Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Raju Sansarpuri, with Councillor Barry Nelson-West substituting. Apologies were also received from Councillor Jagjit Singh.

There were no declarations of interest.

It was acknowledged that item 9 was a Councillor property.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 13 June 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.

Retention of single storey rear extension involving demolition of existing extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 1 x rear dormer, 2 x front dormers, installation of 2 x roof lights to the front roof slope and 3 x roof lights to the rear roof slope and conversion of roof from hip to gable end with alterations to fenestration - Retrospective Application.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Retention of single storey rear extension involving demolition of existing extension, conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 1 x rear dormer, 2 x front dormers, installation of 2 x roof lights to the front roof slope and 3 x roof lights to the rear roof slope and conversion of roof from hip to gable end with alterations to fenestration - Retrospective Application.

Officers introduced the application.

The petitioner organiser was in attendance and addressed the Committee.

Since May 2020, no fewer than nine applications had been made for a variety of extensions at ground and first floor level. Officers and Members had been largely resolute in resisting the proposed changes, supported also by the Planning Inspectorate. It appeared now that the applicants had ‘worn down’ officers to the point that there was a weary acceptance that the house now built was acceptable. Whilst the officers’ recommendation was noted, this should not be a done deal.

The applicant and their architect had consistently, and without attempting to engage with neighbours, ridden roughshod over the planning system and policies. By mashing together permitted development and planning permission they had built a house that would not get planning permission in its own right. It was worth noting that this proposal was significantly bigger than applications previously refused by the Council. It was also worth noting that the same architect had adopted very similar tactics at nearby No. 31 St Edmunds Avenue, resulting in a building that did not yet have planning permission and at which there was a live enforcement case.

The petitioner appealed to Members to stand by residents who played fair, respected planning policies, and to not give in to applicants and architects who played the system. By mixing and matching permitted development with planning permission petitioners felt that the development was now out of scale and character with its surroundings. For example, whilst permitted development allowed for the large rear dormer which had been constructed, it only allowed for a four-meter deep ground floor rear extension. The neighbours had said ‘no problem’, they would build the 5.1 meter ground floor extension allowed by the Council through planning permission, ignoring the fact that that the planning permission only allowed a much more modest roof extension. Also, the current large lantern window in the roof above the porch was out of character and petitioners would like to see something in keeping with the original house and scene.

The report stated that the 5.2 meter ground floor extension did not comply with policy but it did not extend beyond the neighbouring properties’ rear walls. In fact, the ground floor protruded further than the neighbours’ rear building lines. This point was a contentious matter for petitioners as since the very beginning of the process petitioners had continuously informed the Council that the architect’s drawings misrepresented the position of the neighbouring properties, along with other discrepancies such as windows being positioned incorrectly for No. 16’s representation, presumably to minimise issues with privacy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Erection of a single storey annexe for ancillary residential use with glazed link between the annexe and the existing house

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred for a site visit

Erection of a single storey annexe for ancillary residential use with glazed link between the annexe and the existing house.

Officers introduced the application.

The petitioner organiser was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The petitioner was speaking on behalf of 25 people who had signed the petition, and who all knew the applicant and their family. Petitioners were aware that this application was based on health requirements. It was noted that the proposed annex would allow the resident to avoid the use of stairs in the home. The applicant was only trying to improve the quality of life of the resident. Most of the signatories of the petition were from Fringewood Close and six letters of support had been submitted. It was noted that the property directly next to the proposed annex were supportive of the proposals.

The petitioners all disagreed with each of the officers’ reasons for refusal:

Reason one – principle of development: the applicant could attest to the fact that the resident and their family had no intention for the annex to be used as an independent dwelling.

Reason two – character and appearance: following engagement with the planning officers and after an exercise of design auctioneering the design team had arrived at a solution of the smallest possible footprint of the development whilst retaining the functionality and accessibility and establishing an appropriate relationship with the host dwelling. Given the reduction in the scale, the visual impact on the street scene of Fringewood Close was minimal. The annex would be partially screened by trees. Residences on Ducks Hill Road would be screened by tall hedges. As the annex would be lower than these houses, the units would not be visible from the road scene.

Reason three – substandard living conditions: the existing garden in 22 Fringewood Close was 573 square meters. The gardens within the Close average from 150 to 200 square meters. The resulting garden once the annex had been built would be 440 square meters. The remaining garden area would be double the size of the largest garden within the Close, and so the annex would enjoy a large amenity space.

Reason four – neighbour amenity: petitioners disagreed that the proposed annex would cause harm to the living conditions of the existing neighbouring occupiers. The separation distance between the proposed one-storey annex and 20 Fringewood Close was 3.5 meters. The average separation distance between two-storey houses within the close was 1.5 meters. The annex would be considerably smaller than the houses in the Close and the separation distance would be twice the average. The proposed development would sit outside of the 45 degree line of sight from the nearest window to the habitable room of 20 Fringewood Close, which proved that there would be no loss of outlook, loss of privacy or overshadowing on this property. The hedge along the annex closest to 20 Fringewood Close was considerably taller than the annex would be. The visual impact and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Replacement of vacant car sales centre with a 3 storey mixed used development comprising of 1 x 1-Bed Apartment, 7 x 2-Bed Apartments and 1 x 3-Bed Apartment, with associated ground floor undercroft car and cycle parking and ground floor commercial space Use Class E.

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused

Replacement of vacant car sales centre with a 3 storey mixed used development comprising of 1 x 1-Bed Apartment, 7 x 2-Bed Apartments and 1 x 3-Bed Apartment, with associated ground floor undercroft car and cycle parking and ground floor commercial space Use Class E.

Officers introduced the application.

A written representation was received from the lead petitioner.

In the planning application it stated that Chestnut Avenue was “a quiet road used for access to a residential area beyond the railway line and Northwood Recreation Ground containing a playing field and park.” This statement was disputed by Watkins Close residents, who did not agree that Chestnut Avenue was a quiet road; it was a busy suburban avenue with access and egress only via the main Pinner Road. It also served a members’ private gym; a football and social club; a cricket and social club; a bowling club; and a cemetery. None of which have been referenced and all of which produced a great deal of traffic at this busy junction. Residents, of which there were over a hundred, were constantly battling the odds to gain a parking space close to their homes. In Watkins Close the dwellings were built on what was previously a Council car and lorry park. People had long memories, and many still felt they had a right to park in resident-only spaces in the private close, and regularly blocked residents’ entrances. Unfortunately, as social housing tenants there were no electronic gates to keep unwelcome visitors out. Parking was a contentious issue the length of Chestnut Avenue with residents at the bottom having issues with visitors to the football club and gym. A recent funeral procession, leading to the cemetery, had held up traffic in the area for half an hour, due to the volume of guest vehicles attending. Mourners had abandoned their vehicles wherever they chose, without consideration for others.

The commercial space was not required and not welcome as this would cause further issues with parking. It was naïve for the proposal to assume that any visitors would cycle to a commercial space and not require vehicular parking: what about lorries unloading deliveries? This space would be put to better use by allocating further parking for the residents, to lessen the impact on the immediate neighbourhood.

A further contentious issue was the commotion and noise of constructing the new build. Many residents now worked from home daily and there were concerns around disruption to working days. In Watkins Close, residents already contended with trains and whistles, traffic and sirens coming from both sides; they would now have to cope with construction disturbance too.

The fact that there are less than ten dwellings had been noted as this avoided the necessity for affordable housing. It was understood that it was all about profit, but those profiting did not have to live with the results. It was quite clear that these flats, once built, would be sold off to property investors who would then be able to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Erection of a part double storey and part single storey extension to the side and rear of the dwelling with side roof light. Erection of front porch with new front door and amendments to fenestration. Erection of outbuilding to rear garden.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Erection of a part double storey and part single storey extension to the side and rear of the dwelling with side roof light. Erection of front porch with new front door and amendments to fenestration. Erection of outbuilding to rear garden.

Officers introduced the application.

A written representation was received from the agent.

The applicant and agent had obtained advise from the Planning Department and amendments had been made to the original proposal to now fully comply with the Council policy as guided by the Planning Department Officers.

The agent would be grateful if Members of the Planning Committee, who were considering this application tonight, could be made aware aware of these amendments, and that the application now complied with all Council Policies.

Members asked about adding a construction management plan as the road was very narrow. Officers clarified that there were concerns over how reasonable such a condition would be on a small development. An informative could be added in terms of deliveries. There were standard informatives that could be included about construction times, which were managed by separate environmental legislation, and there was also an informative about damage to highways and the requirement to repair it.

Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved