Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Telephone 01895 250636 - email (recommended) democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
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. |
|
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. |
|
To sign and receive the minutes of the previous meeting 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. |
|
Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent Decision: None. Minutes: None. |
|
To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in 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. |
|
40 Station Approach, South Ruislip - 27354/APP/2021/1291 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:
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. |
|
72 Harefield Road, Uxbridge - 25767/APP/2021/491 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:
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. |
|
78 Manor Way, Ruislip - 36051/APP/2021/1364 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:
The applicant had submitted a written statement that was read out ahead of the Committee’s debate. Key points raised in the statement included:
|
|
56 Swan Road, West Drayton - 76289/APP/2021/1143 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:
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. |