Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Gohil with Councillor Ahmad-Wallana substituting.

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Gohil with Councillor Ahmad-Wallana substituting.

Councillor Tuckwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 11 as he had an interest in a property on Norwich Road; he withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the vote.

Councillor Tuckwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 11 as he had an interest in a property on Norwich Road and had absented himself from an associated application on a previous occasion; he withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the vote.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 06 April and 12 May 2022 be approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 06 April and 12 May 2022 be approved as a correct record.

The Chairman highlighted that Item 8 had been withdrawn from the meeting’s agenda.

The Chairman highlighted that Item 8 had been withdrawn from the meeting’s agenda.

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in public.

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in public.

Reserved matters (landscaping, layout, scale and appearance) in compliance with Condition 1 of Inspector's Decision Letter dated 01/02/2021, Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/W/20/3253781 (LPA Ref: 30837/APP/2019/3096) (Erection of 3 x 4-bed dwellings with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover)

Recommendation: Approval

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

Reserved matters (landscaping, layout, scale and appearance) in compliance with Condition 1 of Inspector's Decision Letter dated 01/02/2021, Appeal Reference: APP/R5510/W/20/3253781 (LPA Ref: 30837/APP/2019/3096) (Erection of 3 x 4-bed dwellings with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover)

Officers introduced the application and delivered a presentation to the Committee. It was highlighted that the principle of development had already been established at appeal by the Secretary of State and therefore the matters in front of the Committee for consideration were those of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping. Following negotiations between the applicant and officers, revised drawings of the proposals had been submitted to address concerns raised by the Council’s Conservation Officer and Landscape Officer associated with the front protrusion of the dwellings, the bulk of the crown roof profiles on plots 2 and 3, alterations to the front elevations of plots 2 and 3, a reduction to the front projection of plot 1, the removal of proposed Tuscan porches, and changes to the external finishes on plots 1 and 3. Officers were satisfied that the proposed amendments had satisfactorily addressed the points raised by the Inspector in the appeal decision. Officers recommended that the application be approved subject to the proposed conditions within the officer’s report. Members’ attention was also drawn to the addendum which clarified that the planning obligations had been secured as part of the Unilateral Undertaking secured as part of the outline consent.

It was noted that the dwelling on plot 1 would be accessed of Firs Walk and the dwellings on plots 2 and 3 would be accessed from Foxdell. Officers highlighted that the proposed access matters could not be reconsidered as part of this reserved matters application due to these being improved and determined by the Inspector at appeal.

It was also highlighted that the Dene Road Area of Special Local Character (ASLC) was situated to the north of the site and the application site itself did not come under the ASLC. The site was not covered by a Tree Protection Order although it was noted that the rear boundaries of No.6 and No.5 adjoined TPO 260 and TPO 481 respectively. An arboricultural impact assessment, method statement, tree constraints plan and tree plan had been submitted with the application with the Council’s Landscape Officer raising no objections. 15 new trees would be planted which would help to soften and integrate the site into the surrounding context.

Officers noted that, in light of the amendments made to the scheme, the overall layout, appearance and landscaping of the development would be of a high quality and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the local area. The proposals were therefore deemed to be in accordance with policies DMHB1, DMHB 5, DMHB 11 and DMHB 12 of the Local Plan, and policies D1, D3, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan.

In terms of impact on neighbouring properties, it was noted that there would a separation distance of approximately 7 metres between  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of new 1.5 storey building containing 2 dwellings, parking and associated facilities

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of new 1.5 storey building containing 2 dwellings, parking and associated facilities

Officers introduced the item and highlighted that the application was a resubmission following the refusal of a previous application at the Minor Applications Planning Committee in September 2021. It was noted that the application form stated that permission was being sought for 3 dwellings, however the submitted drawings showed proposals for 2 semi-detached dwellings; it was confirmed that officers had assessed the application based on the submitted drawings of 2 semi-detached dwellings.

Officers recommended that the application be refused and had given 7 reasons for refusal in their report. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum whereby the second refusal reason had been amended to include reference to perceive “and actual” loss of privacy for neighbouring residential occupiers. Officers deemed that the attempted revisions made by the applicant since the previous application was refused had not satisfactorily addressed their concerns.

A petition had been received objecting to the application. By way of written submission, the petitioners highlighted their reasons for submitting a petition in objection, including:

• That they were the tenant of the shop at 78 High Street, to the front of the site, as well as the tenant of the flat above.
• There would be an adverse impact on neighbouring residential occupiers as a result of the proposals.
• The development would offer sub-standard accommodation for future occupiers, and
• That there would be an adverse impact on the surrounding Area of Special Local Character.
• They were in agreement with officer’s reasons for recommending refusal of the application.

The Committee agreed that some development was required for the site, particularly the rear of the site which was in disrepair, but indicated that the proposals in front of them were not a suitable form of development.

Members highlighted the unacceptable layout with specific reference to the refuse store arrangements whereby the adjacent occupier would need to walk past their neighbour’s ground floor window to access the refuse store. Officers noted that refusal reason 3, by way of it mentioning a contrived layout, went some way in addressing the concerns around refuse storage arrangements, however officers were happy to amend the reason to include specific reference to refuse arrangements.

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

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be refused;

2)    That refusal reason 2 be amended as per the addendum; and

3)    That refusal reason 3 be amended to include specific reference to the unacceptable refuse storage arrangements.

Two storey side extension and two storey rear extension involving demolition of existing garage and erection of an outbuilding to be used as home gym/home office

Recommendation: Approval

This item had been withdrawn prior to the meeting.

This item had been withdrawn prior to the meeting.

Change of use from Use Class E (Commercial, Business and Service) to a Nail Parlour (Sui Generis)

Recommendation: Approval

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

Change of use from Use Class E (Commercial, Business and Service) to a Nail Parlour (Sui Generis)

Officers introduced the application highlighting that the site was situated within the Ruislip Village Conservation Area. The proposed change of use to a nail parlour was considered to be complimentary to the variety of shops and services in the parade and was deemed to not result in an excessive cluster or overconcentration of nail parlours in the town centre. Officer’s recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the officer’s report.

A petition had been submitted objecting to the application; the lead petitioner was present and addressed the Committee. Key points included:

• The proposed change of use would lead to an overconcentration of nail salons on Ruislip High Street.
• The application was sited directly across the street from the petitioner’s own nail salon which had been in business since 2003; the addition of a new nail salon, when there were already a number of similar establishments within the vicinity, would have a detrimental effect on business.
• There was insufficient footfall along Ruislip High Street to accommodate for a further nail salon, especially in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic which had dramatically impacted business.

The agent for the application had submitted a written statement which was read out for the Committee. Key points raised included:

• Ruislip High Street was a versatile and vibrant retail location with an array of business and often multiple establishments operating similar completing businesses successfully.
• The primary concerns raised by the petitioners pertained to the opening of a competing business within the same vicinity which was not deemed a material planning matter.
• It was the applicants right to choose a suitable location to start their new business.

The Committee sympathised with the petitioner and their situation however it was understood that the primary concerns raised in their petition were not material planning matters and therefore could not be considered when determining the application before them. Members noted that there were 7 vacant units along Ruislip High Street and the Committee were in a position to improve the vibrancy of the shopping parade.

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

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

Part single, part two-storey rear extension (following demolition of rear conservatory); replacement of front garage door with window; new first floor windows on front and rear elevations; new ground and first floor side elevation windows; and rear patio.

Recommendation: Approval

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

Part single, part two-storey rear extension (following demolition of rear conservatory); replacement of front garage door with window; new first floor windows on front and rear elevations; new ground and first floor side elevation windows; and rear patio

Officers introduced the application noting that an application for a rear extension had previously been refused due to its scale and design; however, it was highlighted that the previous design differed significantly from the application in front of Members for determination. The revised proposals were deemed to mitigate any impact upon neighbouring residents. It was highlighted that the site was close to but not within the Eastcote Village Conservation Area. The application was recommended for approval.

The Chairman noted that the application had been called in by a local Ward Councillor to be determined by the Committee. Members expressed their support for the proposals in light of the changes made since the previously refused application and saw no reason not to approve.

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

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

Recommendation:

That TPO 794 is Confirmed

RESOLVED: That the TPO be confirmed.

Before the commencement of this item, Councillor Tuckwell removed himself from the room. Councillor Tuckwell did not take part in the vote on this item.

Officers introduced the item noting that the silver birch tree in question was highly visible from Cranbourne Road and significantly contributed to the amenity and arboreal character of the area. Officers recommended that the Tree Protection Order be confirmed.

Members were in agreement with the officer’s report. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the TPO be confirmed.