Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

None.

Councillor Allan Kauffman declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 10  54A Edwards Avenue, Ruislip (34282/APP/2021/1682) as he had prior involvement with residents regarding the site. He did not vote and left the room during discussion of the item.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting on 30 September 2021 be approved as an accurate record.

None.

It was confirmed that items 1 – 10  were marked Part I and would be considered in public.

Single storey rear extension

Recommendation: Approval

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

Single storey rear extension

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval.

The Committee was informed that the petitioner had confirmed by email that they would not be attending the meeting as the plan had been revised to remove the second story on the rear extension.

By way of written submission, the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee. It was submitted that the planning permission request had reduced from a double storey rear extension to a single due to complaints from neighbouring properties. The single storey rear extension complied with policy DMHD 1 and the material used would be like the existing dwelling. It was further submitted that there would be no impact on the Green belt as the proposal was not a disproportionate addition to the original property. The proposal matched the depth of the neighbour’s existing conservatory and would not have an adverse impact on the neighbour’s residential amenity.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

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

Erection of 2 x two-storey, 4-bedroom detached dwellings, associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossovers

Recommendation: Approval

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

Erection of 2 x two-storey, 4-bedroom detached dwellings, associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossovers

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner in objection of the application addressed the Committee and referred to photographs and a presentation that had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting. The main issues for objecting to the application were detailed in the presentation and related to conflict with the local character of the area, loss of amenity due to the removal of trees, lack of vehicle turning circle on proposed plans leading to an unsafe and dangerous situation, insufficient parking, objection to new access via Portman Gardens and excess traffic caused by construction. It was submitted that the proposals were not in keeping with of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) Policy DMH 6 The proposals would establish the unwelcome precedent of other sites being developed in the same way. Although the officer’s report had indicated that Portman Gardens was devoid of parking control, this was incorrect and the report had been based on inaccurate information. There was no justifiable requirement to make access via Portman Gardens as the property could be accessed from the access point on Sweetcroft Lane. The residents agreed that some development to the property should be carried out but within the access to the property from Sweetcroft Lane. As part of the external consultation, 28 properties had been consulted, there had been 32 individual objections against the development and the petition had 44 signatures from residents. The Committee was asked to put residents first.

By way of written submission, the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee. It was submitted that the National Planning Policy Framework encouraged the effective use of land and the use of previously developed vacant under-utilised sites to be maximised. At a local level, the plan provided support to the housing provision. Previous concerns that had been raised were now addressed in terms of the quantum of development, the design, layout, siting and the impact the homes would have on the character and appearance of the ASLC. A number of amendments to the application had been made to the roof form, windows and removal of balconies. The applicant/agent had worked closely with officers to maintain the development pattern and character. The existing narrow and long access from Sweetcroft Lane would be closed and new access provided by extending the existing highway at Portman Gardens. Officers had confirmed that the new access, car parking, layout, cycle parking and servicing were all acceptable and did not raise any safety concerns. Further, the internal layouts complied with the floor area standards, there would also be a landscape buffer and the development would not result in any concerns relating to the loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight to any of the neighbouring properties.

Councillor David Yarrow, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North addressed the Committee and supported the points raised by the petitioner. This was an emotive application effecting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Single storey rear extension and part first floor rear extension

Recommendation: Approval

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

Single storey rear extension and part first floor rear extension

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner in objection of the application addressed the Committee and submitted that the application was not a true reflection of what had already been built and what was intended. On 4 August 2021, planning consent for the application was granted on the premises that the Council would be able to gain control of the property. It was alleged that since then, the applicant had deviated from the two previously approved planning applications, acted without permission and breached planning rules. The petitioner referred the Committee to photographs that had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting and explained the significance of each photo. Scant regard had been taken of the conditions in the planning consent regarding the use of materials and there had been no adherence to the regulated hours of work. It was explained that the extension to 60 Swan Road had been built entirely on the curtilage of its own land and the original dwelling was much smaller in size. The proposed extension would overscale a neighbouring property and there were also no residents effected by the development at 60 Swan Road due to its location. There was continuous intimidation by the applicant towards the petition organiser especially whilst collecting signatures for the petition. The Committee was asked to make a choice of what was right and what is easy.

It was noted that there was an enforcement case open on the site and additional issues would be communicated to the team. However, the Committee was advised to focus on planning matters and not matters falling outside of the scope of planning, such as building regulation related issues. 

The agent for the application addressed the Committee and submitted that the works were in construction further to previously approved planning permission. The proposal had been designed taking into account Hillingdon Council residential policies.  The extension had no overbearing issues affecting adjoining and neighbouring properties. The flat roof helped to mitigate any overshadowing and there were no breaches in terms of windows and overlooking. The proposal complied with parking policies and the application had been assessed by planning officers. The application would not detract from the character of the area, the works would be a proportionate addition to the dwelling and there would be no harm caused to neighbouring properties. Overall, it was submitted that the proposed development to the property would result in good internal living conditions.  It was reiterated that similar extensions had already been approved and built on the road, and the proposal would be in keeping with the surrounding area.

Councillor Jan Sweeting, Ward Councillor for West Drayton addressed the Committee by way of written submissions. Councillor Sweeting fully supported the residents' petition and submitted that the applications had been dealt with in an aggressive manner by the applicant.  There had been no regard to rules and the Committee was referred to photographs that had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Change of use from a tyre fitting centre to a mixed-use tyre fitting and MOT test centre (sui generis use)

Recommendation: Approval

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

Change of use from a tyre fitting centre to a mixed-use tyre fitting and MOT test centre (sui generis use)

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

During Member discussions, it was noted that enforcement would be asked to investigate in respect of the canopy. Concerns were raised regarding traffic levels and it was acknowledged that traffic on the site would increase. However, the additional fencing around the site perimeter would increase the safety of pedestrians mitigating the traffic increase. It was agreed that condition 7 would be amended such that the required operational management plan would also include measures to minimise vehicle trips to the site.

Councillor Allan Kauffman left the room during the discussion of this item and did not take part in the vote.

The officer’s recommendation, with the amendment to condition 7 was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation, the additional information in the addendum and the amendment to condition 7.

Installation of front brick wall and timber panelling

Recommendation: Approval

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

Installation of front brick wall and timber panelling

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval. It was noted that four representations had been received in objection to the proposal with concerns that the property would be converted into a HMO. However, Members were advised that this application related solely to the replacement boundary. A subsequent representation had also been raised prior to the Committee raising concerns with boundary issues, however these were not material planning considerations. Disputes in relation to boundaries had to be managed privately. Informative eight of the report highlighted that planning permission did not override property rights.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

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