Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Farhad Choubedar with Councillor Philip Corthorne substituting.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 14 February 2023 be agreed as an accurate record.

None.

It was confirmed that all items of business were marked Part I and would be considered in public.

Change of use from former Police Station (sui generis) to mixed use place of worship (Class F.1) and community centre (Class F.2), along with minor alterations to car park layout.

(Re-Consultation: Expired on 4th November 2022)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Change of use from former Police Station (sui generis) to mixed use place of worship (Class F.1) and community centre (Class F.2), along with minor alterations to car park layout.

Officers presented the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was noted that the application sought the change of use of a Grade II listed building situated in a Conservation Area.  The schedule of existing and proposed activities, together with the likely busiest periods and the estimated numbers of cars which would use the site were highlighted to Members. It was noted that the building had a physical capacity of 292 people and a sanitary capacity of approximately 200. It was anticipated that 100 people would be on site at the busiest times.

Officers had raised concerns in relation to parking stress, traffic, the lack of sustainable transport and air quality hence the application was recommended for refusal on the following grounds:

1. Unacceptable impact on highways safety;

2. Unacceptable impact on air quality; and

3. Failure to secure mitigation through a S106 legal agreement by virtue of recommendation for refusal.

A petition in objection to the scheme had been received and the lead petitioner addressed the Committee. Key points raised included:

·       Petitioners’ objections were based purely on the grounds of traffic congestion, noise and air pollution;

·       Volume of traffic in Northwood was already an issue and the proposed change of use would have a major impact on traffic congestion, safety and the health of all Northwood residents;

·       The Iron Aid Foundation (IAF) had stated that the premises would be in use from dawn until almost midnight. 100+ attendees were expected to attend some events including Friday prayers and festivals. Seven rooms would be available for rental for other activities;

·       The Iron Aid Foundation claimed that up to 50 staff had previously worked at the police station. In reality, only 6 members of staff had worked out of Northwood Police Station at one time;

·       Northwood Police Station had never been a 24 hour Police facility hence a Police telephone box had been placed outside with an out of hours connection to Uxbridge Police Station;

·       Drop off and pick up at the premises would result in major congestion in a restricted parking zone;

·       It was likely that drop off / pick up drivers would come into conflict with shoppers using the Waitrose car park opposite the entrance to the Police Station car park;

·       Crossing the busy junction would be dangerous;

·       The IAF had been worshipping at St John’s Church in Hallowell Road for over 10 years without any impact on the community but the proposed site  was within the central conservation area;

·       If granted, the proposal would lead to an increase in air pollution;

·       Northwood town centre was at saturation point with heavy traffic and was about to get worse due to the large number of apartment blocks planned / being built.

The applicant and agent for the application were in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

Internal alterations and repairs including relevant works. Reinstatement and repair works to windows, doors, police lamp and call box (Application for Listed Building Consent). 

(Re-Consultation: Expired on 4th November 2022)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Internal alterations and repairs including relevant works. Reinstatement and repair works to windows, doors, police lamp and call box (application for listed building consent)

Officers presented the application which was recommended for refusal. It was noted that the application site was Grade II Listed and formed part of the Green Lane Conservation Area.

A petition had been received in support of the application. The lead petitioner and the agent addressed the Committee. Key points raised included:

·       The interior of the building was in an extremely poor condition.

·       The application for Listed Building Consent only related to the minimal internal alterations needed in relation to the change of use.

·       The applicant intended to fully refurbish the building.

·       Less than substantial harm had been identified by officers.

·       Officers were satisfied that sufficient public benefits outweighed the harm.

·       It was only because of the earlier refusal that this application was also being refused.

·       The applicant was aware that taking on a listed building was not for the faint-hearted.

·       Pre-application advice had been taken and the proposals had been amended accordingly - the congregation would be split into smaller units and events staggered. Internal alterations had been minimised and no external alterations were proposed.

·       Under the proposal the lamp and call box would be re-installed.

Members noted that the application was linked to the previous one which had been refused. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Demolition of existing buildings and replacement with up to 2.5 storey extension to main building to provide 4 self-contained flats and redevelopment of existing coach house building to provide 1 maisonette unit with associated parking, cycle and bin storage, and landscape works.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

1.    That delegated authority be granted to the Planning Service Manager, in consultation with the Chairman, to tweak the conditions in relation to landscaping to ensure verdancy and the condition regarding materials to ensure permeability; and

2.    That the application be approved.

Demolition of existing buildings and replacement with up to 2.5 Storey extension to main building to provide 4 self-contained flats and redevelopment of existing coach house building to provide 1 maisonette unit with associated parking, cycle and bin storage, and landscape works.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information set out in the addendum. It was considered that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would not unduly impact the living conditions of neighbouring properties. The proposal would provide 16 car parking spaces, seven of which would be allocated to the existing flats at the site. The application was recommended for approval.

A petition had been submitted in objection to the application. The Lead Petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee highlighting the following points:

·       The application site was located in an Area of Special Local Character (ASLC). The Heritage report described the special local characteristics of Dene Road ASLC as comprising detached houses set back from the road with large gardens, a verdant appearance and mature trees in profusion. This ASLC was about the front gardens – shrubs, trees and green features of quality.

·       The front garden of Tormead currently had trees in abundance. The application plan sought to cut down the hedge, fell 13 trees at the front and turn the current small car park into a 16-space car park.

·       The building site next door to Tormead was an ecological disaster zone. Residents did not want to see the same happen at Tormead.

·       The Council’s policies set out the need to conserve ASLCs and protect bio-diversity to support changes to adapt to climate change and encourage the development of wildlife corridors. Dene Road was already such a wildlife corridor and needed protection.

·       A suggested solution was to install the new parking spaces in the basement. The current front garden could then be retained.

The agent was in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·       The proposal sought to deliver 4 3-bed units and a 2-bed flat – a net gain of 4 homes.

·       The proposal had been developed in consultation with planning officers and a Conservation Officer. It had taken account of officer’s feedback and had resulted in a heritage-led sympathetically designed scheme with no loss of good quality trees. Verdancy would be very much maintained.

·       The proposal would make better use of an underutilised site and would make a positive contribution to meet the Borough’s housing needs.

·       It would not impact adversely on neighbouring amenity and would offer high quality accommodation, an abundance of attractive amenity space and sufficient on-site parking.

·       The extension’s footprint would be comparable to the current and represented a modest and subservient addition to Tormead. Space standards would be exceeded.

·       The proposal would sustain the current listing status.

·       Planning conditions would be accepted including obscure windows to account for neighbouring amenity.

In response to Members’ questions, the agent confirmed that verdancy would be maintained as per the proposed landscaping  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

Erection of new 3-bedroom bungalow with dormers and roof lights serving accommodation in the roof on land to the front of existing dwelling; garden and bike stores in garden.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of new 3-bedroom bungalow with dormers and roof lights serving accommodation in the roof on land to the front of existing dwelling; garden and bike stores in garden.

Officers introduced the application which was recommended for refusal. The application followed a previous application which had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The current application was recommended for refusal as it was felt it would form an uncharacteristic, cramped and incongruous form of development which would obscure the host dwelling, reduce openness and fail to harmonise with the character of the area and the street scene. It was also felt that the proposal would give rise to harmful overlooking and loss of privacy between the proposed dwelling and numbers 170 and 172 Harefield Road.

A petition in objection to the development had been received. The lead petitioner addressed the Committee highlighting the following key points:

·       Residents were concerned that the properties would effectively disappear from the street scene due to the gradient of the road.

·       Nos. 217 and 215 across the road had been offset to ensure they did not look at each other and it was important they did not lose their outlook.

·       Numbers 172, 170a and 170b shared the driveway and in excess of 7 vehicles a day could use it. This raised a concern in terms of road safety as there was a blind bend when exiting.

·       The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site and the  current infrastructure was inadequate.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee and highlighted the following points:

·       The applicant had amended the scheme in accordance with the inspector’s comments.

·       The inspector had been satisfied that the siting of the dwelling would not be uncharacteristic, and the sub-division of the site would not be harmful to the appearance of the area.

·       The inspector had concluded that limited separation to side and rear boundaries would cause the dwelling to appear cramped but the harm arising from the obscuring of 170 and 172 Harefield Road would be modest. Harm to the area would also be modest.

·       To address the inspector’s concerns, the proposal had been reduced in width, depth and height. Separation distances had been increased and the roof height reduced by 1m. The building footprint had been reduced by 14% and the internal floor area would be 26% less than the previous scheme.

·       The new proposal would be more in keeping with the street scene. 

·       The lounge doors would be set 21.4m away from the front of the attached garage to no.170.

·       Planting would minimise overlooking. The garden to the proposed dwelling had been increased in size and now provided 43 square metres more than the Hillingdon standard.

·       There was now adequate space to the front of numbers 170 and 172 to provide additional planting if required.

·       The site had been separated from no. 170 and did not form part of the front garden therefore should be considered as undeveloped land.

·       All concerns of the inspector had been addressed. If refused,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

Erection of no. 4 x two storey terraced houses and no.2 x two storey semi-detached houses, with associated car parking and landscaping works.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Erection of no.4 x two storey terraced houses and no.2 x two storey semi-detached houses, with associated car parking and landscaping works.

Officers introduced the application which was recommended for approval. The application was a re-submission following the lapse of the previously granted planning permission. It was noted that the garden sizes for plots 4 and 5 fell short of private amenity standards; however, this was deemed to be acceptable given the proximity of a public park and children’s playground.

In response to their queries, Members heard that some weight had been given to the previous submission which had now lapsed. The current application had been assessed against current policy. It was confirmed that there was sufficient room in the access road for two cars to pass each other safely. In terms of materials, Members were informed that materials would be conditioned to match as closely as possible those of the existing houses in the same section of Sullivan Crescent.

Members welcomed the increase in family dwellings. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and when put to a vote unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.