Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Henry Higgins with Councillor Darran Davies substituting and from Councillor Gursharan Mand with Councillor Raju Sansarpuri substituting.

Councillor Darran Davies declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 6 as he had been in discussion with petitioners on the matter. He left the room and did not participate in the discussion or voting on this item.

Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda items 7 and 8 as she lived in the road in question.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 12 March 2025 be agreed as an accurate record.

None.

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

Change of use of 2no. outbuildings to granny annexes. 

Recommendation: Approval. 

RESOLVED: That a decision on the application be deferred for a Member site visit to consider the proposal.

Change of use of 2no. outbuildings to granny annexes.

Officers introduced the application which was recommended for approval. Members were informed that there was potential for an appeal on this application hence the Council needed to demonstrate that it had learnt from previous appeal decisions.

A petition in objection to the application had been received. The lead petitioner was in attendance to address the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The original report contained an incorrect front view of the property.
• The correct view was provided, showing the left-hand side of the property.
• The view included numbers 20, 18, and 16 to the right, and numbers 19 and 21 to the left.
• The property owners had dug up the front shared drive for one week, which had then remained for seven months.
• They illegally tapped into the mains water pipe, causing brown water issues.
• Affinity Water had had to fix the pipe on several occasions.
• The owners damaged fences and exposed neighbouring properties.
• The property was used as an unlicensed HMO with up to 10 people living in it.
• The house was covered in mould, posing a risk to a newborn child.
• Water and electric pipes were fed through a trench around the back, causing the fencing to fall down.
• The owners claimed the outbuildings were for their parents, but residents feared they would be rented out.
• The Council had rejected the planning permission for the outbuildings.
• The residents were concerned about the impact on the street scene and community.
• There were issues with litter and fly-tipping in the area.
• The safety of children and neighbouring properties was compromised.

Members noted that only material considerations could be taken into account.

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

• The agent advocated for the approval of the planning application for the proposed use of the outbuildings as residential annexes for the applicant's elderly parents.
• The proposal aimed to provide a safe, comfortable, and accessible living environment for the applicant's parents, allowing them to maintain their independence while being close to their family.
• The proposed development was intended to have a minimal impact on the surrounding area, as the outbuildings were already in place and their conversion to residential use would not alter the character or appearance of the area.
• There was no significant increase in traffic or demand on local services expected, as the annexes were intended for family use only.
• The proposal aligned with the National Planning Policy Framework, which emphasised the importance of providing a range of housing options to meet the diverse needs of the population, including the elderly and those with disabilities.
• The proposed development complied with local planning policies that encouraged the use of existing buildings for residential purposes.
• Concerns raised by neighbours were noted, but they were not considered relevant or significant enough to warrant refusal of the application.
• Planning permission would be required to change the use of the annexes to self-contained dwellings, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Demolition and reconstruction of new build family home. 

Recommendation: Approval. 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation and subject to the amendments to Condition 4 and the inclusion of a new Condition as detailed in the Addendum Report.

Demolition and reconstruction of new build family home.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information set out in the addendum. It was noted that the application was recommended for approval.

A petition had been received in objection to the application. The lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members on behalf of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

·         The lead petitioner had lived on Fraser Ave, Australia for 55 years.

·         He represented 32 residents who had signed a petition against the demolition of a two-storey house and the construction of a three-storey house.

·         The proposed development would negatively impact the Area of Special Local Character and street scene.

·         The development would result in a three-storey house next to a bungalow, which was not in keeping with the area's character.

·         The area predominantly consisted of bungalows and two-storey houses with one-metre spaces between boundaries.

·         There was a concern that new large houses may later be converted into houses of multiple occupation.

·         Petitioners urged the Council to reject the application for 44 Fraser Ave to preserve the area's special character.

·         If the application could not be refused, he requested that the decision be deferred, and the site visited to enable Members to see for themselves the area's special character.

In response to Members’ questions, the lead petitioner confirmed that rooflights were being tiled over at some houses along Frays Avenue.

The applicant / agent were not in attendance.

Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting addressed the Committee Members in support of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

• Councillor Sweeting noted a non-pecuniary interest in the agenda item and spoke against the planning application.
• The proposed development was different from any other property in the Garden City and would deliver a building out of character in terms of excessive bulk, scale, and design.
• The officer's report showed the height of the proposed building matching others, but none had the huge side dormer mentioned in paragraph 7.141.
• The proposed building created a large living space on the 3rd floor, contrary to the area's special local character, which only allowed single or two-story buildings.
• Approval of the planning application had the potential to set a precedent for other two-story properties in the area to be extended upwards using side dormers.
• Paragraph 7.9 stated that there was a proposed gap between numbers 44 and the neighbouring 46 of some 1.5 meters, this did not accord with the drawings which showed a gap of less than one metre.
• The existing attractive 3-bedroom family home of 172 square meters was to be replaced by the proposed building of 316 square meters, an increase of 84%.
• The Committee was requested to refuse the unacceptable planning application.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Ward Councillor acknowledged that the area had changed significantly over the last 20 or 30 years. However, it was noted that the local Residents’ Association supported the continuation of the Area of Special Local Character. It was reported that, in recent years, there had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

Erection of a single storey rear extension, amendments to side extension roof, extension to existing loft conversion including extension of roof to the rear and formation of crown roof, enlargement of rear dormer window, and installation of 2no. side facing roof lights, and addition of render and insulation to external walls. 

Recommendation: Approval. 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation.

Erection of a single storey rear extension, amendments to side extension roof, extension to existing loft conversion including extension of roof to the rear and formation of crown roof, enlargement of rear dormer window, and installation of 2no. side facing roof lights, and addition of render and insulation to external walls.

Officers introduced the application which was recommended for approval.

A petition in objection to the application had been received and the lead petitioner was in attendance to address the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• The officer had misunderstood the main reason for the petition, which related to the construction on the boundary wall.
• The petition included 25 signatures.
• The petition aimed to address the construction on the boundary wall, not a massive two or three-storey planning request.
• The area of special local character (ASLC) leaflet stated that any redevelopment or two-storey side extension should be at least one metre from the side boundary.
• The distance between the boundary wall and the neighbouring property was 900 millimetres at its widest point.
• The space became narrower further down due to a chimney.
• The owners of the property intended to use the structure for a piano tuition room for commercial purposes.
• The nearby window was his daughter’s bedroom  / study room.
• The speaker expressed concerns about noise from the piano tuition room affecting their work.
• The existing side extension was a temporary lean-to structure with a perspex plastic roof.
• The structure was initially a post and plastic roof at ground level, later infilled with single skin brickwork.
• The plans were incorrect, showing a nine-inch solid wall instead of a 4 1/2 inch garden wall.
• The speaker did not oppose the rest of the development, as it did not include a three-storey or six-bedroom house.
• It was noted that there were two side roof velux windows.

The applicant / agent was not in attendance.

Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting addressed the Committee Members in support of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

• Councillor Sweeting noted a non-pecuniary interest in the agenda item and spoke against the planning application.
• No.10 Frays Avenue was unlike most properties in the area of special local character.
• The proposed 4-bedroom property would have been squeezed into a small plot and negatively affected the neighbouring property at number 81.
• The shared boundary required a party wall agreement, and the front dormer and crown roof were the basis of the objection from the Council's conservation officer.
• The proposal did not meet the requirement of being at least one metre from the side boundary to retain the spacious setting.
• The extension was to be built on the site of the old lean-to, which was allowed due to the 10-year rule.
• The proposed front builder extension and crown roofs were not common features on the estate and were contrary to policy.
• The report mentioned properties numbers 14 and 3 Frays Avenue, which had shared boundaries, but their boundary walls were garage walls, not walls to habitable spaces.
• Allowing the habitable room on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed-use development comprising a hotel (Use Class C1), residential co-living accommodation (Class Sui Generis), and commercial floorspace (Use Class E) and ancillary work, including public realm improvements, a new pocket park, basement parking, and associated infrastructure. 

Recommendation: Approval subject to s106 legal agreement and Stage 2 Mayor of London referral.  

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation and subject to the following:

-          Amendments to Conditions 5 and 7 as detailed in the Addendum Report.

-          Amendment to Condition 2 to include two drawings omitted as advised in the officer’s verbal update.

-          Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London

-          Completion of s106 agreement. 

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed-use development comprising a hotel (Use Class C1), residential co-living accommodation (Class Sui Generis), and commercial floorspace (Use Class E) and ancillary work, including public realm improvements, a new pocket park, basement parking, and associated infrastructure.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was noted that the application was recommended for approval.

Councillors sought clarification about the term "Co living" and its implications. It was explained that it was a recognised accommodation type, purpose-built for rented accommodation, with smaller units than traditional studio apartments.

In response to further questions from Members about the number of Co living units, it was confirmed 320 units were proposed.

Concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of nine parking spaces for potentially over 400 people. Officers explained that the proposal included a small retail element and promoted a car-free development, with parking spaces reserved for disabled residents.

Councillors raised questions about the impact on surrounding areas due to the parking-free scheme and the reduction of retail space. It was clarified that the design of the units aimed to attract longer-term tenants and improve vitality in the town centre.

The Committee questioned the allocation of a sizable contribution to Transport for London and its specific use. It was confirmed that the money would be spent on addressing and improving challenges within the bus garage.

Councillors requested further information on the fire brigade's standard guidance notice and the environmental impact of the development, specifically the absence of solar panels. Officers explained that the internal specialists had raised no objections and conditions were secured to ensure appropriate measures.

Concerns were expressed in relation to the demolition and transportation logistics of the site. It was confirmed that conditions were in place to manage the construction logistics and minimise impact on surrounding businesses and residents.

Councillors supported the development but emphasised the importance of managing transportation schemes effectively. Officers assured that the logistics would be managed appropriately.

Members expressed support for the development, highlighting its benefits.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer’s recommendation and subject to the following:

-          Amendments to Conditions 5 and 7 as detailed in the Addendum Report.

-          Amendment to Condition 2 to include two drawings omitted as advised in the officer’s verbal update.

-          Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London

-          Completion of s106 agreement. 

Variation of Condition 2 (Accordance with Approved Plans), Conditions 3 (Tree Protection) and 5 (Landscaping) of planning permission ref. 6039/APP/2021/3465 dated 03-03-2022 (Removal of derelict scout hut and storage unit to facilitate the erection of a replacement single storey scout hut building) 

The minor material amendments include:  

-  Changes to accessibility (with external ramp and disabled parking), hard and soft landscaping and external fittings. 

- Minor change to the building overall positioning on the site. 

- Fenestration changes on front elevation plan with repositioning of fire exit door. 

Recommendation: Approval. 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation.

Variation of Condition 2 (Accordance with Approved Plans), Conditions 3 (Tree Protection) and 5 (Landscaping) of planning permission ref. 6039/APP/2021/3465 dated 03-03-2022 (Removal of derelict scout hut and storage unit to facilitate the erection of a replacement single storey scout hut building)

The minor material amendments include:

-  Changes to accessibility (with external ramp and disabled parking), hard and soft landscaping and external fittings.

- Minor change to the building overall positioning on the site.

- Fenestration changes on front elevation plan with repositioning of fire exit door.

Officers introduced the application which was recommended for approval.

Ward Councillor Peter Smallwood had submitted a written representation in support of the application which was read out for the consideration of the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

• Councillor Smallwood registered his interests as a member of the Executive Committee of the 1st/3rd Ruislip Scout Group.
• The application was strongly supported as it provided a new home for the 2nd/9th Ruislip Scout Group.
• The Group's previous base had been redeveloped into three family homes on Ladygate Lane, making the new facility essential for continuing high-quality scouting.
• The proposed building was thoughtfully designed, modest in scale, and sensitive to the surrounding area, including key accessibility features.
• The planning amendments were modest and appropriate, with no adverse impact on the surrounding residential character or neighbouring amenity.
• The accessibility improvements significantly enhanced the inclusivity of the facility and aligned with local and national planning policies.
• Scouting provided young people with invaluable opportunities to develop confidence and skills.
• The new hut ensured the 2nd/9th Ruislip Scout Group had a permanent and suitable base to thrive in the future.

Members were in support of the proposal and raised no objections. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved in accordance with the officer recommendation.