Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW. View directions
Contact: Steve Clarke 01895 250693
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies had been received from Councillor Allan Kauffman with Councillor David Yarrow substituting. |
|
Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting Minutes: No interests were declared by the Members present.
|
|
To sign and receive the minutes of the previous meeting PDF 167 KB Minutes: RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2021 be approved as a correct record. |
|
Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent Minutes: None. |
|
To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in Minutes: It was confirmed that all items were in Part 1 and would be considered in public. |
|
Land Adjacent to 5 Albert Road, North Hyde Road, Albert Road - 42985/APP/2021/1990 PDF 4 MB Erection of part two storey and part three storey residential building to provide 6 flats with associated landscaping, refuse and cycle storage.
Recommendation: Refusal
Minutes: Officers introduced the report noting that a previous application on this site had been refused in December 2019 and subsequently dismissed on appeal. The application in front of Members was an amended revision of the previous application however officers still considered the proposals to be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and provide limited amenity space for prospective occupiers. The application was recommended for refusal.
A petitioner objecting to the application was present and addressed the Committee. A number of points were raised, including:
Members concurred with the petitioner that this was an overdevelopment of the site and the development was deemed unreasonable in such a prominent position. The officer’s recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED: That the application be refused. |
|
Erection of two semi-detached houses with associated parking.
Recommendation: Approval
Minutes: Officers introduced the item noting that related planning permission had previously been refused in September 2019, however this was subsequently allowed at appeal in February 2021. The application in front of Members was a variation of the permission granted at appeal; the revisions were not deemed to be significant enough to warrant reason for refusal. The application was recommended for approval.
A petition objecting to the development had been received. The lead petitioner’s nominated individual was present and addressed the Committee with their concerns, key points included:
The Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration responded on the drainage matter noting that condition 15 could be strengthened to apply prior to the commencement of said works rather than at the point they reach super structure works. Members echoed concerns of the petitioners that this was a surface run-off area into a stream which fed into Ruislip Lido; Members highlighted the need to prevent potentially polluted water from running into that stream and concurred with officers that condition 15 should be strengthened.
Attention was drawn to the additional bedrooms within the revised proposals; officers highlighted that they could be seen positively as they allow for the dwellings to be family units. It was also noted that the Council’s tree officer was satisfied with the conditions protecting the trees on site which came under a TPO.
The officer’s recommendation, including the agreed strengthening of wording in condition 15, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED:
1) That the application be approved;
2) That the Head of Planning be delegated authority to strengthen the wording of condition 15 relating to drainage. |
|
St Johns School - 10795/APP/2021/1036 PDF 6 MB Subdivision of gatehouse to form two 1-bedroom maisonettes.
Recommendation: Approval
Minutes: Officers introduced the report noting that the building formed part of the school and is therefore unusual for a residential dwelling; officers determined that this was used as part of the school and therefore fell within use class F rather than use class C3. Officers highlighted condition 7 which set out that the units created should be used solely in connection with, and ancillary to, the wide school use of the site.
A petition objecting to the development had been received and the lead petitioner had submitted a written statement that was read out for the Committee ahead of the debate. Key points raised in the statement included:
The applicant was in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points raised included:
Officers addressed the petitioner’s concerns that this would be substandard accommodation; it was highlighted that both of the proposed 1-bedroom flats would be above 50 square metres and would comply fully with national standards. What wouldn’t comply with standards was that the property overall was under 120 square metres, it was highlighted that this was a local policy and the reasons why the application was recommended for approval were set out in the report. ... view the full minutes text for item 24. |
|
56 Swan Road, West Drayton - 76289/APP/2021/1143 PDF 2 MB Single storey rear extension.
Recommendation: Approval
Minutes: Officers introduced the report noting that the proposals were fully compliant with Council policies and it was deemed that there was limited impact on adjoining occupiers. It was noted that concerns had been raised regarding use of the property as an HMO, attention was drawn to the addendum and it was highlighted that the Council’s Licensing team had been made aware of this in April 2020 and were to investigate the matter; the property was not listed as a licensed HMO, however officer’s had included a condition within the recommendations to ensure that the property could not be used as an HMO in future without further express permission from the Local Planning Authority. It was also noted that the property was currently undergoing work to its roof in the form of a hip to gable conversion and a loft extension, this was allowed under permitted development. The application was recommended for approval.
A petition objecting to the development had been received. The lead petitioner was present and addressed the Committee, key points raised included:
Ward Councillor for West Drayton, Councillor Jan Sweeting, had submitted a written statement that was read out in support of the petitioners. Key points included:
Officers highlighted that, should the application not be approved, then the property could be used as an HMO for up to 6 people; if it were approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendations, condition 6 would dictate that the property could not be used as an HMO. Officers ... view the full minutes text for item 25. |
|
Pinner Service Station, High Road - 3689/APP/2021/1392 PDF 4 MB Installation of one Jet Wash to include concrete base and drainage, solid and glazed 2.7m high side screens and fixed electrical jet wash cabinet.
Recommendation: Refusal
Minutes: Officers introduced the report highlighting that the site was within a conservation area and the conservation officer had deemed the proposals to have an unacceptable impact on the conservation area. The application was recommended for refusal.
A petition objecting to the development had been received. The lead petitioner’s nominated individual was present and addressed the Committee with their concerns, key points included:
Members were in agreement with officer’s concerns that the proposals would have a detrimental impact on the conservation area. Further concerns were raised around increasing use of the service station potentially leading to an increase in road traffic accidents due to the busy highway. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED: That the application be refused. |
|
170 Harefield Road - 23469/APP/2020/3612 PDF 6 MB Erection of a 3-bed detached bungalow with habitable roofspace involving parking and amenity space.
Recommendation: Approval
Minutes: The Chairman briefly introduced the item noting that determination of the application had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow for a site visit. It was also noted that the petitioners and agent had used their speaking rights at the previous meeting however, as a Ward Councillor for the site, Councillor Raymond Graham would have the opportunity to address the committee.
Officers drew Members attention to the suggested conditions proposed in the addendum following the site visit; namely that the access road to the site be widened and that the applicant demonstrate that an internet delivery van could turn at the site even when both car parking spaces were occupied to ensure it leaves in a forward gear rather than reversing down the access road.
Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North, Councillor Raymond Graham, was present and addressed the Committee. Key points raised included:
Officers highlighted that the principle of development could not be opposed as it was in an area of the Borough with high levels of backland development. On the matter of the access road, it was noted that London Fire Brigade had been consulted with due to the concerns of residents and specifically highlighted that they had not objected to the proposals.
Officers emphasised the importance of the two additional recommended conditions highlighted in the addendum. It was also noted that the applicant had confirmed through plans that the construction compound would not be on the driveway and would therefore not impede emergency vehicle access during construction, this was also enforced through the officer’s recommended condition 10 relating to the Construction Management Plan. Officers suggested that, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, the original plan be used rather than the revised plan as one of the petitioners’ complaints was that they had not been consulted on the revised plan.
Members discussed the importance of the site visit in giving them clarity on matters around the access road and were supportive of the suggested additional conditions in the addendum which made clear the applicant’s obligations. The officer’s recommendation, including the suggested conditions in the addendum and the advice to use the original Construction Management Plan, was moved, seconded, and when ... view the full minutes text for item 27. |
|
1-6 Station Parade, Ickenham Road - 75568/APP/2021/1151 PDF 7 MB RE-CONSULTATION ON AMENDED PLANS FOR:
Redevelopment of the site including the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 3-storey building to provide 2 retail units on the ground floor and 8 residential units (Class C3 use) on the upper floors, with associated car parking, refuse storage, cycle storage and private amenities areas.
Recommendation: Approval + Section 106
Minutes: Officers introduced the report noting that, after revisions to the original plans had been made, officers deemed the application to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the street scene, impact on adjoining occupiers and the facilities that it provided. The recommendation was for approval.
Members were supportive of the plans and sought clarification on what amenity space would be available for the eight residential units. Officers confirmed that in residential units above retail space, ground floor amenity space was not required however, balconies were proposed to provide amenity space. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved. |