was recommended for approval.

 

A petition objecting to the development had been received following the publication of the meeting’s agenda. The lead petitioner was present and addressed the Committee. Key points that were raised included:

 

  • Concerns were raised over the applicant exceeding the permitted height of the raised patio on their previous planning application and stated that there must be specific circumstances for exceeding the permitted height of 30cm.

 

  • The petitioner had concerns around overlooking and the intrusion of privacy into their property as a result of the raised patio. It was noted that the fence and trellis only came up to many peoples’ chest height, allowing them to easily view into the neighbouring property.

 

  • The petitioner’s measurements had the height of the existing patio at closer to 60cm, almost twice the height of permitted development and questioned the real-world impact of only lowering the patio by a relatively small amount. Concerns were raised over the prospect of future applications being given leeway to exceed their permitted development rights. A number of similar refused applications were noted.

 

  • It was noted that, due to the elevation of people when out on the patio, noise disturbance was an issue.

 

  • It was highlighted that the report mentioned that proposals would lessen the likelihood of overlooking not prevent it. The reduction in the height of the patio and the proposed 2m fencing would do very little to prevent overlooking.

 

  • The report implied that a decision to refuse the application may not hold up at appeal, however the 28 residents who had signed the petition over the preceding weekend would disagree.

 

The applicant had submitted a written statement that was read out ahead of the Committee’s debate. Key points raised in the statement included:

 

  • The applicant had very recently been made aware of the petition objecting to the retrospective application. Unfortunately, due to a pre booked holiday, they were unable to attend the meeting to put across their views and had therefore submitted a written statement.

 

  • It was noted that officers had recommended the application be approved however, should the Committee have been minded to refuse the application, it was requested that the item instead be deferred to allow the applicant to attend the meeting in person to put across their views.

 

37.

56 Swan Road, West Drayton - 76289/APP/2021/1143 pdf icon PDF 252 KB

Single storey rear extension

 

Recommendations: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Minutes:

Single storey rear extension.

 

Officers introduced the report noting that determination of the application had previously been deferred for the purpose of conducting a site visit; this site visit took place on 13 July. Members attention was drawn to the addendum sheet where correspondence had been received from the lead petitioner objecting to the application where they had reiterated concerns around loss of light and that the cumulative impact of the proposed extension and the loft conversion should be taken into account and that similar extensions in equivalent properties were not comparable as they didn’t have an outrigger. The objector had also commented on the requirement for a shadowing diagram, it was confirmed that, although Members did discuss the issue of shadowing diagrams at the previous meeting, no formal request was made for the production of such a diagram. It was noted that a shadowing diagram was not a requirement for householder applications and if one had been produced, it would not have added any new information for Members given that they had visited the site in person. Officers highlighted that a potential reason for refusal based on overshadowing would be unlikely to be sustained at appeal. The application was recommended for approval.

 

Ward Councillor for West Drayton, Councillor Jan Sweeting, had submitted a written statement objecting to the application which was read out ahead of the Committee’s debate. Key points included:

 

  • It was highlighted that the proposed development, together with the loft extension, would have a detrimental impact on the adjacent dwelling at 54 Swan Road. There would be a reduction in natural light to the main rear reception room and the extension would create an enclosed courtyard effect to the outdoor amenity space.

 

  • It was noted that the issue of overshadowing was discussed at length by the Committee at their previous meeting and the lack of a shadowing diagram was highlighted as it was believed that this would have clarified the issue.

 

  • Further concerns were raised as to the use of the property as an HMO; it was highlighted that the Covid-19 pandemic had hindered officers’ ability to properly investigate the property during 2020. The applicant had stated the property was a family home, when it was felt it was likely being used as an unlicensed HMO.

 

  • It was requested that if the Committee were minded to approve the application, that conditions be put in place restricting the property from being used as an HMO.

 

The Chairman reiterated to the Committee that the permitted loft extension development was not part of the application and therefore should not be considered. It was also highlighted that within the officer’s recommendations was a condition stipulating that the property could not be used as an HMO without further express permission from the Local Planning Authority.

 

The Committee noted that the site visit had aided Members in garnering clarity regarding the application. It was highlighted that the condition relating to restricting the property’s use as an HMO was very important to alleviate a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.