Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Choubedar and Sansarpuri with Councillor Corthorne substituting for Councillor Choubedar.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Choubedar and Sansarpuri with Councillor Corthorne substituting for Councillor Choubedar.

Councillor Mand declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6 as a Pinkwell Ward Councillor who had engaged with residents petitioning against the application. He recused himself from the room for the duration of the item and did not take part in the vote.

Councillor Corthorne declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 10 as a he had previously spoken against related applications for the site. He recused himself from the room for the duration of the item and did not take part in the vote.

Councillor Mand declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6 as a Pinkwell Ward Councillor who had engaged with residents petitioning against the application. He recused himself from the room for the duration of the item and did not take part in the vote.

Councillor Corthorne declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 10 as he had previously spoken against related applications for the site. He recused himself from the room for the duration of the item and did not take part in the vote.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 12 July 2023 be approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 12 July 2023 be approved as a correct record.

There were none.

There were none.

It was confirmed that all items of business were marked Part 1 and would be considered in public.

It was confirmed that all items of business were marked Part 1 and would be considered in public.

Demolition of existing lock-up garages and construction of 4 no. 2-bedroom houses.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Before the start of this item, Councillor Mand recused himself from the room.

Officers delivered a detailed presentation summarising the application and highlighted that the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report.

A petition had been received objecting to the proposals. The petition organiser was present and addressed the Committee. Key points raised in their address included:

·         There were serious concerns raised over the impact that the proposals would have regarding the privacy and overlooking of residents on Cranford Drive, specifically with regard to the close proximity of the two storey buildings being proposed. Petitioners felt that this was in breach of policy DMH 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. There were also concerns raised that the new properties would overlook the adjacent public amenity space.

·         It was highlighted that various trees in the gardens of current residents would be encroaching on the proposed 1.5m wide alleyway to be shared by the occupants of the new development. It was felt that this could lead to conflict between neighbours and that there would be a constant flow of people within the small alleyway.

·         The petitioner noted that there would be an unacceptable loss of daylight/sunlight impacting neighbouring residential amenities. Further to this, numbers 178 and 180 had small extensions when compared to other properties which made the daylight/sunlight impact more substantial for the other properties.

·         The removal of trees was of concern and their replacement would take a significant amount of time to mature. The distance between the development and the motorway was around 40m and the trees were significant in providing greenery and mitigating noise emanating from the motorway.

·         There were concerns regarding the increase in traffic and noise on what was already a busy road in close proximity to Cranford Park Academy.

·         The Committee were encouraged to conduct a site visit to see the parameters of the site first hand and understand why the petitioners felt that the new development would constitute overcrowding.

The applicant was also present and addressed the Committee. Key points raised during their address included:

·         One car parking space would be provided for each of the proposed houses in accordance with London Plan policies and secure cycle storage would also be provided in each garden. It was also confirmed that the Highways Authority had no objection to the proposals.

·         The applicant had arranged a specialist daylight/sunlight study, as requested by planning officers, which confirmed that there were no undue impacts on the surrounding properties. Attention was drawn to the officer’s report which stated that “overall, the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties.

·         All existing dwellings around the site fronted onto public roads accessible to fire and emergency vehicles.

·         The site was currently fully occupied by hardstanding and garages. The proposed site layout showed a significant proportion of the land coverage would be changed to trees, communal planting and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

The provision of 8 residential dwellings in the existing loft space and external alterations to existing building including the extension of the roof, the provision of new dormer windows and external roof terraces.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation summarising the proposals noting that the application was recommended for approval subject to the suggested conditions, including restricting prospective residents from applying for residents parking permits in the local parking management scheme.

A petition had been submitted objecting to the proposals. One of the lead petitioners was present and addressed the Committee. Key points raised during their address included:

·         Two previous related applications had been refused.

·         It was deemed that the freeholders of the building had not informed the residents and leaseholders of Kirk House of the proposals and no proper consultation had taken place.

·         There was no concrete floor between the second floor and the loft space where the new dwellings were proposed. This would lead to significant levels of additional noise impacting those residents on the 2^nd floor.

·         There would be significant disruption to residents’ lives, in addition to the school and the church, during the construction phase. Furthermore, the car park would face significant disruption during this phase and shift workers living in the building would be impacted considerably.

·         Concerns were raised regarding whether there was enough water pressure to accommodate the new dwellings.

·         The proposals would have a significant impact on the architecture and character of the street.

·         It was deemed that the proposals were purely made for the developers gain and did not take into account the needs of the residents.

The agent for the application was present and addressed the Committee. Key points raised during their address included:

·         The proposed scheme was the result of extensive proactive engagement with the Planning Authority and represented a low impact, highly sustainable proposal to provide eight additional dwellings at Kirk House, helping Hillingdon to meet its housing targets.

·         The proposals would not have a significant impact on the character of the building, or the local area.

·         During the construction phase, disruption would be minimised by not taking any material up through the building itself, instead lifting them directly into the loft space through cavities in the roof of the building.

·         The floor construction between the 2^nd floor and the loft space would significantly exceed the requirements for acoustic mitigation outlined in building regulations.

·         The windows on the new habitable roof would be setback and would therefore not lead to any additional overlooking.

·         The six proposed parking spaces were in line with the London Plan as the maximum amount allowed. These spaces were already part of the car park and were not currently allocated to any residents.

·         A new disabled compliant lift would be installed in the building.

·         It was noted that the Local Planning Authority carried out all statutory consultations with residents and the developer had written to residents to inform them of the plans.

·         The service charge applied to each of the current dwellings would reduce as the charge would be shared between eight further dwellings in the building.

·         It was clarified that there would be no loss of parking during the construction phase as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Demolition of existing outbuilding and demolition of part single storey addition to existing house. Construction of new single accessible dwelling.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the application and delivered a detailed presentation summarising the application. It was highlighted that the application was recommended for refusal and the reasons for refusal were outlined.

A petition had been received objecting to the application, one of the lead petitioners was present and addressed the Committee. Key points raised during their address included:

·         Petitioners thanked officers for their assessment of the application and the recommendation for refusal.

·         The proposals were contrary to Council policy in being a back garden development.

·         The proposed scale, design and materials would be out of character with the existing developments of Rofant Road and Ashbourne Square, and the proposed building would fundamentally alter the nature of the area, which was town houses.

·         The proposals would interfere with some valuable trees which were under a tree protection order.

·         Petitioners had concerns over the provision of dropped kerb access from the site onto Ashbourne Square.

·         The subterranean nature of the development raised concerns regarding whether excavation of the site could aggravate damage to the road surface.

A written statement had been received from the agent on behalf of the applicant, which was read out for the Committee. Key points raised in the statement included:

·         The applicant had been attempting to have proposals approved for two years and a pre-application had been very favourable.

·         Following the first application, the concerns of the Planning Authority were adhered to and it was highlighted that the National Planning Policy Framework noted that sustainable development had three components: social, economic and environmental.

·         The Committee were encouraged to conduct a site visit to see how the proposals would impact only impact number four Rofant Road, which was owned by the applicant.

Members commented on the application noting that the standard of living did not seem adequate within the proposed dwelling, the bulk, height and depth of the dwelling was also of great concern. 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 a single storey annexe for ancillary residential use with glazed link between the annexe and the existing house

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

At 21:00 the Committee took a comfort break, reconvening at 21:05.

Officers introduced the application noting that it was deferred from July’s Committee meeting for a site visit. The Committee site visit had taken place and officer recommendation remained for refusal.

Members highlighted some important photographs taken at the site visit which illustrated a better understanding of the garden space as it currently stood. Whilst Members were sympathetic to the reasons for the development and highlighted the extensive discussions which took place at the previous Committee meeting. It was highlighted that the bulk and size of the development was of particular concern and that the proposals, if approved, would set a harmful precedent. The applicants were encouraged to engage with the Planning Department on adjustments that could be made to make the proposals acceptable.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission ref. APP/R5510/W/16/3155076 dated 11/11/2016 (LBH ref: 38324/APP/2016/407 dated 24-06-2016) (Erection of detached building to accommodate refuse storage at ground floor and office accommodation above) for minor elevational variations, relocation of refuse store and infilling of undercroft to create garage.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

This item was taken following item 11. Councillor Corthorne, who had declared a non-pecuniary interest, left the room for the duration of the item and did not take part in the vote.

Officers introduced the item giving a summary of the application and noting that it was recommended for approval. Officers elaborated on previous concerns from residents that the premises was in use as standalone housing, rather than in use as an office. It was confirmed that a site visit had taken place and the premises was in use as an office; furthermore, the application in front of Members did not seek to change the use class.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Erection of single storey side/rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

This item was taken ahead of item 10.

Officers introduced the application highlighting that it was recommended for approval subject to the suggested conditions noted in the report. Officers noted that some works had already taken place but had since been paused pending the outcome of the application at Committee.

Members asked officers whether the approximately 10cm raised platform could lead to drainage issues in inclement weather impacting the neighbouring property. Officers confirmed that the raised platform was within permitted development rights and that it would not be advisable to condition drainage matters as the proposed area of hardstanding was minimal and there was room for rainwater run-off.

The Committee noted their disappointment that works had commenced despite the application not yet being approved. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.