Agenda item

Changes to rear elevation, windows to include wider rear doors. (Application for non-material amendment following grant of appeal decision ref: APP/R5510/A/06/2008833/NWF dated 27/07/2006; Erection of 24-bedroom care home with refurbishment and alterations to no.34 Chester Road and associated parking, involving the demolition of nos.36 and 38 Chester Road.

Recommendation: Refusal

Changes to rear elevation, windows to include wider rear doors. (Application for non-material amendment following grant of appeal decision ref: APP/R5510/A/06/2008833/NWF dated 27/07/2006; Erection of 24-bedroom care home with refurbishment and alterations to no.34 Chester Road and associated parking, involving the demolition of nos.36 and 38 Chester Road)

In the absence of the application providing a full description of the amendments sought, comprehensive floor plans of all the floors affected and elevation drawings showing the full extent of the amendments shown on plan, the Local Planning Authority was unable to consider the full extent and impact of the proposed amendments. As such, the application failed to demonstrate that the amendments were non-material and would not be harmful to the appearance of the building, the street scene and the amenities of the surrounding area.

The proposal was thus contrary to Policies BE13 and BE19 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

2 objection letters and a petition in objection to the application had been received by the Council.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

• Mrs Bridger spoke on behalf of the petition submitted to the Council.
• She explained that the plans produced by the applicant were not the same as the request for the changes.
• The plans showed that there would be no dining room, the existing lounges would be combined, the patio doors would be blocked and there would be an increase in noise as a result of the changes proposed.
• That the side elevation was not shown in the drawings from the applicant.
• There were privacy issues to consider. The distance away was less than 3 metres and there would be overlooking onto neighbouring properties.
• The petitioner stated that neither window was glazed; this was a requirement of the original planning permission granted.
• She asked that the size of the windows be looked into. That the windows overlooked neighbouring properties.
• That there was no mention of the lift shaft protruding in the report. 

The agent was not present.

Councillor Scott Seaman-Digby was present and spoke as a Ward Councillor:

• Cllr Seaman-Digby stated that the officer report was quite comprehensive and the petitioner had highlighted most of the issues of concern.
• There were quite a number of issues which were problematic in this application.
• Cllr Seaman-Digby stressed that the Council needed to do everything it could for the flagrant disregard for planning process.
• He asked that officers, on behalf of residents, with legal assistance, did everything they could to put a stop to this.
• He was happy with the officer recommendation of a refusal and stated that the Council needed to be on the front foot with the time consuming applications in regard to this property.
• The Ward Cllr asked that officers looked at the site in detail and looked into as there were possible public safety concerns.

Members stated that it was evident from the officer report that not enough information was provided by the applicant on the changes proposed.

Enforcement was an issue that could be discussed outside of this meeting and the Committee agreed that officers should pursue this as required.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the agenda.