Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Roy Chamdal with Councillor Philip Corthorne substituting and from Councillor Adam Bennett with Councillor Darran Davies substituting.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 5 December 2024 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.

Erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking, amenity and bin/cycle stores (updated plans)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking, amenity and bin/cycle stores (updated plans)

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the information in the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

The lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee on behalf of the petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

1.    The property developer had initially stated that the rear walls of the main house and the ground floor extension would not exceed the rear walls of the lead petitioner’s house or extension to minimise overlooking, but this promise had not been kept.

2.    The developer had claimed that the petitioner’s building was incorrectly positioned relative to the ordinance survey map but had provided no evidence of this.

3.    It was believed that the developer was only interested in adding significant space to each room to increase the property's value.

4.    The petitioner had been confident Hillingdon Council would hold the developer accountable, but it appeared the Council may approve the build retrospectively.

5.    The breach had been brought to the attention of the Planning Department, but no action had been taken. The petitioner had therefore been obliged to hire a solicitor.

6.    Objections focussed on the position of all rear walls and the floor height of the building, impacting the lead petitioner’s privacy.

7.    Residents request the Planning Committee defer their decision and visit the site to see the impact for themselves.

8.    The raised floor heights compromised the privacy of neighbouring gardens, and residents preferred that the floor levels be reduced rather than having a higher fence.

9.    The ground floor bathroom was overlooked by a side door and window not in the original plans, exacerbated by the raised floor heights.

10.A covenant was requested to ensure the patio was lower than the house as per the plans and to ensure that the side window was obscured and non-opening.

11.The petitioner suggested that the building be demolished and rebuilt with lower floor levels and rear walls level with their rear walls.

In response to questions from Members, it was clarified that the original plans had not been accurate. All floors in the new building were higher than on the plans which impacted the privacy of neighbours.

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

1.    The agent confirmed that he had originally designed the house.

2.    He addressed concerns about overshadowing, stating that the back of the garden was south-facing and would therefore not be affected by shadowing.

3.    The ground floor side-facing window was higher than the neighbouring window, but the floor level was lower due to a larger window.

4.    It had been agreed with the planning department that the fence would be 2.2 meters high to prevent looking in.

5.    It was suggested that silhouettes through the window could be avoided by using a blind.

6.    The agent affirmed that the building was not larger than originally planned and that the back wall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of building to provide 3 x 1-bed, 5 x 2-bed, 1 x 3 bed flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of building to provide 3 x 1-bed, 5 x 2-bed, 1 x 3 bed flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval. There was no addendum, but officers suggested an amendment to conditions to require that all windows shown as obscured on the elevation plan be fitted with obscure glazes. It was also proposed that the reference to EV points be removed from Condition 5 as this was already covered sufficiently under Condition 9.

A petition had been received in objection to the application and a written representation had been submitted which was read out for the attention of the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

?

• Previous similar applications by the same applicant had been rejected multiple times. ?
• The current application prioritised one- and two-bedroom dwellings, not aligning with the Council’s ethos of providing family-sized accommodation. ?
• The property’s roof size was too large compared to the surrounding area and not in keeping with the area’s character and appearance. ?
• Significant negative effects on neighbouring properties were noted, including reduced space, increased noise, and air pollution. ?
• Additional traffic from a hypothetical increase from two to nine households would impact noise, air pollution, and traffic safety on Harefield Road. ?
• The application increased the risk to existing residents and pedestrians from Braybourne Close crossing Harefield Road to go to Hermitage School.
• No consideration had been given to the dangerous junction from Fairfield Road to Harefield Road where cars would be unsighted to vehicles leaving the property.
• The amount of green space would be reduced due to converting garden space to a car park and would not meet the minimum green space per person. ?
• There would be a net reduction in trees, with reliance on trees from adjoining properties for cover. ?
• There would be an inadequate number of car parking spaces (12 instead of the recommended 14). ?
• Potential privacy issues from balconies overlooking surrounding properties were noted. ?
• The lead petitioner urged the Council to consider the repeated rejections and appeals by the applicant and not to waste valuable time and resources on this application. ?

The applicant was in attendance at the meeting and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

• The current application being presented was very different from the first iteration.
• The scale of the building had been substantially reduced, with the height now much lower than its neighbour to the left and equal to the neighbour on the right.
• The width had also been reduced to match the width of the buildings to the left.
• The gaps left between the buildings were a minimum of 5 metres.
• The building to the right was much wider and screened by a 65-meter row of protected trees.
• The rear projection had been reduced in depth significantly.
• The previous application had been approved by the inspector, and the building being considered was the same size as the approved scheme.
• The application proposed a car parking area to the rear, replicating the parking arrangements  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Part-retrospective provision of one portacabin with paint-finished timber cladding to provide a ticket office and community space.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Part-retrospective provision of one portacabin with paint-finished timber cladding to provide a ticket office and community space.

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the information in the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

The lead petitioner was not in attendance but the agent for the application had submitted a presentation and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• Members of the Harrow and Wembley Society Model Engineers had been members for about five years.
• The railway consisted of about half a mile of track and had provided steam and electric rides for local people since 1978.
• The area was rented from Harrow Council and operated by volunteers from the Harrow and Wembley Society Model Engineers, a not-for-profit organisation.
• The railway operated every Sunday afternoon during the summer and held special events over Easter, Halloween, and Christmas.
• In 2024, the railway had carried around 4,000 passengers and attracted about 1,000 visitors on public holidays.
• The site provided a destination for families, offering tables and benches for picnics.
• The society ran various clubs for local people, including a club for teenagers to learn technical skills.
• They facilitated parties for scouts, Cubs, children with special needs and school visits, and hosted birthday parties.
• The society had about 75 members and had been featured in two BBC documentaries and a local podcast.
• The clubhouse contained 11 carriages, 10 locomotives, workshop machinery, and a signal box.
• Due to increasing demand and the aging members, they needed additional space and proposed using a portacabin.

In response to their requests for clarification, Members were informed that there had previously been a Clubhouse on site. Harrow and Wembley Society Model Engineers had needed additional space and had been given permission by Harrow to install two portacabins on site. However, it had transpired that they needed planning permission for these hence the decision to remove one.

In respect of antisocial behaviour, the Committee was informed that the portacabins had been on site for 16 months and, during that time, there had only been one tag on the back of the building. There was a presence on site at least two days a week and, though not lit, the site was completely fenced for added security. Officers confirmed that a consultation with the Metropolitan Police had not been deemed necessary.

Councillors raised no further concerns or objections. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the amendments to Conditions 3, 4 and 5 as detailed in the Addendum Report and no materially significant representations received at the end of the public re-consultation (ends 17-01-25) as detailed in the Committee Report.

Creation of an extra unit in 6 unit HMO (Class C4).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Creation of an extra unit in 6 unit HMO (Class C4).

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval.

The lead petitioner had submitted a written representation and photos on behalf of petitioners objecting to the proposal. The statement was read out to the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

1. Several issues had come to light over the past year, significantly impacting the quality of life for nearby residents.
2. Despite being approved as a 6-bedroom HMO for students, there were often more than six residents living at the property, sometimes including couples and children.
3. Frequent disturbances during evening hours disrupted the peace and quiet expected in a residential area.
4. Large amounts of rubbish were frequently left on the driveway, leading to unpleasant smells and attracting vermin.
5. Multiple reports of marijuana being smoked at the property forced neighbours to close their windows due to the smell.
6. Parking was a significant issue, with several cars frequently parked at the property.
7. Rear access was constantly used, compromising the security of neighbouring properties and posing a significant safety risk.
8. The garden was often littered with rubbish and discarded mattresses, creating an ideal habitat for vermin.
9. Residents frequently cooked on the decking outside, which was unsanitary and posed a considerable fire risk.
10. The petitioner urged the Council to reject the application, stating that any further expansion would be detrimental to both the immediate neighbours and the wider community.

The applicant and agent were not in attendance and no written submissions had been received.

Members enquired what action had been taken by the Council’s licencing team regarding the complaints raised by residents. Officers explained that the planning process for HMOs differed from the licensing process. However, officers had conducted a search but had been unable to locate any reports of antisocial behaviour.

Members were informed that the certificate in place was a Certificate of Lawful Development hence there were limits to the planning controls that could be deployed. However, the development brought forward a site plan that included a location for rubbish bins. Officers had enforcement powers to undertake enforcement action should the bins not be placed in that location. Details of waste and cycle storage and EV charging points had been requested and officers had everything in their power in terms of proposing conditions on the development.

In response to questions from the Committee regarding fire safety, it was confirmed that the fire brigade regularly inspected the site. Members expressed concern regarding potential misuse of the units but were advised that a management plan would not be justified in this case.

Councillors referred to the Case Officer’s visit to the site in February 2023 and enquired whether notice would have been given. Officers confirmed that they were not required to give notice but generally did to ensure they were able to gain access. The Planning Officer had undertaken more than two visits but had not checked numbers of occupants. However, a condition was included to restrict the number of people residing in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Retention of a double storey rear and side extension with amendments to fenestration and height of existing single storey rear extension (retrospective)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Retention of a double storey rear and side extension with amendments to fenestration and height of existing single storey rear extension (retrospective)

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval.

Petitioners were in attendance and addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal. Key points highlighted included:

1. The case was complex, involving many unfortunate factors and a wrongly drawn plan by the applicant's architect.
2. The Council was accused of making an oversight and not applying local planning recommendations to set back the side wall of the rear double storey extension by 1m.
3. Their orientation to the extension was unique and critically positioned, but the Council had not applied the local recommendation.
4. The affected neighbours felt that the Council had not paid enough attention to the critical details of the planning application.
5. Residents had trusted the Council but believed they had been unfairly treated in this case.
6. The petitioners requested the Councillors reach a “no decision” on this application at this stage.
7. The planning officers' detailed report indicated that Councillors would be minded to approve the second application.
8. Residents hoped that, rather than referring to DRE guidelines and sunlight/daylight calculations, Councillors would consider the simpler build guidelines and the Council's one-metre side boundary distance policy.
9. It was pointed out that previous appeals in the road in 2019 and 2020 had met the Council's requirements to be set 1m away from shared side boundaries at first floor level and created minimal overshadowing to neighbours.
10. The neighbours argued that other referenced two-storey side extensions were not relevant to the current application.
11. It was believed that a no decision would support the nearest neighbour and retain the approval granted earlier in 2024.
12. Petitioners highlighted the need to bring important circumstances in front of the elected Planning Committee. They felt it was virtually impossible for planning permission previously granted, whether by clerical miscalculation or planning policy oversight, to be revoked.
13. It was hoped that an identical planning decision would not be made within the suburbs of the Borough of Hillingdon until changes to current planning guidance were merited.

In response to questions from Members, petitioners confirmed that a ‘no decision’ was requested at this time.

The applicant and agent for the application were in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The agent emphasised the pressure his clients had been under for the past six months.
• He reported that neighbours had been aware of the proposed plans throughout the planning application stage, but complaints had only started when the first floor of the rear extension was being constructed.
• The development was constructed in compliance with the approved drawings, despite a slight inaccuracy in the relationship with the neighbouring properties.
• The agent accepted responsibility for the inaccuracy but had expected the Planning Officer to pick up any relevant discrepancy during the site visit.
• He questioned the validity of the petition, noting that over 20 signatures had come from just four households.
• It was argued that the development did not affect the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Conversion of integral garage to habitable accommodation with alterations to fenestration.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Conversion of integral garage to habitable accommodation with alterations to fenestration.

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval.

A petition had been received in objection to the application. The lead petitioner had submitted a written representation and photos on behalf of the Hayes-Arena Residents’ Association, representing 261 households. The statement was read out for the attention of the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

1.    Parking pressure - the proposed garage conversion would result in the permanent loss of an off-street parking space which would exacerbate parking stress in Varcoe Gardens thereby impacting public safety and the quality of life of residents. 

2.    Disruption of community character – the development would disrupt the uniform architectural design of Varcoe Gardens, which was a key feature of the estate’s character and aesthetic value.

3.    Lack of disability justification and past rejections – the Hayes-Arena estate had granted garage conversions only once, for 85 Varcoe Gardens, and solely on the grounds of addressing disability-related needs. The current application lacked any such justification. Similar applications in the estate had been rejected in the past due to increased parking pressure and disruption to community character—concerns that were equally relevant in this case.

4.    Risk of overcrowding and potential HMO use – residents were concerned that the site would be converted to an HMO in the future. Allowing this development would increase the risk of overcrowding and antisocial behaviour, negatively impacting the neighbourhood.

5.    Precedents and community impact - the Hayes-Arena estate had experienced significant challenges due to the HMO at 12 Divine Way, which had led to increased emergency service visits and community disruptions. Residents feared that approving the current application may set a precedent for further profit-driven developments that undermined the community’s cohesion and quality of life. ?

The agent for the application was also in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

1. It was confirmed that there was no intention of applying for an HMO. Members were assured that there was a clause in the deed preventing further applications for an HMO.
2. The precedent for the area had been set by number 85, which had been approved under similar circumstances.
3. The planning team had assessed and found the proposal acceptable and had not set any new precedents.
4. The current internal parking space had been deemed insufficient for new models of cars, especially for disability-enabled cars.
5. The proposal retained one off-street parking space, and no further parking stress was anticipated.
6. The character and design of the buildings were maintained, with a similar approach to number 85.
7. The applicant reassured that the design would match the existing buildings.
8. Concerns about antisocial behaviour were addressed, and it was clarified that a single-family house would not result in more antisocial behaviour.
9. The applicant had a full written agreement with the freeholders and estate management, ensuring alignment with the approval.
10. The application complied with local planning policies and the London plan.
11. The proposal respected the character of the area and addressed the specific needs  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of planning permission reference 2297/APP/2021/2704, dated 17-09-2021 (Extensions, remodelling and refurbishment of the existing Nursery, Infant and Junior Schools) to make alterations, including changes to hard and soft landscaping, bin storage, and cycle storage (Part Retrospective and Part Proposed)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) of planning permission reference 2297/APP/2021/2704, dated 17-09-2021 (Extensions, remodelling and refurbishment of the existing Nursery, Infant and Junior Schools) to make alterations, including changes to hard and soft landscaping, bin storage, and cycle storage (Part Retrospective and Part Proposed)

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the information in the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

Members were in support of the proposal and raised no concerns.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.