Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Gursharan Mand with Councillor Barry Nelson-West substituting.

Councillor Barry Nelson-West declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6 as he had been in contact with the petitioners. He left the room for this item and did not take part in the vote.

RESOLVED: That the minutes from the meeting on 05 November 2024 be approved.

None.

It was confirmed that all items would be heard in Part I.

Erection of a part single, part two storey side and rear extensions, a loft rear dormer extension with 2 no. roof lights to the front roof slope and front porch.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Councillor Nelson-West left the room for this item.

Officers introduced the item.

A written representation from the lead petitioner was read out:

There were no objections to a family extending their home as in the case of 31 and 33 Hayes End Drive.

This is not the case with this rented property. This was a landlord trying to increase the income from as many tenants as he can.

This was based on all the applicant’s previous applications:

•              27 September 2023 – Erection of a three-bedroom dwelling to rear of existing house – rejected.

•              17 January 2024 – Erection of a three-bedroom dwelling next to existing house – rejected.

•              10 May 2024 – Erection of a two storey, two-bedroom house attached to 16 Hayes End Drive. Applicant was given an option to withdraw application or it would be rejected.

•              15 July 2024 – Erection of a part single two storey side and rear extension. No objection from petitioners.

•              22 August 2024 – Amended planning application with a larger footprint of the two-storey side and rear extension, rear dormers, roof lights, two double back doors and large windows side of extension. Applicant had to reduce the width of the two-storey extension.

•              16 October 2024 – An extra-large widow added to the side extension. Making it three large widows and side door. Already having two double back doors. So potentially becoming a dwelling attached to 16 Hayes End Drive with entrance from Wilma Close.

Petitioners strongly opposed the three large widows on the side elevation. None of the other corner houses had been allowed such large windows, other than a single small opaque window for the landing one per floor, due to the fact the end elevation over looks neighbouring properties and will overlook a rear garden resulting in a lack of privacy. And the door in the side elevation, again no other corner houses have been allowed a side door.

The big concern was that this door will become a front door to a divided property i.e. 16 and 16a.

If the Council approves this application, petitioners requested conditions that the house cannot be divided into two properties and no HMO.

Other considerations were Wilma Close was significantly narrower than other local roads so potentially having an extra dwelling to the side of 16 Hayes End Drive or turning it into an HMO would cause greater problems for parking on an already congested Close.

This area was a medium flood plane and having this extra building footprint could increase the runoff increasing the risk of flooding.

Councillor Darran Davies addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and made the following points:

•              This property risked overdevelopment and harm to the area's character. The extensions were excessive for a prominent corner plot, disrupting the open and uniform nature of the neighbourhood. This directly conflicted with policy DMHB 11 and DMHD 1, which required developments to be in keeping with the area.

•              This site had a history of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Proposed change of use of existing block of flats from Supported Housing (Class C2) to Short-Life accommodation (Sui Generis) including changes to the internal areas to provide 4 additional self-contained flats to accommodate a total of 29 units.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Officers introduced the application.

Members noted that this application seemed logical, noting the numbers of homeless individuals and being a port authority.

Members noted that the report referred to a moderate PTAL rating and asked for the precise rating. Officers noted that the site had a PTAL ranking of three, indicating that access to public transport was reasonable to good compared to London as a whole. Officers also advised that there was a bus stop outside of the site.

Members also asked if there was a time frame on ‘short-stay’. Officers advised that it would be difficult to quantify this as it would be dependent on the individuals’ requirements. It would also be dependent on the availability of accommodation for the individuals to move on to. Conditions on this would not be appropriate as this could lead to individuals being made homeless again. Officers further noted that due to the individuals being homeless, it was likely that they would not have a car and so there was likely an over-provision of parking available.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Erection of a single storey side and rear wraparound extension, conversion of garage into habitable space and installation of patio.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Officers introduced the application, which had been brought to Committee following a Member call-in which raised concerns regarding potential loss of amenity to the garage of neighbouring property with a new adjoining bedroom.

Members noted that all concerns from residents and the Councillor had been addressed.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Erection of a single storey rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Officers introduced the application.

Officers noted that one representation had been received following publication of the agenda which raised concerns over the property having been unoccupied for some time; previous leakages at the property which have been addressed by Housing officers; and noise, disturbance and antisocial behaviour due to the property not being occupied.

Members noted that this was a good project. Members also highlighted that they were happy with the condition about damage to the verge.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Erection of a single storey rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Officers introduced the item.

Members noted that there was a need for properties for larger families.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved