North Planning Committee lattice tower supporting 6 antennas and 2 transmission dishes, 2 ground...

North Planning Committee

Meeting date: THURSDAY 24th FEBRUARY 2005

Time: 7.30PM

Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 5, CIVIC CENTRE HIGH

To Members on the Planning Committee

Councillors Conservation Area AdScott Seaman-Digby (Chairman) Bruce Baker (Vice Chairman) Shirley Harper O’Neill Albert Kanjee

David Horne Peter Curling Tony Burles

Michael Platts (EastcoClive Pigram (Ruilsip)John Ross (Harefield)Michael Hirst (Canal LPamela Jeffreys (Icke

Substitute Councillors Josephine Barrett Anne Banks David Bishop George Cooper

Geoff Courtenay John Hensley Mary O’Connor

Dave Allam Janet Duncan Roshan Ghei Paul Harmsworth

Further information

For information about the planning applications please telephone 0

This agenda was published on 16th February 2005. If you would likeabout the meeting please call Gill Brice in Hillingdon’s Cabinet Officemail [email protected] or visit the Council’s website www.h

Involving the Public in the way we do business… The Public have a right to petition and speak at this committee, but must notify the Cabinet Office beforehand on 01895 250693.

Members of the Public and Press are very welcome to attend this meeting. Free parking is available via the entrance to the Civic Centre in the High Street. Bus routes 207, U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Uxbridge underground station, with the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines, is a short walk away.

Please enter from the Council’s main reception where you will be directed to the Committee Room. Please switch off your mobile phone when entering the room and note that the Council operates a no-smoking policy in its offices.

STREET, UXBRIDGE

visory Panel Members te)

ocks) nham)

Norman Nunn-Price Peter Ryerson Paramjit Sethi

1895 250401.

further information e on 01895 250693, illingdon.gov.uk

This agenda is available in large print

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/

Agenda

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

3. To sign and receive the minutes of the meeting held on 3rd February 2005. (to follow)

4. Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent.

5. To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in Public and

that the items marked Part 2 will be considered in private.

6. Consideration of the reports from the Head of Planning & Transportation

Reports - Part 1 – Members, Public and the Press Items are normally marked in the order that they will be considered, though the Chairman may vary this. Reports are split into ‘major’ and ‘minor’ applications. The name of the local ward area is also given in addition to the address of the premises or land concerned. Minor Applications with Petitions Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page1. 31 Parkfield Road

Ickenham Ickenham Erection of two four bedroom detached

houses with integral garages (Involving demolition of existing house) (Retrospective Application) Recommendation : Approval

1

2. 14 Sandy Lodge Way Northwood

Northwood Erection of a three-storey block of six three-bedroom flats, with parking spaces and landscaping (involving demolition of existing dwelling) Recommendation : Approval subject to a S106 & 278 Agreement

7

3. 51 Swakeleys Drive Ickenham

Ickenham Erection of single storey pitched roof garden building for use as playroom at end of rear garden Recommendation : Approval

25

Other Minor Applications Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page4.

Eastcote Underground Station Field End Road Eastcote

Eastcote & East Ruislip

Installation of chip and pin card reader to ticket office counters (Application for Listed Building Consent) Recommendation : Consent

31

Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page5. The Plough

154 Bury Street Ruislip


(A) Alteration to entrance porch and single storey side extension to provide disabled toilet and internal alterations (Application for Listed Building Consent) Recommendation : Consent (B) Alterations to entrance porch and single storey side extension to provide disabled toilet and internal alterations Recommendation : Approval

35

6.

Land at the Retreat 26 Field End Road Eastcote


Reserved matters details of design, external appearance and landscaping in compliance with conditions 2(A), (B) and (C), 3, 5, 6 and 7 of planning application ref: 20111/APP/2002/876, Erection of four two storey detached houses (involving demolition of the remains of the Retreat) dated 3/11/04 Recommendation : To discharge the reserved matters conditions

41

7. Land to the south of 2 Canal Cottages Springwell Lane Rickmansworth

Harefield Erection of a 1.8m (reducing to 1.2m) high concrete block retaining will and layout of hardstanding, erection of replacement storage sheds, installation of entrance gates and erection of 1.5m high close boarded fence (part retrospective application) Recommendation : Refusal and to consider expediency of Enforcement Action

51

8. 1 The Chase Ickenham

Ickenham Conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation with installation of two dormers on west elevation and two on east elevation and insertion of first floor window in the front elevation Recommendation : Approval

66

9. Land rear of and forming part of 21 and 23 The Grove Ickenham

Ickenham Erection of a three-bedroom detached chalet bungalow with attached garage Recommendation : Approval

71

10. 5-7 Maxwell Road Northwood

Northwood Change of use of the ground floor from Class A1 (retail) to Class A3 (food and drink) (Retrospective Application) Recommendation : To consider expediency of Enforcement Action

83

Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page11. 41 Hallowell Road

Northwood Northwood Conversion to 4 one-bedroom flats

and provision of parking (Retrospective Application) Recommendation : Refusal and to consider expediency of Enforcement Action

87

12. 1 Bradfield Road Field End Road South Ruislip

South Ruislip

Replacement of 2 equipment cabinets and the installation of 4 additional cabinets, removal of hoped access ladder, formation of new roof access hatch and associated development (Consultation under schedule 2, part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) Recommendation : (A) Prior Approval Required (B)That details of siting and design be Refused (C) To consider expediency of Enforcement Action

96

13. Ruislip Underground Station Station Approach Ruislip

West Ruislip Installation of chip and pin card reader to ticket office counter (Application for Listed Building Consent) Recommendation : Consent

101

14. The Swan Public House 10 High Street Ruislip

West Ruislip (A) The Unauthorised display of two non-illuminated display cases (Listed Building Consent) ( Retrospective Application)

Recommendation : Prosecution (B) The unauthorised display of

two non-illuminated display cases (Advertisement Consent) (Retrospective Application)

Recommendation : To consider expediency of Enforcement Action

105

15. Land North of the Old Workhouse Ducks Hill Road Ruislip

West Ruislip Installation of a 24m high slimline telecoms lattice tower supporting 6 antennas and 2 transmission dishes, 2 ground based equipment cabinets, fencing and landscaping Recommendation : Refusal

108

16. Bi-Monthly Progress Report on Breaches of Planning Control 113

PART 2 – PRIVATE, MEMBERS ONLY

17. Bi-Monthly Progress Report on Alleged Breaches of Planning Control 126

Other Business

North Planning Committee – 24 February 2005 Page 1

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 24 FEBRUARY 2005 REPORT OF THE HEAD (NORTH) OF PLANNING AND

TRANSPORTATION

B Item No. 1 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: 31 PARKFIELD ROAD, ICKENHAM Development: ERECTION OF TWO FOUR BEDROOM DETACHED HOUSES

WITH INTEGRAL GARAGES (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE) (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)

LBH Ref Nos: 59187/APP/2004/2524 Drawing Nos: Site location plan scale 1:1250, 04/2271/2 received 10/09/04;

04/2271/3 Rev D, 04/2271/5 Rev A, 04/2271/1 Rev A received 27/10/04; 04/2271/4/A received 27/10/04

Date of receipt: 26/01/04 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 16/04/04 This report was deferred from the North Planning Committee held on 3 February 2005 to enable Members to make a site visit. CONSULTATIONS: External 8 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. 6 letters of objections have been received raising the following comments: (i) The houses are built forward of the front building line by 2.6m; (ii) Impact on adjoining properties; (iii) Impact on street scene; (iv) Loss of light to property located directly across Parkfield Road; (v) Inadequate off-street parking; Two petitions containing 36 and 26 signatures (47 separate signatures in total) have been received raising the following comments: (vi) The houses are built forward of the front building line; (vii) Impact on adjoining properties; (viii) Sets an unacceptable precedent. Ickenham Residents’ Association

The Association assumes that no increase in the internal room size has occurred. The Association does not suggest drastic remedial



action but rather expresses regret that no alternative options are available.

Internal Trees/Landscaping Officer Trees on site are not protected by a TPO or

Conservation Area status. There is a protected tree in the front garden of 29 Parkfield Road but this is well away from the boundary and should not be affected. Trees to close to the building should be removed and a landscaping condition included if the proposal is approved.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The UDP Designation is ‘developed area’. 2. The application site is located on the southern side of Parkfield Road and is

currently being developed with two detached houses approved in May 2004 (Ref: 59187/APP/2004/240). House 1 is adjacent to 29 Parkfield Road and house 2 is adjacent to 33 Parkfield Road. The road is generally characterised by detached bungalows, however there are a number of examples of detached two-storey houses within the street. The adjoining sites to the east and west are occupied by single storey bungalows with large side dormer windows.

3. During construction of the development (September 2004) it was brought to

the Council’s attention that the buildings were being built forward of the approved position. The current application seeks planning permission for the houses in their current positions. The difference in position varies from 0.8m at the eastern corner of house 1 adjacent 29 Parkfield Road, to 0.4m at the corner of house 2 adjacent 33 Parkfield Road. The average difference is approximately 0.4m forward of the originally approved position. The orientation of the buildings has not changed.

4. The other difference between the current scheme and the previously

approved scheme is the design of the front dormer window of house 2. The current application proposes to change the dormer from a flat roof to a hip. The design of the dormers is considered acceptable and consistent with the corresponding dormer on house 1.

5. Issues relating to access, parking, landscape, amenity space, design, height,

bulk were considered as part of the previously approved scheme and have not changed. The primary consideration is therefore the impact of the change in the siting of the houses forward of the originally approved position.



6. The building line within Parkfield Road is not uniform owing to a slight curve in the road at this point. As a result 33 Parkfield Road is orientated further to the north away from the application site. House 1 is situated 2.7m from 29 Parkfield Road whilst house 2 maintains a separation distance of 5.4m from 33 Parkfield Road.

7. The new houses project between 0.6m and 0.8m forward of the recognised

building line however this breach is considered to be minimal because the curve in the road creates a break in the building line. As such it is not considered that the current siting of the houses harms the layout of the houses and visual amenity of the street scene.

8. The front of the proposed houses is not visible from within the adjoining

properties. As such it is not considered that the change in position will have any significant impact on the amenities of adjoining residential properties.

9. The proposal is considered to comply with policies BE13, BE19, BE20, BE24

of the UDP, the Council’s Design Guide: ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’.

10. Comments (i – vii) raised by the letters of objection and the petitions have

been addressed in the report. On point (viii), each case is assessed on its merits and is not seen as setting a precedent for future development proposals. With regards to comments made by the Residents’ Association, there is no increase in the internal room size of the houses.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Environmental Services Group and the wider Council. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:- 1. (TL1) Existing Tree - Survey 1. (TL1) Standard 2. (TL2) Trees to be retained 2. (TL2) Standard



3. (TL3) Protection of trees and plants during site clearance and development

3. (TL3) Standard

4. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme 4. (TL5) Standard 5. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme –

implementation. 5. (TL6) Standard

6. (H7) Parking Arrangements 6. (H7) Standard 7. (RPD1) No additional doors and windows.

‘facing No. 29, 31, 31A, or 33 Parkfield Road’.

7. (RPD1) Standard

8. (M4) Means of Enclosure - erection and retention Means of enclosure – details.

8. (M4) Standard

9. (TL20) Amenity Areas 9. (TL20) Standard 10. (OM1) Development in accordance with

Approved Plans 10. (OM1) Standard

11. (RPD5) Restrictions on Erection of Extensions, Garages, Sheds and Outbuildings

11. (RPD5) Standard

12. Provisions shall be made within the site to ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction of the development hereby approved are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway.

12. To ensure that the development does not cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining pavement and highway.

13 Prior to commencement of works, details of a front garden car parking and landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be occupied until the car parking space has been implemented, and so maintained. The landscaping works shall be implemented within the next available planting season unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, and so maintained.

13 To ensure that adequate facilities are provided and in order to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the street scene and the surrounding area in accordance with policies BE13, BE38 and AM14 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVES 1. (3 Building Regulations- Demolition and Building Works 2. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 3. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 4. (6) Property Rights/Rights to Light 5. (21) Street naming and numbering 6. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the

policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and



improving amenity and character of the area BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys BE23 External amenity space and new residential development BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy AM7 Traffic Congestion AM14 Parking Standards SPG: Residential Layouts and House Design 4.1 Outlook 5.1 Privacy

7. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts

Contact Officer: CAMERON STANLEY Telephone No: 01895 250838





A

Item No. 2 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: 14 SANDY LODGE WAY NORTHWOOD Development: ERECTION OF A THREE-STOREY BLOCK OF SIX THREE-

BEDROOM FLATS, WITH PARKING SPACES AND LANDSCAPING (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING)

LBH Ref Nos: 40142/APP/2003/2570 Drawing Nos: KSL/00, 01,02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07A 9 (location plan only), 08

received on 04/11/03, letter received 26/02/04KSL/09 received15/07/04; Tree schedule Dwg No. GBA0704.02 and letter received on 05/04/04; RAC/1 received on 17/09/04; KSL/05 received 31/01/05 and letter

Date of receipt: 04/11/03 Date of Amendment: 17/09/04 This report was deferred from the North Planning Committee held on 3 February 2005 to enable Members to make a site visit. 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 Planning permission is sought to erect a three-storey block of six three-

bedroom flats, with parking spaces and landscaping. It is considered that the siting, size, bulk and design of the proposed scheme would not be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the character of the area. The proposal has been amended to ensure the protection of trees of merit on the site. The distance between the proposed building and nearby residential properties is sufficient to ensure that the amenities of adjoining residents would not be adversely affected. It is considered that satisfactory amenities would be provided for the future occupiers of the flats and the means of access to the site and parking provision are considered acceptable. This application is therefore considered acceptable subject to a Section 106 to secure the carrying out of an investigation of ground conditions on the site.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Council enter into an agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and all appropriate legislation in order to ensure the following:

(i) The applicant provides an investigation on the ground

conditions on the site to ensure that there will be no



unacceptable settlement or subsidence on the site or surrounding properties.

2. That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree detailed terms

of the proposed agreement.

3. That the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the Agreement not being completed.

4. That subject to the above the application be deferred for

determination by the Head of Planning & Transportation under delegated powers subject to the completion of the Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

5. That if the application is approved, the following conditions be

attached:-

1. (T1) Time Limit - full planning application

1. (T1) Standard

2. (M1) Details/Samples to be Submitted

2. (M1) Standard

3. (M3) Boundary treatment – details

3. (M3) Standard

4. (MRD7) Dustbin Siting 4. (MRD7) Standard 5. (OM1) Development in

accordance with Approved Plans

5. (OM1) Standard

6. (RPD1) No Additional Windows or Doors (‘… facing 12 and 16 Sandy Lodge Way Northwood’)

6. (RPD3) Standard

7. (RPD2) Obscured Glazing kitchen and bathroom windows (‘… facing 12 and 16 Sandy Lodge Way Northwood’)

7. (RPD3) Standard

8. (H7) Parking Arrangements (Residential)

8. (H7) Standard

9. (TL1) Existing Trees – Survey(iii) and (iv)

9. (TL1) Standard

10. (TL2) Trees to be retained 10. (TL2)Standard 11. (TL3) Protection of trees and

plants during site clearance and development

11. (TL3)Standard

12. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme - (full applications where details are reserved for future

12. (TL5) Standard



approval) • Planting plans (at not less

than a scale of 1:100), • Written specification of

planting and cultivation works to be undertaken,

• Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate,

• Implementation programme

13. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme - implementation

13. (TL6) Standard

14. (TL7) Maintenance of Landscaped Areas (‘… 10 years ...’)

14. (TL7) Standard

15. (TL8) Screen Planting (‘… 2m …’)

15. (TL8) Standard

16. Prior to development commencing on site a method statement outlining that sequence of development on the site including the demolition, building works and tree protection shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the scheme thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved method statement.

16. To ensure that trees can be satisfactorily obtained on the site in accordance with policy BE38 of the UDP.

17. Provision shall be made within the site to ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction of the development hereby approved are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway.

17. To ensure that the development does not cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining pavement and highway in accordance with policy AM7 of the UDP.

18. Details of a designated area for the storage of waste recycling receptacles adjacent to the bin store shall be submitted to and approved

18. To provide a designated area in addition to the bin store where residents can store and handle



by the Local Planning Authority. This recycling area shall be permanently retained for so long as the development remains in existence.

recycled waste before it is removed from the site in accordance with OE13 of the UDP.

19. (H5) Sight Lines - submission of details

19. (H5) Standard

20. Unobstructed visibility above the height of 1.05 metres must be maintained from the site access for vehicles at least 2.4 metres in both directions along the back edge of the footway. Any fencing/hedging above 1.05 metres would have to allow drivers to be able to see through it. This is for the safety of pedestrians walking along the footway.

20. To ensure that pedestrian and vehicular safety is not prejudiced by the development in accordance with policy AM7 of the UDP.

21. (H12) Closure of Existing Access

21. (H12) Standard

22. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority detailing how additional or improved educational facilities will be provided within a 3 miles radius of the site to accommodate the secondary school child yield arising from the proposed development. This shall include a timescale for the provision of the additional/improved facilities. The approved means and timescale of accommodating the child yield arising from the development shall then be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme.

22. To ensure the development provides an appropriate contribution to educational facilities within the surrounding area, arising from the proposed development, in accordance with policy R17 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Educational Facilities.

23. No development shall take place until details of a speed table have been submitted to

23. To ensure that pedestrian and vehicular safety is not prejudiced by the proposed



and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

development in accordance with policy AM7.

24. Prior to commencement of works, details of cycle storage provision shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, implemented and so maintained.

24. To promote sustainable transport modes in compliance with the Council’s Interim Parking Standards and PPG13 Transport.

INFORMATIVES 1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having

regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE13 New development must harmonise with the existing street

scene. BE19 New development must improve or complement the

character of the area. BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions. BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys BE23 Requires the provision of adequate amenity space. BE24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of

privacy to neighbours. BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and

provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals.

R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation, leisure and community facilities

H3 Loss and replacement of residential accommodation H6 Considerations influencing appropriate density in

residential development AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed

developments AM14 New development and car parking standards AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed

developments AM14 New development and car parking standards SPG ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’

2. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 3. (6) Property Rights/ Rights to Light 4. (1) Building to Approved Drawing 5. (3) Building Regulations 6. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 7. (12) Notification to Building Contractors 8. (17) Communal Amenity Space 9. (18) Storage and Collection of Refuse 10. (19) Sewerage Connections, Water Pollution etc.



11. (20) Land Drainage 12. ((21) Street Naming and Numbering 13. In respect of condition 23, you are advised that the Council

considers that one way to ensure compliance with the condition is to enter into an agreement with the Council to ensure the provision of additional/improved educational facilities locally, proportionate to the child yield arising from the development.

3.0 CONSIDERATIONS

Site and Locality

3.1 This application concerns 14 Sandy Lodge Way, a large detached property situated on the eastern side of Sandy Lodge Way, opposite its junction with Moor Park Road. To the north of the site are 2 relatively new detached houses (Nos.16 and 16A). To the south of the site is 12 Sandy Lodge Way. To the east of the application site is Woodridge Way, a residential cul-de-sac consisting 26 detached and terraced properties built on what was formerly the back gardens of the Sandy Lodge Way properties.

3.2 To the north of 16A Sandy Lodge are 3 blocks of 3 storey apartments/flats.

Otherwise the properties are predominantly detached with a variety of designs. The site is within the developed area as designated in the UDP.

Scheme

3.3 This application seeks permission to demolish an existing house and erect a

three-storey block of six three-bedroom flats, with parking spaces and landscaping. The block of flats is 21m wide, 16m deep, with a height of 10.7m to the top of the pitched roof. 9 parking spaces are located immediately to the north of the flats and are accessed from Woodridge Way. The existing driveway entrance onto Sandy Lodge Way is to be removed.

Planning History

3.4 Planning application (ref: 55327/APP/2000/1273) for the erection of two

blocks of three storey flats with basement parking to provide 20, two bedroom flats at 12 and 14 Sandy Lodge Way was the subject of an appeal against non-determination. The Inspector dismissed this appeal in November 2000 on the grounds that the proposal would have an adverse impact on trees which would materially harm the character and appearance of the locality. It was also considered that the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbours at 16 Sandy Lodge Way and provide unacceptable privacy levels between the two new blocks of flats.

3.5 Planning application (ref: 54671/APP/2002/54) for the erection of six flats at

10A Sandy Lodge Way was granted at the Ruislip/Northwood Planning Committee on 03/06/03 subject to a legal agreement in respect of an improvement to the road junction of Sandy Lodge Way and Woodridge Way



and a contribution towards the provision of school places. That development is currently in the process of being built.

Planning Policies and Standards

UDP Designation: The Developed Area The relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policies are:

Part 1 Policies:

Pt1.10 Seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the

amenity and the character of the area.

Part 2 Policies:

BE13 New development must harmonise with the existing street scene.

BE19 New development must improve or complement the character of the area.

BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations

BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions.

BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys

BE23 Requires the provision of adequate amenity space.

BE24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to

neighbours. BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of

new planting and landscaping in developments proposals

H3 Loss and replacement of residential accommodation

H6 Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential development.

AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM14 New development and car parking standards SPG ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’



Consultations External Consultees 67 nearby properties have been consulted and 38 letters of objection have been received raising the following comments:

(i) Would be intrusive, overdominant and out of character with area. (ii) Would result in unacceptable traffic generation giving rise to congestion

and traffic hazards on Woodridge Way and its junction with Sandy Lodge Way.

(iii) Proposed and existing access arrangements are dangerous. (iv) Inadequate parking is provided. (v) Will result in additional noise, dust and fumes. (vi) Density would be out of keeping with the area. (vii) Loss of sunlight. (viii) Unacceptable design. (ix) Further loss of T.P.O trees are proposed with inadequate provision for

replacement planting. (x) Inadequate sewerage/drainage. (xi) Loss of privacy. (xii) The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of an existing

house. (xiii) Problems of subsidence. (xiv) Overdevelopment. (xv) Loss of light to habitable rooms. (xvi) Flats are inappropriate in the area.

See addendum sheet

Sandy Lodge Way Community Action Group (2 letters including 1 letter with petition with 86 signatures)

(i) The proposal will result in the unacceptable loss of an existing house.

(ii) Excessive density. (iii) Overlooking. (iv) Development is out of

keeping with surrounding area.

(v) Existing trees will be removed and no landscaping proposed.

(vi) Inadequate parking. (vii) Inadequate sight lines

provided. (viii) Inadequate drainage. See addendum sheet



Northwood Residents’ Association (i) Woodridge Way is not capable of handling additional traffic.

(ii) Access onto Sandy Lodge Way is dangerous.

(iii) Inadequate parking. (iv) Existing trees will be

removed. (v) Development is out of

keeping with surrounding area.

Cllr Kanjee See addendum sheet

Internal Consultees

Highway Engineer No objections to the proposed development

The removal of the two parking spaces would restore the turning head to Sandy Lodge Way. This would benefit vehicle movements within the road. A speed table should be installed within the boundary of the proposed development and refuse collection points should be located within 23 metres of the Public Highway. A minimum distance of 6.0 metres to the rear of the parking spaces to ensure vehicles can safely manoeuvre in and out of the parking spaces.

Trees and Landscape Officer

This revised scheme makes provision for the long-term retention of the Oak (T21) in terms of policy BE38, as the proposed block would be located about 7 metres from the canopy of the tree. The revised layout drawing shows new planting on the frontage, and new screen planting on the boundary. The layout and outline landscaping scheme includes the removal of the one driveway entrance and part of the existing drive, the filling of the gap in the hedge and the planting of new trees, including two specimen Cedars and Magnolia and other ornamental trees to replace the Cedar, which was removed after consent was granted in 2002. The planting



will reinforce the existing feature on the frontage, provide a high quality setting for the building, and maintain the arboreal character of this part of Sandy Lodge Way. Overall, the scheme complies with policy BE38. No objection to the revised scheme, subject to landscaping/tree protection conditions and a condition requiring the submission and approval of a ‘demolition, building and tree protection’ method statement prior to the commencement of any works.

Policy and Environmental Planning

The car parking standards allows for 1.5 spaces per dwelling, the maximum car parking allowed is 9 spaces. The proposed 14 car parking spaces are therefore in excess of the current parking standards and should be reduced.

Main Planning Issues

3.6 The main planning issues are: (i) Acceptability of the principle of development (ii) Impact on the character and visual amenities of the area (iii) Provision of a satisfactory accommodation for future residents (iv) Impact on the amenities of nearby residents (v) Impact on highway and pedestrian safety (vi) Requirement for provision of education places and a prior investigation

of the site’s ground conditions.

(i) Acceptability of the principle of Development 3.7 There is no objection in principle to residential development within the

‘developed area’ subject to the proposal satisfying other policies within the UDP. The area is residential in character and planning permission has recently been granted for a similar flat development at 10A Sandy Lodge Way. The principle of allowing two-storey development of flats with rooms in the roof was considered acceptable by the Inspector on the appeal at 12 and 14 Sandy Lodge Way.

(ii) Impact on the character and visual amenities of the area

3.8 The Inspector, in determining an appeal for the erection of two, 2 storey

blocks of flats, states in paragraph 8 of his decision letter:-



“ … even though I appreciate that local residents believe that no.14 Sandy Lodge Way is a local landmark that is worthy of retention, to my mind whilst it is an attractive property I do not believe the appearance of the immediate surroundings would be harmed by its demolition.” Circumstances have not materially changed since this appeal decision.

3.9 There is no established building line either at the front or to the rear of the

properties on Sandy Lodge Way that back onto Woodridge Way. The proposed block of flats will be situated in a similar location to the existing building being set back by 14m and 16m from the road frontage with Sandy Lodge Way and Woodridge Way, respectively. The flank walls of the proposed blocks would be inset by 5m from 12 Sandy Lodge Way and 15m from the boundary of the site with16 Sandy Lodge Way. It is considered that the siting of the proposed development would not intrude into the street scene, and sufficient space has been retained between properties to ensure that the open character of the area, the visual amenities of the street scene and the surrounding area are maintained.

3.10 The area is characterised by a variety of house styles and it is considered that

given this existing variety the proposed block would not be out of keeping with the character of the area. The applicant has provided drawings which indicate that the height of the building is no higher than the existing building. The existing house has a maximum depth of 14m and is 21.5m wide. The proposed flats would be no wider than the existing house. Although the overall bulk of the proposed development would be larger than the existing house it is considered that the overall mass, bulk and design would not be out of keeping with the area.

3.11 The extensive gardens contain middle-aged, mature and, in some cases, over-mature trees. Most of the trees are subject to TPO 82. When the related issues of tree retention and landscape/visual impact were considered in relation to the previous application and appeal (12 & 14 Sandy Lodge Way), the loss of the Cedar (removed since with consent), the Magnolia and two flowering plums was considered detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. The impact was exacerbated by the potential threat from construction activity to the retention of the Oak.

3.12 Permission was granted in 2002 for the removal of the moribund/defective

plum and thorn trees (T16 & T17) (and the dying Rowan – T15) alongside the driveway and garage north of the existing house. The conditional permission required the planting of two new trees in the gardens near the drive to replace T16 and T17, when they are felled. Several trees have been removed and the Oak crown-thinned after that decision, but T16 and T17 remain in 2005.

3.13 This revised scheme makes provision for the long-term retention of the Oak

(T21) tree in terms of Policy BE38, as the proposed block would be located approximately 7 metres from the canopy of the tree. This scheme involves the loss of the 3 ornamental trees alongside the drive, including T7, T16 and



T17, but has been revised to retain the Beech (T5) and Flowering Plum (T6) and the other trees close to the frontage, so that the integrity of the group of trees (a landscape feature of merit in terms of policy BE38) is not affected. The loss of T16 and T17 (approved in 2002) and T7 (subordinate, British Standard 5837 Category C – Low), would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality, because the more visible and valuable trees are being retained and the scheme makes provision for the planting of new trees.

3.14 Amended plans have been received which provide new planting on the front

boundary of the site with Sandy Lodge Way and the removal of the existing driveway entrance. It is considered that the planting will enforce the existing features on the frontage of the site and will provide an attractive setting for the proposed building. The proposal therefore complies with policy BE38 of the UDP.

3.15 Policy H6 states that residential densities should harmonise with the

surrounding densities of that area; new housing is generally expected to be within the range of 100-200 hr/ha.

3.16 The proposed development equates to 176 habitable rooms per hectare

(hr/ha) or 35 units per hectare (u/ha). The site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) score of 2. The PTAL score does not correspond with the Draft London Plan density guidelines of 200-250hr/ha or 50-80u/ha within a suburban area with a PTAL score of 2. The proposed development is slightly below the Draft London Plan range for flatted schemes but given the surrounding pattern of modest density and the fact that 3 bedroom units are proposed, a density of 176hrh is considered acceptable in this case. (iii) Impact on the amenities of adjoining residents

3.17 Kitchen and bathroom windows are proposed in the first and second floor

flank walls facing 12 and 16 Sandy Lodge Way. Kitchens are non-habitable rooms and therefore the windows can be fitted with obscure glazing.

3.18 The proposed building is situated 16m from the rear boundary and 33m and

35m from 18-20 (even) and 14-16 (even) Woodridge Way, respectively which are located on the opposite side of the street. These distances are greater than the Council’s recommended standard of 21m between habitable room windows. Whilst the development includes windows at second floor level which are higher than the existing property, it is considered that the proposal will not result in a loss of privacy particularly given that the front of the properties on Woodridge Way are already open to public view. The proposal therefore meets the overlooking distances as recommended in the Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ and complies with Policy BE24 of the UDP.

3.19 The proposal is situated some 19m to the south of the flank wall of 16 Sandy

Lodge Way and this distance is considered sufficient to ensure that the proposal would not be overdominant in relation to this property, nor would



result in any overshadowing. The proposed development would be situated some 5m from 12 Sandy Lodge Way and would project approximately 4m beyond the rear of this property. An obscure glazed secondary bedroom window, secondary kitchen door window and an obscure glazed bathroom window are located in a single storey side extension which face towards the proposed flats. The flats are located to the north of this property and would not result in any overshadowing or loss of light to this property to justify refusal of planning permission. The proposal would not project beyond the 45 degree line taken from the mid-point of the adjoining properties’ rear window and is therefore not considered to be overdominant to the detriment of the amenities of adjoining residents. The proposal therefore complies with Policies BE20 and BE21 of the UDP.

3.20 The proposed access is from an existing turning head on Woodridge Way

close to the boundary with 16 Sandy Lodge Way. This access serves a row of 9 parking spaces which are to be located immediately to the north of the proposed flats. It is considered that the means of access serving the parking spaces would not give rise to noise and disturbance to the occupiers of this property. Furthermore, a landscape area with a minimum width of 2.2m and maximum width of 4m is situated between the area of hardsurfacing and the boundary with 16 Sandy Lodge Way which is sufficient to provide a landscape barrier to this property.

(iv) Adequacy of accommodation for future residents

3.21 This Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ states

that amenity space should be of a suitable size and shape. The proposal provides 462m2 amenity space which equates to 77m2 for each three bedroom flat. The amenity space is considered to be adequate and would provide satisfactory accommodation for future residents. The proposal therefore complies with Policy BE23 and meets the requirement of the design guide.

(v) Impact on highway and pedestrian safety

3.22 Sandy Lodge Way serves more than the immediate surrounding housing area. It provides a link to Northwood Town Centre to the south and Batchworth Lane, a link road between Rickmansworth Road and Oxhey/Bushy, to the north. There is therefore a steady flow of traffic along this road. Woodridge Way is a cul-de-sac serving 26 properties all of which have off street parking, In addition, there are a number of residents parking spaces marked out on the road. The road is relatively narrow and restricts two-way traffic when vehicles are parked. At the junction with Sandy Lodge Way, site line visibility is poor to the north.

3.23 The Inspector on the appeal at 12 and 14 Sandy Lodge Way considered that the additional traffic generated by 20, two bedroom flats would not result in dangerous highway conditions on Woodridge Way. He considered that on-street parking spaces had the effect of narrowing the road and slowing down



traffic as did the right-angled bend where the upper and lower sections of the road join and turn to exit into Sandy Lodge Way.

3.24 Since the appeal decision, planning permission has been granted for 6 flats at

10A Sandy Lodge Way. It is considered that the cumulative increase in traffic generated by the scheme at 10A Sandy Lodge Way and this development is not considered to be significant enough to materially alter the Inspector’s conclusion. As such, whilst the proposed development would increase the number of cars using Sandy Lodge Way and Woodridge Way it is considered that this increase would not be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety.

3.25 The planning permission for 6 flats granted in respect of 10A Sandy Lodge

Way acknowledged that visibility at the junction of Sandy Lodge Way and Woodbridge Way could be improved by changing the position of the road markings and kerb lines at the junction. Permission was granted subject to a legal agreement to improve the visibility of the junction of Sandy Lodge Way and Woodbridge Way. That development has commenced and the alterations to the junction will therefore be carried out in due course. As such, a requirement for junction improvements is not necessary under this current application.

3.26 Amended plans have removed the existing driveway onto Sandy Lodge Way.

Access to the site is proposed via an existing turning head on Woodbridge Way Two resident’s parking spaces are currently provided within this turning head facility. The proposal will result in the removal of the two resident’s parking spaces and it is considered that the reintroduction of the turning head facility would benefit vehicle movements within the road. The Council’s Highway Engineer raises no objection to the proposed means of access subject to the introduction of a speed table immediately to the west of the turning head within the boundary of the application site, and a condition requiring adequate sight lines to be maintained. According to the Council’s Car Parking Standards, 1.5 spaces should be provided per dwelling. The amended plans have reduced the proposed number of parking spaces from 14 to 9 in accordance with the Council’s standards. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not give rise to additional parking to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety and complies with policies AM7 and AM14 of the UDP. (vi) Requirement for provision of education places and a prior investigation

of the site’s ground conditions

3.27 The Inspector in respect of 12 and 14 Sandy Lodge Way noted that there was evidence of cracking in houses and walls along the northern part of the appeal site and understood concerns raised by residents about the depth of excavations on the appeal site and the impact the loss of trees would have on the stability of the houses on Woodridge Way. The Inspector stated that there was no substantive evidence, which suggest that development on the appeal site would exacerbate these present problems. However, there is anecdotal evidence which indicates that 16 Sandy Lodge Way was built on the site of a



house which was demolished because of subsidence problems and that the new house on the site has exhibited signs of settlement/subsidence.

3.28 The Inspector acknowledged that PPG14 ‘Development of Unstable Land’ on

occasions may require an investigation into the stability of the ground before the application can be decided. However, as subsidence is not strictly a planning matter, it is not considered reasonable to require an investigation prior to the determination of this application. It is not considered that the matter could be satisfactorily addressed by condition and therefore this matter has been addressed under the S.106 Agreement.

3.29 The Director of Education has advised that the proposed development will lead to additional pressure for school places in the Northwood area. The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution of £18.770.06 towards primary and £16.386.56 towards secondary school places in Northwood. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy R17 of the UDP.

4.0 Comments on Public Consultations 4.1 The following comments are made with regard to the letters of objection

received: (i) The proposal would not be intrusive, overdominant or out of character

with area for reasons outlined in the main body of the report. (ii) The proposal would not result in unacceptable traffic generation giving

rise to congestion and traffic hazards on Woodridge Way and its junction with Sandy Lodge Way.

(iii) The Council’s Highway Engineer considers that the existing and proposed access arrangements are acceptable.

(iv) The proposed parking satisfies the Council’s adopted car parking standards.

(v) The proposal will not result in additional noise, dust and fumes satisfactorily to justify refusal.

(vi) A Draft London Plan density guidelines of 200-250hr/ha or 50-80u/ha is recommended within a suburban area with a PTAL score of 2. Given the surrounding pattern of modest density and the fact that 3 bedroom units are proposed, a density of 176hrh is considered acceptable in this case.

(vii) The proposal will not result in loss of sunlight for reasons outlined in the main body of the report.

(viii) The area is characterised by a variety of house styles and it is considered that given the existing diversity the proposed block would not be out of keeping with the character of the area.

(ix) The revised scheme makes provision for the long-term protection of the Oak (T21) and the loss of (T16 and T17) would not be detrimental to the amenity of the locality. The additional planting to the frontage of Sandy Lodge Way will provide a high quality setting for the building. Overall, the scheme would comply with Policy BE38 of the UDP.

(x) Inadequate sewerage/drainage is not a planning reason for refusal.



(xi) The development meets the overlooking distances as recommended in the Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ and complies with Policy BE24 of the UDP.

(xii) The Inspector in determining an appeal for the erection of two, 2 storey blocks of flats considered that the appearance of the immediate surroundings would not be harmed by its demolition.

(xiii) Problems of subsidence have been addressed in the main body of the report.

(xiv) The proposal is not considered to result in the overdevelopment of the site.

(xv) The proposal will not result in a loss of light to habitable room windows for reasons outlined in the main body of the report.

(xvi) There is no objection in principle to this form of development within the ‘developed area’ subject to the proposal satisfying other policies within the UDP. The principle of allowing two-storey development of flats of flats with rooms in the roof space was considered acceptable by the Inspector who determined the appeal at 12 and 14 Sandy Lodge Way.

4.2 With reference to the letter from Sandy Lodge Community Action Group

points (i) to (viii) have been addressed in the main body of the report. Points (i) to (v) of the letter of objection of Northwood Residents’ Association have also been addressed in the main body of the report.

5.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor

5.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.

6.0 Observations of the Director of Finance 6.1 The report indicates that the costs of the development will be fully met by the

developer, and the developer will make a contribution to the Council towards school places. Consequently, there are no financial implications for this Planning Committee or the Council.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions, the proposal is not

considered to be detrimental to the character and visual amenities of the area, the amenities of adjoining residents and highway and pedestrian safety. Satisfactory accommodation would be provided for future occupiers and approval is recommended accordingly.



Reference Documents: (a) Unitary Development Plan (b) SPG Residential Layouts and House Design (b) Letters of objection (c) 1 Petition (d) PPG14 Development of Unstable Land Contact Officer: ANDY PARKER Telephone No: 01895 556774





B Item No. 3 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: 51 SWAKELEYS DRIVE, ICKENHAM Development: ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY PITCHED ROOF GARDEN

BUILDING FOR USE AS PLAYROOM AT END OF REAR GARDEN.

LBH Ref Nos: 41116/APP/2004/2480 Drawing Nos: Unnumbered drawing received 27/1/05 Date of receipt: 03/09/04 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 27/01/05 CONSULTATIONS: 6 adjoining properties have been consulted. 6 letters of objection and a petition with 25 signatories have been received raising the following comments: (i) loss of privacy and increased noise nuisance; (ii) devaluation of property; (iii) The building would be used as a dwelling, for sub-letting or for business

purposes; (iv) the site is located in a Conservation Area where green spaces are meant to

be valued and development is to be kept to a minimum; (v) the visual impact of the building; (vi) over development of the site; (vii) overshadowing of adjoining properties; (viii) the loss of trees would impact on the privacy for the neighbouring properties; (ix) the playroom would be a fire hazard as there is no alleyway that would

provide access for emergency services; (x) the proposal would set a precedent for similar development; (xi) a planning application has been refused for a similar proposal at 77

Swakeleys Road. Ickenham Conservation Panel The size of the garden building 8m wide could

accommodate a nursery.

Design and appearance indicate it to be habitable. Given the size of the rear garden the shed like structure would be half the size of the garden.



Ickenham Residents’ Association The site is already subject to an approved large extension to the rear of the property, which has taken up a substantial part of the rear garden. If this extension had not been built there would be only 11m between the existing rear wall of the property and the proposed playroom. The proposal would be an over development of the site. Should planning permission be granted it should be conditioned that the building is not used as a dwellinghouse.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The site lies within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area as designated in

the UDP. It comprises a semi-detached property with a single storey rear extension. The rear garden is 65m deep and 25m wide and has fruit trees and shrubs demarcating its boundaries. It also abuts the rear garden of 56 Halford Road.

2. Planning permission is now sought for the erection of a single storey pitched

roof garden building for use as a playroom at the end of the rear garden. The building would be sited 1.15m from the boundary with 56 Halford Road and would be set back 1.15m from the side boundary with 49 and 53 Swakeleys Road. The proposed outbuilding would be 5.5m deep, 7.5m wide and would have a pitched roof 2.7m high to eaves level and 3.5m high to ridge level. It would be constructed in brickwork and the roof would be clad in tiles. Two windows and a door opening are proposed in the northern elevation of the building, facing the rear garden of the application property. The proposed building would be sited some 30m from the rear of 56 Halford Road and 45m from the rear of 49 and 53 Swakeleys Road. It would also maintain a distance of 45m from the rear elevation of the existing rear extension of the application property.

3. As the site is located in a Conservation Area the desirability of preserving or

enhancing its character and appearance are of paramount consideration. The scale and size of the proposed building, given its location and the size of the rear garden of the application property, is considered to be appropriate to the residential character of the area. The proposed use of brick work in its construction and tiling to its roof would relate satisfactorily with the existing house and those that adjoin it, provided that appropriate texture and colour of bricks and tiles are utilised. Details of materials to be use are secured by way of a condition. In light of the above comments and in terms of policy BE13 of the UDP, it is considered that the proposed building would harmonise with the existing features of the area and would respect its visual amenities. The proposal would therefore not have an adverse impact upon the amenity and character of the area. The proposal is consistent with policy BE19 of the UDP.



4. The distance of the building from the adjoining houses and the existing vegetation along the garden boundaries would ensure that the proposal would not present a visually intrusive feature in the area. It is accepted that some fruit trees and shrubs along boundaries would be lost as a consequence of the development, however, these are not considered to contribute significantly in terms of their public amenity value or specimen type to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area such as to merit retention. An appropriate condition is recommended requiring details of a tree survey for the site that accurately shows existing trees to be retained and others that can be planted that would further enhance the visual quality of the environment. This would accord with the objectives of policy BE38 of the UDP.

5. The residual external amenity space that would be left after the

implementation of the development would be some 1000sqm. This is considered to be more than adequate for a four bedroom house and acceptable having regard to policy BE23 of the UDP. Notwithstanding the extensions and alterations to the existing property and in light of the above comments, the proposal would not present an overdevelopment of the site.

6. It is considered that the proposed building would not be detrimental to the

character and appearance of the Conservation Area and therefore, the proposal accords with UDP policy BE4.

7. Noise that would be associated with the proposed playroom would not be

unacceptable within the context of the residential character of the area. The distance of the proposed building from the adjoining dwelling houses and orientation of the windows would preclude direct overlooking across the adjoining properties. An appropriate condition is included in the recommendation to preclude additional window openings in the flank and rear elevations of the building. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with policy BE24 of the UDP.

8. Whilst the applicant has no intention of using the outbuilding for any other

purpose other than as a playroom, the future use of the outbuilding is a material planning concern, and is considered important in the interest of preserving the recreational garden environment, the character of the conservation Area and the residential amenities of the adjoining houses. A condition is therefore recommended requiring the proposed outbuilding be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the existing house.

9. The rear gardens of dwelling houses adjoining the site have considerable

garden depths and given the size and position of the proposed outbuilding, it is not considered that the residential amenities of the adjoining houses would be adversely impacted upon by way of overshadowing or dominance. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenities of the adjoining houses through loss of privacy, dominance or significant overshadowing. This aspect of the proposal accords with the policies BE20 and BE21 of the UDP.



10. A planning application for a similar rear outbuilding was refused at 77 Swakeleys Road in 2003 (ref: 5440/APP/2003/2269). It is noted however that the rear outbuilding did not form part of the reasons for refusal of the application, which were related to the two-storey side extension and the proposed dormer window.

11. Points (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (xi) have been addressed in the

report. Point (ii) is not a material planning consideration. On point (ix), the outbuilding is unlikely to be a fire hazard as it would be used incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and on point (x), each application is considered on its own merits and in the light of the particular site circumstances as well as the adopted Development Plan policies.

12. It is considered that the proposal would not compromise the residential

amenities of the adjoining houses nor would it detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the visual amenities of the locality. In light of the above comments, the proposal would accord with policies BE4, BE13, BE19, BE20, BE21, BE24 and BE38. As such, the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should avoid the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council’s financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:- 1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (OM1) Development in

accordance with approved plans

2. (OM1) Standard

3. (M1) External Surfaces Details to be submitted

3. (M1) Standard



4. (RPD1) No Additional Windows

or Doors (‘… facing east, west and south elevations of the proposed building’)

4. (RPD1) Standard

5. (TL1) Tree Survey 5. (TL1) Standard 6. (TL2) Trees to be Retained 6. (TL2) Standard 7. (TL3) Protection of Trees 7. (TL3) Standard 8. The proposed building hereby

granted planning permission shall only be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and for no other use or purpose including any commercial use.

8. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of preserving the recreation garden environment and the character of the Conservation Area as well as the residential amenities of the adjoining properties in accordance with policies BE4, BE24 and OE1 of the UDP.

INFORMATIVES: 1. (1) Building to Approved Plans 2. (2) Encroachment 3. (3) Building Regulations - Demolition and Building Works 4. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 5. (6) Property Rights/ Rights to Light 6. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works

hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts

7. (15) Control of Environmental nuisance from Construction Work. 8. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard

to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE4 Conservation Areas BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and

improving amenity and character of the area BE20 Adequate daylight and sunlight BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE23 External amenity space and new residential development BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy BE38 Trees and Landscaping AM14 New development and car parking standards

Contact Officer: SONIA BOWEN Telephone No: 01895 250913





B

Item No. 4 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: EASTCOTE UNDERGROUND STATION, FIELD END ROAD,

EASTCOTE Development: INSTALLATION OF CHIP AND PIN CARD READERS TO

TICKET OFFICE COUNTERS (APPLICATION FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)

LBH Ref Nos: 22319/APP/2005/58 Drawing Nos: Document 9521-37025 Rev A, 1:1250 Scale Location Plan,

9521-02039 and 9549-05023 received 22 December 2004 Date of receipt: 22/12/04 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: Ruislip, Northwood & Eastcote Local History Society

No response received

Eastcote Residents Association No response received

English Heritage Has authorised the Local Planning Authority to determine this application.

Conservation/Urban Design Officer No objections to the proposal

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The application site is located on the eastern side of Field End Road, and is

occupied by the Eastcote Underground Station. Whilst the Eastcote Underground Station has been modified to incorporate various modern facilities, the interior retains much of its original appearance, with tiling on the floor and lower walls, and the upper walls finished in brick. The ticket counter is finished in heritage bronze. The station is a Grade II Listed Building, and is located within the Eastcote Town Centre as identified in the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

2. The surrounding area is predominantly commercial, with some residential units located on the upper levels of those properties fronting Field End Road.

3. The proposal involves the placement of chip and pin card readers on each of the two ticket office counters. The readers would comprise small box shaped units capable of reading chip and pin enabled credit cards, and a keypad to allow a personal identification number (PIN) to be entered. A privacy screen would enclose three sides of each reader, which are to be finished in ‘heritage



bronze’. Associated cabling will connect the units to the existing ticket office machines. Cabling will be either flexible or fixed conduit, or a combination of the two as required by site conditions. However, the cabling will not be visible from the public areas of the station. The proposal would assist London Underground in upgrading their existing facilities.

4. The proposed chip and pin readers are considered to be minimal additions and would be discreetly placed on the ticket counters. The use of a ‘heritage bronze’ finish would ensure that the works would integrate with existing materials and harmonise with the surroundings. As such the works are not considered to harm the special interest of the listed building.

5. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies BE8, BE9 and AM11 of the UDP and is therefore recommended for approval.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulation, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the wider Council. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT LISTED BUILDING CONSENT - subject to the following conditions:- 1. (CAC1) Time Limit – Listed

Building Consent 1. (CAC1) Standard

2. (OM1) Development in accordance with Approval Plans

2. (OM1) Standard (‘… policy BE13’)

3. (CAC4) Making good any damage (‘… within 1 month …’)

3. (CAC4) Standard

INFORMATIVES 1. The decision to grant Listed Building Consent has been taken having

regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance:



BE8 Planning applications for alteration or extension of listed buildings BE9 Listed building consent applications for alterations and extensions BE13 New development to harmonise with the existing street scene. BE15 Extensions to harmonise with the scale, form, architectural

composition and proportions of the original building. AM11 Improvement in facilities and promotion of safety and security at bus

and rail interchanges; use of planning agreements to secure improvements in public transport services.

2. (1) Building to Approved Drawing Contact Officer: REBECCA STOCKLEY Telephone No: 01895 250840





B

Item No. 5 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: THE PLOUGH, 154 BURY STREET, RUISLIP Development (A): ALTERATIONS TO ENTRANCE PORCH AND SINGLE

STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TO PROVIDE DISABLED TOILET AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS (APPLICATION FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)

LBH Ref Nos: 701/APP/2004/2377 Drawing Nos: 1962/101 and 1962/002 received 25/08/04 Date of receipt: 25/08/04 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None Development (B): ALTERATIONS TO ENTRANCE PORCH AND SINGLE

STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TO PROVIDE DISABLED TOILET AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS

LBH Ref Nos: 701/APP/2004/2374 Drawing Nos: 1962/101 and 1962/002 received 25/08/04 Date of receipt: 25/08/04 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: External Consultees 11 neighbouring properties have been consulted and the application has been advertised as involving works to a Listed Building known as ‘ The Plough’. No responses have been received. English Heritage Has authorised the Local Planning Authority

to determine this application. Ruislip, Northwood and Eastcote No response has been received. Local History Society Internal Consultees Conservation/Urban Design Officer No objections, however given the sketchiness of the drawings, conditions for details of windows, doors, frames and other external timber work should be attached.



KEY PLANNING ISSUES (A & B): 1. The application site known as ‘The Plough’ Public House is located on the

northeast side of Bury Street. It is a Grade II Listed Building and is an original timber framed early seventeenth century building which has been extended. The Woodman’s Farm (Listed Building) lies to the southeast of the site. The surrounding area is mainly characterised by residential properties.

2. Listed building consent and planning permission are sought for alterations to

the entrance porch area and the erection of a small extension to create toilets for people with disabilities. The extension is 1.5m wide, 2.7m deep and 2.8m high with a gable end roof. The existing wooden posts would be re-positioned 1.5m from the existing side canopy area with a new pitch roof 2.3m high. Internal alterations are also proposed involving the provision of a wheelchair access.

3. The design of the roof of the proposed porch and extension would match the

gable roofs of the existing building and this is considered to make a positive contribution to the appearance of this listed building. The Council’s Urban Design/Conservation Officer raises no objections subject to the submission of further details relating to fenestration, doors, frames and other external timberwork.

4. The proposal would be sited within the existing envelope of the building which

is located over 25m from residential properties in Plough Farm Close. Therefore the proposal is not considered to harm the residential amenity of those properties. In addition, the proposal will not affect the existing off-site car parking.

5. A high level window is proposed in the side elevation of the new toilets. A

condition requiring obscure glazing to this window is recommended to ensure there is no loss of privacy to the occupiers of this facility. In addition, a second window is proposed to the lobby entrance to this area, which is considered satisfactory. There would be adequate wheelchair manoeuvring space to meet with the requirements of the Council’s Design Guide: Access for All.

6. The internal works and proposed extension would provide suitable access for

people with disabilities and would meet the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Standards. The proposal is therefore is in compliance with Policy R16 of the UDP. Furthermore, the internal works are not considered to harm the integrity of the Listed Building.

7. The proposal is therefore not considered to harm the special interest of the

Grade II Listed Building and would not detract from the appearance of the Public House or the visual amenities of the surrounding area in compliance with Policies BE8 and BE9, BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP. Accordingly, Listed Building Consent and planning permission are recommended.



Observations of Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Environmental Services Group and the wider Council. RECOMMENDATION (A): CONSENT - subject to the following conditions:- 1. (CAC1) Listed Building Consent 1. (CAC1) Standard 2. (CAC4) Making good of any

damage 2. (CAC4) Standard

3. (CAC12) Samples of Materials 3. (CAC12) Standard 4. (OM1) Development in

accordance with Approved Plans 4. To safeguard the special

architectural and/or historic interest of the building in accordance with policy BE8 of the UDP

5. Before development commences, detailed drawings, elevations and sections of all new windows, doors, frames and external timber surfaces to a scale of 1:20 for fenestration and 1:5 for sections shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The agreed details shall be implemented and so maintained.

5. To safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with policies BE8 and BE9 of the UDP

INFORMATIVES 1. (1) Building to Approved Drawing 2. (3) Legislation Administered by Building Control 3. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 4. (6) Property Rights / Rights of Light 5. (15) Control of Environmental nuisance from Construction Work



6. The decision to grant Listed Building Consent has been taken having

regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE8 Planning applications for alteration or extension of listed buildings BE9 Listed building consent applications for alterations or extensions BE10 Proposals detrimental to the setting of a listed building BE11 Layout and appearance of new development BE15 Alterations and extensions to existing buildings

7. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts.

RECOMMENDATION (B): APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:- 1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M1) Details/Samples to be

Submitted 2. (M1) Standard

3. Before development commences, detailed drawings, elevations and sections of all new windows, doors, frames and external timber surfaces to a scale of 1:20 for fenestration and 1:5 for sections shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The agreed details shall be implemented and so maintained.

3. To safeguard the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with policies BE8 and BE9 of the UDP

4. (DIS1) Facilities for People with Disabilities (Policy R16)

4. (DIS1) Standard

5. (RPD2) Obscured Glazing and Non-Opening Windows (‘to the toilet block window’)

5. (RPD2) Standard

6. (OM1) Development in accordance with Approved Plans

6. To safeguard the special architectural and/or historic interest of the building in accordance with policy BE8 of the UDP

INFORMATIVES 1. (1) Building to Approved Drawing 2. (3) Legislation Administered by Building Control 3. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 4. (6) Property Rights / Rights of Light



5. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 6. (34) Access to Buildings and Facilities for Persons with Disabilities 7. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to

the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE8 Planning applications for alteration or extension of listed buildings BE9 Listed building consent applications for alterations or extensions BE10 Proposals detrimental to the setting of a listed building BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE15 Alterations and extensions to existing buildings BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and

improving amenity and character of the area SPG: Access For All – The space required for wheelchair manoeuvring and entrance lobby spaces


Contact Officer: NOSHEEN JAVED Telephone No: 01895 277722





A

Item No. 6 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: LAND AT THE RETREAT, 26 FIELD END ROAD, EASTCOTE Development: RESERVED MATTERS DETAILS OF DESIGN, EXTERNAL

APPEARANCE AND LANDSCAPING IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS 2(A), (B) AND (C), 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 9 OF PLANNING APPLICATION REF: 20111/APP/2002/876 ERECTION OF FOUR TWO STORY DETACHED HOUSES (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF THE REMAINS OF THE RETREAT) DATED 03/11/04.

LBH Ref Nos: 20111/APP/2004/36 Drawing Nos: 008/RET/02 received on 05/12/03, Retreat Landscape 1

received on 06/12/04; 008/RET/01 E received on 08/06/04; 008/RET/01 REV F received on 31/08/04; GFE/E/102 and method statement received on 09/11/04 and modified method statement received on 22/11/04; landscape specification Q35 received on 22/12/05; 1B, 008/RET03/REV D, landscape specification Q31 and 008/RET/004 received on 10/02/05; letters received 06/12/04, 07/02/05 and 10/02/05

Date of receipt: 05/12/04 Dates of Amendments: 08/06/04,

31/08/04, 09/11/04, 06/12/04, 07/02/05 and 10/02/05.

1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 This application seeks reserved matters approval for details of design,

external appearance and landscaping in connection with an outline application ref: 20111/APP/2002/876 to erect four, detached 4-bedroom dwelling houses and garages approved on 03/11/03.

1.2 This amended scheme reduces the height of the development, simplifies its

design and introduces a more contemporary appearance. These revisions are considered sufficient to ensure that the external appearance and design of the development would not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposed landscape scheme would also retain trees of merit and proposes planting in keeping with the character of the area. It is therefore recommended to discharge conditions 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION: To discharge reserved matters conditions 2(A),

(B), (C) and conditions 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9.



INFORMATIVES: 1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to

the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE4 New development within or on the fringes of conservation areas BE13 New development must harmonise with the existing street scene BE19 New development must improve or complement the character of the

area BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE23 Requires the provision of adequate amenity space BE24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to

neighbours BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of

new planting and landscaping in developments proposals SPG ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’

2. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 3. (6) Property Rights/ Rights to Light 4. (1) Building to Approved Drawing 5. (3) Building Regulations 6. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 7. (32) Trees Protected by a Tree Preservation Order 8. (21) Street Naming and Numbering 9. You are advised that the development hereby approved shall be carried out

in accordance with the method statement received on 09/11/04 and modified on 22/11/04.

10. You are advised that details of an exit sign and the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in compliance with conditions 10 and 11 respectively of planning application ref: 20111/APP/2002/876 are required to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Details in respect of condition 11 are required to be approved prior to development commencing.

3.0 CONSIDERATIONS Site and Locality 3.1 The application relates to land at 'The Retreat', which formerly comprised a

large two-storey property. This building and part of a boundary wall has been demolished since the grant of the outline consent and some site clearance works undertaken.

3.2 Access to the site is from Field End Road between 24 Field End Road and

Retreat Cottage, 28 Field End Road. The access road is bordered by trees to the north and abuts rear gardens of properties in Farthings Close to the south. The main body of the site is 35 metres from the point of access. The former



property was situated centrally in the site. Numerous trees cover the site, many protected by Tree Preservation Order 479.

3.3 The site is located within the ‘developed area’ as designated in the UP. A

small section of the proposed means of access to the site adjacent to Field End Road is situated within Eastcote Conservation Area. However, the majority of the site, including that part of the site occupied by the proposed dwelling units falls outside the Conservation Area. Properties in Field End Road, Farthings Close and Azalea Walk all abut the application site.

Scheme

3.4 Outline planning permission for the erection of 4 two-storey four-bedroom

houses, with only access and siting to be agreed, was approved on 03/11/03. 3.5 This application seeks the approval of reserved matters external appearance,

design and landscaping in compliance with condition 2 of outline planning application ref: 20111/APP/2002/876. Consent is also sought to discharge conditions 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the outline consent which requires details of a tree survey, tree protection, landscape maintenance, a landscape scheme and method statement respectively, to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing.

3.6 Plans indicate that the siting of the proposed houses has not changed from

the original outline consent. The houses, each with a detached garage and parking space within the curtilage would be sited around a central hardsurfaced area. 3 of the properties (house type B) would be 13m wide, 7m deep and 8.3m high to the ridge of the roof. The fourth detached property (house type A) would be 10m wide, 9.2m deep and 8.2m high to the ridge of the roof. Both house types propose two rear dormers to provide a playroom in the roof.

Planning History

3.7 In February 1998 planning permission was granted for a two-storey extension

and change of use to 6 one-bedroom flats (ref: 20111/D/97/1868). 3.8 In April 2001 planning permission (Ref: 20111/APP/1999/2317) for the

erection of 15 units of accommodation (7 three-bedroom houses and 8 (6x2 bed and 2x1 bed) flats and 24 parking spaces) was refused.

3.9 In November 2003 outline application (ref: 20111/APP/2002/876) for the

erection of 4, two-storey, four-bedroom houses was approved. Means of access and siting were agreed at this stage.



Planning Policies and Standards UDP Designation: Developed Area.

Part 1 Policies:

Pt1.10 Seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the amenity and the character of the area.

Part 2 Policies: BE4 New development within or on the fringes of conservation areas

BE13 Layout and appearance of new development

BE19 New development must improve or complement the character of the

area


BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions

BE23 External amenity space and new residential development

BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy

BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals

OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and

the local area SPG ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’

SPG ‘Roads in Residential Layouts’ Consultations

52 adjoining owner/occupiers were consulted and 6 letters of objection have been received making the following additional comments: - (i) The scale of the houses, each having a large loft space, exceeds the

outline permission for 4 bedroom houses. (ii) The proposal would result in additional traffic. (iii) The proposed dormers would be overdominant. (iv) The means of access would not be suitable for refuse and emergency

vehicles and is located at a very dangerous bend.



The application was the subject of reconsultation and 5 additional letters of objection have been received making the following additional comments: - (i) The proposed additional rooms could give rise to additional traffic

congestion. (ii) The Charges Register requires additional payments to the vendor. (iii) Demolition has taken place without protective fencing some trees

suffered damage and G2 on TPO 479 (two hazels) were removed. (iv) As the drive is narrow the services should be a specified distance from

the trees. (v) Tree T57 and other trees situated in proximity to an adjacent garage

should be removed situated in proximity to an adjacent garage should be removed.

Eastcote Village Conservation Panel

1. The outline scheme was carefully designed to ensure that TPO trees would not be damaged. The siting of this reserved matters application should respect this outline consent.

2. The design of materials should

be sympathetic to the Conservation Area.

3. The proposal would result in at

least one additional room per house.

Eastcote Residents’ Association

Reiterates the comments of the Conservation Panel above.

Northcote and Eastcote Local History Society

No response

Cllr S Seaman-Digby Notes residents concerns and will ensure that members of the planning committee are made aware of the issues raised.

Cllr C Dann Relayed resident’s concerns regarding consultation procedure, demolition of a boundary wall and damage to existing trees.



Internal Consultees

Trees and Landscape Officer

The tree protection scheme (Dwg. LS001) and method statement (received 9th November, as modified on 22nd November 2004) are acceptable. Any approval should include a condition that the development should be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement. The overall design concept of the landscape scheme is acceptable and the specifications and the detailed planting plans showing which trees and shrubs will be planted where on the site are considered sufficient to discharge condition 7.

Conservation Officer

To original scheme No objections in principle and the layout has been agreed. The design of the scheme is unacceptable. Would be concerned over the loss of any trees which could have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area. To revised scheme Verbally indicated no objections to revised scheme.

Main Planning Issues 3.10 The acceptability of the principle of this proposal, the siting of the development

and the means of access to the site has been established by the outline consent. The main issues in this particular case are considered to be: - (i) Impact on the visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding area (ii) Impact on the amenities of adjoining properties (iii) Adequacy of accommodation for future occupiers



(i) Impact on the visual amenities of the surrounding area.

3.11 The development would be well screened by existing trees and would not be

visible from the road or easily noticeable from neighbouring properties. The siting and overall layout of the proposal agreed under the outline consent has not changed.

3.12 The design and external appearance of the houses have been amended. The

height of both type A and type B has been reduced. House type A has been lowered from 9.3m to 8.2m. House type B has been lowered from 8.9m to 8.3m to the ridge of the roof. The half-timbering at first floor level has been removed and the brickwork detail at ground floor level lowered. The design of the windows has been amended and the size of the proposed dormers reduced so that they are subordinate to the roof slope. These revisions are considered to have improved the overall proportions of the development and removed its box-type appearance. The design of the houses has been simplified and a more contemporary style introduced. It is considered that these revisions are sufficient to ensure that the proposal would not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

3.13 TPO 479 protects the significant trees of merit on the site. The layout on the

outline application was designed, as far as it was possible to ensure the retention of the valuable trees. The siting of the houses respects the outline consent and is sufficient to ensure the long-term retention of trees of merit.

3.14 The tree survey, tree protection, landscape maintenance details and method

statement are considered satisfactory to discharge conditions 3, 5, 6 and 9. The overall design concept of the proposed landscape scheme is also acceptable as it retains trees of merit and the proposed planting is considered to be in keeping with the character of the area. Condition 7 can therefore be discharged.

(ii) Impact upon the residential amenity of adjoining properties

3.15 The access road runs to the rear of properties on Farthings Close but no

development is proposed to the rear of these dwelling houses. The closest houses to the proposed development are in Farthings Close and would be situated 27m away at a 90-degree angle to one another, and screened by trees. This distance exceeds the minimum distance of 21m required to prevent overlooking as specified in the Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’. The location of the windows as indicated as part of this reserved matters application would not therefore give rise to a loss of privacy to the detriment of the amenities of nearby residents. Furthermore, within the application site the siting of the proposed windows would not result in the overlooking of the private garden area of the houses. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy BE24 of the UDP. The provision of an additional habitable room in the roof would not give rise to additional noise and disturbance to nearby residents to justify refusal or generate the need for



additional planting. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies OE1 and AM14 of the UDP.

(iii) Adequacy of accommodation for future occupiers 3.16 This Council’s Design Guide “Residential Layouts and House Design” states

that for 4 bedroom houses a minimum of 100m2 of private amenity space should be provided. House type A would have an amenity space area of approximately 400 m2. House type B, units 1, 2, 3 would have an amenity space area of approximately 574m2, 532m2 and 340m2 respectively. All the gardens are therefore well in excess of minimum standards for houses of this size. It is therefore considered that the proposal would provide a satisfactory standard of accommodation for the occupiers of each house and the proposal is considered to satisfy policy BE23 of the UDP.

Comments on Public Consultations

3.17 With regard to the letters of objection received in respect of the original

scheme, point (iii) is addressed in the main body of the report. With regard to point (i), outline consent was granted for four, two storey houses and siting and means of access only were approved at the outline stage. The siting of the proposed houses and proposed number of bedrooms accords with the outline consent. Although rooms are proposed in the roof, the proposal remains a two storey development. The proposal does not therefore exceed the outline consent and amended plans have reduced the scale of development sufficiently so that it does not detract from the visual amenities and character of the area. With regard to point (ii), the traffic generated by this scheme was addressed under the outline consent and would not be significantly altered by the provision of an additional habitable room in the roof.

3.18 With regard to the revised proposal, point (i) is addressed above. Point (ii) is

not a planning consideration. On point (iii), this will be investigated under the terms of the TPO rather than this current application. With regard to point (iv), the applicant has confirmed that it is proposed to use existing services. With regard to point (v), the Council are not in a position to make the applicants remove trees however, this matter could be addressed when considering the detailed landscape scheme.

3.19 With regard to the letter of objection from the Conservation Panel and

Eastcote Residents’ Association the points raised have been addressed above.

3.20 With regard to the comments from Cllr. C Dann residents have been

consulted in respect of the revised plans and the comments received are reported above. The boundary wall which has been demolished falls outside the Conservation Area and as such planning consent is not required. The damage to existing trees has been addressed above.



4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor 4.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant

planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.

5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance 5.1 As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations

have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.

6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 The proposal would not detract from the visual amenities of the street scene

or the amenities of adjoining residents. It provides a satisfactory form of accommodation for future residents. The details of design, external appearance and landscaping are considered to satisfy the relevant policies of the UDP. As such planning permission is recommended.

Reference Documents: (a) Unitary Development Plan (b) Supplementary Planning Guide: ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ (c) Letters of objection. Contact Officer: ANDY PARKER Telephone No: 01895 556774





A

Item No. 7 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: LAND TO THE SOUTH OF 2 CANAL COTTAGES,

SPRINGWELL LANE, RICKMANSWORTH Development: ERECTION OF A 1.8M (REDUCING TO 1.2M) HIGH

CONCRETE BLOCK RETAINING WALL AND LAYOUT OF HARDSTANDING, ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT STORAGE SHEDS, INSTALLATION OF ENTRANCE GATES AND ERECTION OF 1.5M HIGH CLOSE BOARDED FENCE (PART RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)

LBH Ref Nos: 15220/APP/2004/2955 Drawing Nos: 4 un-numbered site plans and 17 A4 photographic sheets and 6 letters

dated 22/10/04 received 4/11/04 Date of receipt: 04/11/04 Dates of Amendments: None 1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This report considers a planning application submitted to regularise various

unauthorised works and to erect a retaining wall to an embankment in connection with a builder’s yard which is located within the Green Belt and also forms part of the Springwell Lock Conservation Area and the Colne Valley Park. The development, which has involved the loss of protected trees, is considered to be detrimental to the Green Belt, the Springwell Lock Conservation Area, the Colne Valley Park and the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers. Furthermore, although not entirely clear, it is considered that on balance, the builder’s yard appears to be unlawful. The unauthorised activity, together with associated building works constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt, is contrary to the aims of the Colne Valley Park which seeks to resist urbanisation and to safeguard the countryside from inappropriate development, is detrimental to the character and appearance of the Springwell Lock Conservation Area, results in the loss of residential amenity to surrounding properties and has resulted in a loss of protected trees. Planning conditions will not overcome the detrimental impact caused by the development and therefore it is considered expedient to take enforcement action.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION (A): REFUSAL, for the following reasons:-

1. The extension of hardstanding areas and the erection of storage sheds, gates and fencing represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt, prejudicing the visual amenities, openness and function of the Green Belt. The development is therefore contrary to policies OL1



and OL4 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3D.8 of the London Plan.

2. The extension of hardstanding areas and the erection of storage sheds,

gates and fencing is prejudicial to the aims of the Colne Valley Park, which seeks to resist urbanisation and to safeguard the countryside from inappropriate development, and is contrary to policy OL10 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

3. The extension of hardstanding areas and the erection of storage sheds, gates and fencing is detrimental to the character and appearance of the Springwell Lock Conservation Area, contrary to policy BE4 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

4. The development has involved the removal of a mound and protected

trees which assisted with the screening of commercial activities on this and adjoining sites. The development is therefore detrimental to the character and appearance of the Springwell Lock Conservation Area, the openness of the Green Belt, prejudicial to the aims of the Colne Valley Park and has resulted in the greater exposure of surrounding residents to noise and general disturbance, resulting in a loss of their residential amenities. The development is therefore contrary to policies OL1, OL4, OL10, BE4, BE19, BE38, OE1 and OE3 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVES

1. You are advised that the site area shown on your submitted plans has been

inconsistently shown and appears to include parts of buildings ‘D’ and ‘F’ that are in use by adjoining site occupiers.

RECOMMENDATION (B): 1. That the Committee should consider the expediency of enforcement

action including the service of an Enforcement Notice under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to issue an appropriate

Enforcement Notice in respect of the unauthorised use of the land at land to the south of 2 Canal Cottages for the use as a builder’s yard.

3. That the notice shall require the following steps to be taken in order to

remedy the breach of planning control:

(i) Cease the use of the land as a builder’s yard. (ii) Remove from the land all buildings, roofing materials, plant,

machinery, vehicles, equipment, containers, scaffolding,



hardsurfacing, entrance gates, fencing and floodlighting used in connection with or associated with the unauthorised use.

(iii) Reinstate the land to loose scalpings. (iv) Re-store the mound and plant with appropriate trees

4. That the reasons to be stated for the issue of the notice shall be as follows:

(i) The unauthorised change of use comprising the storage of

roofing tiles and materials, plant and equipment and the parking of vans, lorries and cars, together with the associated erection of buildings, gates, scaffolding, fencing and floodlights represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt, prejudicing the visual amenities, openness and function of the Green Belt. The development is therefore contrary to policies OL1 and OL4 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3D.8 of the London Plan.

(ii) The unauthorised change of use comprising the storage of

roofing tiles and materials, plant and equipment and the parking of vans, lorries and cars, together with the associated erection of buildings, gates, scaffolding, fencing and floodlights is prejudicial to the aims of the Colne Valley Park, which seeks to resist urbanisation and to safeguard the countryside from inappropriate development, and is contrary to policy OL10 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

(iii) The unauthorised change of use comprising the storage of

roofing tiles and materials, plant and equipment and the parking of vans, lorries and cars, together with the associated erection of buildings, gates, scaffolding, fencing and floodlights are visually intrusive resulting in a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Springwell Lock Conservation Area, contrary to policy BE4 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

(iv) The unauthorised removal of part of a mound, together with

protected trees has resulted in the loss of screening of commercial activities within the wider site that is detrimental to the character and appearance of the Springwell Lock Conservation Area, the openness of the Green Belt, prejudicial to the aims of the Colne Valley Park and has resulted in a loss of residential amenity to adjoining properties, by reason of noise and visual intrusion. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies OL1, OL4, OL10, BE4, BE19, BE38 and OE3 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.



3.0 CONSIDERATIONS Site and Locality

3.1 The application site is located to the east of Springwell Lane, immediately

to the south of Canal Cottages and previously comprised a bungalow and has formed part of Springwell Lane Quarry and Chalk Pit. It has a road frontage of approximately 60m and a depth of some 50m. The site forms part of the Green Belt and is located within the Springwell Lock Conservation Area and the Colne Valley Park. It is identified as plot 5 on the attached location map.

3.2 The site is occupied by a roofing company and is in use for the storage of

roofing materials, together with associated commercial vehicles and plant, and comprises ancillary office buildings, storage sheds and scaffolding, hardstanding areas and lighting columns.

3.3 Canal Cottages to the north, together with properties on the opposite side

of Springwell Lane to the west are in residential use. To the east and south, the site is adjoined by various commercial uses within the disused quarry, including a removal company, a waste transfer station, ventilation company and a car salvage yard.

Scheme 3.4 Retrospective planning permission is sought for the layout of hardstanding,

erection of a replacement building in the north east corner of the site with a maximum ridge height of 3.45m, 2.4m high entrance gates and fencing and 1.5m high close boarded fencing on top of the retained part of the mound and embankment on the road and southern frontages of the site. Planning permission is also sought for the erection of a 1.2 to 1.8m high concrete block retaining wall at the base of the retained earth mound within the site.

Planning and Enforcement History 3.5 This site, together with adjoining sites in commercial use within this part of the

former quarry have a complex and sometimes obscure planning history. Early maps show that a bungalow at one time occupied the site, whereas the quarry has not been active for many years and now forms a series of separate sites in different land ownerships and uses.

3.6 Various established use certificates have been granted on various parts of the

quarry over the years. However, none of these establishes the lawful use of the application site.

3.7 As part of an application for a certificate of lawfulness for waste transfer, skip

storage, parking of lorries and other plant on land to the east and south of the application site (15220/APP/2002/683), a statutory declaration of the occupier of 1 Canal Cottages dated 12 September 1994 was submitted. A plan was



attached which shows the majority of the application site edged in blue and at paragraph 4, the declaration states that at the time of Colne Valley Concrete’s acquisition of the site in 1984, ‘that part of the site shown edged blue on the said plan was used as a builder’s yard and was let on an informal basis. This use has continued to date, with scaffolding and other building materials and equipment still being stored there, although less intensively, again as a result of the recession.’ The plan also shows a timber and corrugated steel workshop, in the northeast corner with a smaller timber shed in the southwest corner of the site.

3.8 An aerial photograph of the site taken in 1994/95 does not show any obvious commercial use being made of the site, with much of it appearing to be planted. However, in February 1996, a complaint was received from a local resident that a new structure was being erected on site. Photographs taken at the time show that the site had been covered in loose scalpings, although no commercial activity was taking place on site. However, a Council Officer did state in a letter that the site was in commercial use.

3.9 In 1997/98 greater use of the site was being made as evidenced from the aerial photographs taken at this time. These show vehicles and/or plant parked/stored at the rear of the site with buildings in the northwest and southeast corners of the site. The 2002 aerial photograph shows a similar situation with more vehicles and plant being stored with some open storage.

3.10 A written statement supplied by a local resident states that he has lived opposite the site for 21 years. From 1983, the application site was used by the residential occupiers of 2 Canal Cottages as part of their garden and only had two structures, a stable building to the north occasionally visited by a builder who stored bricks there and an unused tin roof structure. In 1984/85, a Mr Alan Waldock moved into 2 Canal Cottages and lived there for some ten years with his family. The application site, including the buildings were used by the family, with the stable building remaining virtually empty, the builder having ceased to use the building. In about 1996, a John Harbour bought the site with 2 Canal Cottages together with land to the south and east of the site. It was the land to the south and east that was used as a skip/waste operation. Although this site was unused, a link was opened up between this and the rest of John Harbour’s property. The site was used for the parking of cars. The statement concludes by stating that the site was sold to Watertight Roofing in about 1999/2000.

3.11 The current occupiers of the site, Watertight Roofing acquired the site in August 2001. In 2001, it was brought to the Council’s attention that trees were being coppiced on the mound and in September 2002, that gates were being erected. Council tax records show that the site was first rated as a builder’s yard in April 2003. In 2004, part of the mound was excavated with trees on top of the mound being removed.



3.12 The evidence of the local resident is supported by the aerial photographs. It

appears that the site was used as amenity space for 2 Canal Cottages up until 1996. A stable building was used by a builder on an infrequent basis, but it appears that this use had ceased by the mid 1980s. The site was used for parking in the late 1990s, some of which may have been commercial in connection with the use of the adjoining site for skip hire/waste transfer purposes, with the present builders yard use commencing in 2001. On the balance of probability, it therefore appears that the site has not been used continuously over the last ten years for a builders yard or indeed for any other type of commercial use.

Planning Policies and Standards UDP Designation: Green Belt, Springwell Lock Conservation Area and Colne Valley Park PPG2 (Green Belt) PPG7 (The Countryside) PPG18 (Enforcing Planning Control) The relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies are:- Part 1 Policies Pt1.1 Maintains Green Belt uses which preserve or enhance the open

nature of the area. Pt1.8 Preserves or enhances those features of conservation areas which

contribute to their special architectural and visual qualities. Part 2 Policies Green Belt OL1Green Belt – acceptable open land uses and restrictions on new development OL4 Green Belt – replacement or extension of buildings OL10 Colne Valley Park Design/Impact on Amenity BE4 New development within or on the fringes of conservation areas BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations.



BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions. BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy. BE32 Development proposals adjacent to or affecting the Grand Union

Canal BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of

new planting and landscaping in development proposals. Other Environmental Considerations OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties

and the local area OE3 Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance – mitigation

measures The Local Economy LE1 Proposals for industry, warehousing and business development Accessibility and Movement AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM14 New development and car parking standards. Consultations External Consultees 10 adjoining owner/occupiers were consulted, the application has been advertised in the local newspaper and a site notice has been posted on site. 1 letter of objection has been received, making the following comments:-

(i) This operation was originally small in size and has escalated to one

that is out of keeping with this small hamlet. Watertight roofing have taken every opportunity to illegally increase their yard size and has involved tree removal and installing ramp onto the ‘mound’. This is unacceptable.

(ii) The gate has doubled in width and lightweight 6ft chain link gates have been replaced with large solid steel-clad 8ft high industrial gates, inappropriate in conservation area.

(iii) The perimeter fence to the road was previously a 6ft high chain link fence and has now been replaced with 8ft high close board fence panels.

(iv) The sheds have been extended.



(v) All of this has happened since 2001 and a very rapid escalation with a major negative impact on this locale in terms of traffic, noise and general disturbance.

Springwell Residents’ and Conservation Association

1. The Land Registry Title and Plan clearly shows that a lean-to building marked ‘D’ on the submitted plan does not fall within the demise of Watertight and therefore the application should refer to two more buildings which have been added within the last ten years, the long green office building and the adjacent structure which is believed to be a toilet block.

2. The application should be refused as:

(i) The current use is not lawful. (ii) It is incomplete and only refers to

half of the buildings on site. (iii) The 2.4m high entrance gates

are too high and wide and have moved to a more dangerous position (they replace a 1.5m high chainlink gate).

(iv) The 2.4m high roadside fence is too high (it has replaced a 1.5m high chainlink fence, part of which is still in evidence).

(v) The new hardstanding replaces an earth mound covered in mature trees which should be broken up and re-planted.

(vi) The new 1.5m high close-boarded fence has been built in place of removed woodland and is an eyesore due to its raised location.

Canal Locks Conservation Panel No response

Internal Consultees

Urban Design/Conservation Officer

1. In terms of the Conservation Area, it seems crucial that we establish the overall use of the site, the intensity of use and that we seek the removal of structures erected without permission.



2. The proposals neither preserve nor

enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and are therefore contrary to Policy BE4.

Projects and Environmental Planning

Policy OL1 restricts Green Belt development to that associated with a limited range of uses. The development or retention of sheds for the storage of tiles and other builder’s materials would not be regarded as one of those acceptable uses. As the use does not appear to be authorised or established, incremental enlargement or extension of buildings permitted by Policy OL4 would not be appropriate.

Trees and Landscape Officer The site is located in a conservation area. Trees (with a stem diameter greater than 75mm) on the site were and are protected by virtue of their location in the conservation area. They are not subject to the protection of a tree preservation order.

In part the retrospective application for the sheds, gates and fence relates to a wall in proximity to the chalk mound behind the vegetated (a mixture of Elm suckers and self-seeded, immature Sycamore trees) linear mound/bund, contiguous to the belt of conifers (close to the road level) on the road frontage. In 2001 the Elm suckers and self-seeded, immature Sycamore trees on the mound were coppiced (without consent by way of a section 211 notice), and the LPA wrote to the proprietor (Watertight Roofing) concerning the unauthorised works. In that case, because (a) coppicing was appropriate management of the vegetation on the chalk mound (with a thin layer of soil); (b) that vegetation was retained to regenerate; and (c) the roadside trees were unaffected, no further action was taken at that time concerning the unauthorised works, which were not



considered to be harmful to the visual amenity of the conservation area. The mound has now in 2004 been cleared of the coppiced trees and other vegetation, without reference to the LPA, and seems to have been altered and be used in connection with the business use of the site. The roadside tree belt and conifers remain, but there are views into the site from Springwell Lane. The LPA should investigate this breach of planning control, before deciding whether it is expedient to bring a prosecution.

Separate from and regardless of the outcome of the on-going investigation and any future decision concerning a possible prosecution, under section 213 of the Town & Country Planning Act, a duty to replace trees is imposed on the landowner following the unauthorised removal of trees in a conservation area. In this case, the applicant must replace the coppiced trees on the mound. Therefore, the application should make provision for the planting of the mound, in the form of a landscaping scheme, in order to restore the landscape feature, which existed in 2001 and prior to the clearance of the vegetation on the mound. Alternatively, any enforcement action should include provision for such tree planting (tree replacement notice), which will necessarily involve top-soiling and the use of small plants (whips and transplants) of suitable tree species found in the locality and suited to coppicing, such as Hazel, Hawthorn, Field Maple, Blackthorn and Spindle. The roadside trees should be managed to maintain them as a linear feature along the road. Any dead (elm) trees can be removed without consent, but the Council should be given 6 weeks notice (section 211 notice) in writing of works (specified to accord with the British Standard 3998) to live trees.



Traffic Engineer The new access point to the site does not meet the visibility standards set out in Design Bulletin 32. The visibility splays in both directions are insufficient. However, the original access also did not meet design standards. The boundary fence does not adversely affect the visibility splays, as these were already obstructed by Canal Cottage to the north and trees to the south. The site access is a moderate improvement on the original access.

Main Planning Issues

3.13 The main planning issues are considered to be:

(i) Impact upon the Green Belt, the Colne Valley Park and the Springwell Lock Conservation Area

(ii) Highway and parking (iii) Expediency of Enforcement Action (i) Impact upon the Green Belt, The Colne Valley Park and the

Springwell Lock Conservation Area

3.14 As discussed at paragraphs 3.5 to 3.12 above, it appears that on balance, the use of the site as a builder’s yard has not been continuous for at least the past ten years. The current use of the site is therefore unlawful and section (iii) below gives consideration to the expediency of pursuing enforcement action on this site.

3.15 The replacement shed has a similar siting and footprint to the former

stable/workshop building on site which maps and aerial photographs show as being on site for many years. However, although the building would remain single storey, the replacement shed has resulted in an increase in the height of the building. It has also been constructed of modern materials, including metal sheet cladding. As the use of the site appears to be unauthorised, It is not appropriate to consider this building under the terms of policy OL4 of the UDP and given the use of metal sheet cladding as opposed to the essentially wooden structure which it replaced, the building is out of keeping with the surrounding conservation area.

3.16 The application also seeks to regularise the concrete hardstanding of the forecourt area and to erect a 1.2 to 1.5m high retaining wall to the retained part of the mound. This has involved the laying out of concrete, including the area previously occupied by part of the earth mound and providing a concreted access up onto it. This has expanded the useable area of the site, including the elevated part of the site on top of the mound which fronts



Springwell Lane that previously was wooded and provided a buffer with natural screening. It is considered that this work, including the proposed retaining walls is unacceptable as it has added to the industrial appearance of the site and involved the removal of part of the mound and its protected trees which provided a screen to this site and the wider quarry from Springwell Lane and the residential properties that front it.

3.17 The fence and gates, due to their siting, height and solid design are considered to be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area. (ii) Highway and parking

3.18 The Highway Engineer considers that although the site’s access does not

meet the Council’s current standards, the gates and fencing that has been erected has not made visibility from the site’s access any worse and possibility represents a slight improvement. As such, no objections are raised to the development in terms of highway and pedestrian safety.

(iii) Expediency of Enforcement Action 3.19 It appears that on balance, the use as a builder’s yard is not lawful. The

appropriateness of pursuing action against the use therefore needs to be considered.

3.20 The application site forms part of the Metropolitan Green Belt where there is a

strong presumption against inappropriate development to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Inappropriate development is defined within PPG2 and the UDP and includes such uses as a builder’s yard. Paragraph 3.1 of PPG2 advises that such development, by definition, is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be granted except in very special circumstances. It goes on to say in paragraph 3.2 that these are for the applicant to demonstrate and ‘very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.’ The applicant has not put forward any special circumstances and it is not likely that any exist. This is embodied in policy OL1 of the UDP which states that new buildings and uses other than for purposes essential for and associated with agriculture, horticulture, forestry, nature conservation, open air recreational facilities or cemeteries. The unauthorised activities on the site are not one of the prescribed exceptions and consequently, they constitute inappropriate development. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated that there are very special circumstances to warrant their relaxation.

3.21 The unauthorised use of the site, comprising the storage of roofing materials,

plant and equipment and the parking of vans, lorries and cars, together with the associated erection of storage and office buildings, gates, scaffolding, fencing and floodlights is considered to be visually obtrusive and detrimental



to the visual amenity of the Green Belt and detracts from the character and appearance of the Springwell Lock Conservation Area. It is also contrary to the aims of the Colne Valley Park which seeks to resist urbanisation. The development is therefore contrary to policies OL4, OL10 and BE4 of the UDP.

3.22 As cited above, the loss of part of the wooded mound has resulted in the removal of protected trees from the site and the natural screening of the site that they afforded from Springwell Lane and surrounding residential properties. This is detrimental to the visual amenities of the Green Belt, the character and appearance of the Springwell Lock Conservation Area and is prejudicial to the aims of the Colne Valley Park. Furthermore, it has resulted in the loss of residential amenity to adjoining properties as it increases their exposure to noise and visual intrusion from activities on site. The development is therefore contrary to policies OL1, OL4, OL10, BE4, BE19, BE38, OE1 and OE3 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan. Comments on Public Consultations

3.23 The points raised by the individual objector have been dealt with in the main report. As regards the points raised by the Springwell Residents’ and Conservation Association, only part of building ‘D’ (and small corner of building ‘F’) has been included within this site and this is inconsistently shown. As such, it appears to be a drafting error which has been drawn to the applicant’s attention by means of an Informative (point 1). The matters raised in point 2 have been dealt with in the main report.

4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor

4.1 The power to issue an enforcement notice is discretionary and should only be

used where the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that it is expedient to issue the notice having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and to any other material planning considerations. Consequently the Council must decide based on the particular circumstances of each individual case the question of expediency. The decision to take enforcement action must be reasonable and not based on irrational factors or based on non-planning grounds. Enforcement action should not be taken purely to regularise the situation.

5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance 5.1 The costs of bringing the prosecution are not significant, but costs of the order of

£5000 are likely if the defendant elects for trial or an appeal is made against conviction or sentence. At the present time, there is satisfactory provision within the enforcement budget with which to fund these potential costs.

6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 The uses and activities on this site constitute inappropriate development on

the Green Belt contrary to established Green Belt policy. They also harm the aims of the Colne Valley Park, which seek to safeguard the countryside from



inappropriate development, and they detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The residential amenities of surrounding properties have also been harmed by the removal of a wooded mound that assisted with the screening of the site. Planning conditions would not overcome the detrimental impact caused by the development and, therefore, it is considered expedient to take enforcement action.

Reference Documents: (a) Unitary Development Plan (b) PPGs 2, 7 and 18 (c) 4 Letters. Contact Officer: RICHARD PHILLIPS Telephone No: 01895 250837





B

Item No. 8 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: 1 THE CHASE, ICKENHAM Development: CONVERSION OF ROOFSPACE TO HABITABLE

ACCOMMODATION WITH INSTALLATION OF TWO DORMERS ON WEST ELEVATION AND TWO ON EAST ELEVATION AND INSERTION OF FIRST FLOOR WINDOW IN THE FRONT ELEVATION

LBH Ref Nos: 12433/APP/2005/134 Drawing Nos: CL/01/ REV C and CL/02/REV C received 10/01/05 and

CL/04/REV D received 09/02/05 Date of receipt: 10/01/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 09/02/05 CONSULTATIONS: 6 neighbouring properties have been consulted. 1 letter of objection has been received raising the following concern: (i) The proposed window shown in the first floor rear elevation of the bungalow

would result in overlooking to the rear gardens of both neighbouring properties and the main kitchen and dining room windows to 1a The Chase. This window should be omitted from the scheme or use obscure glazing.

Cllr Hensley (Ward Councillor) The points raised by the neighbouring

property 1a The Chase are re-iterated. Concerns are also raised to the proposed dormer windows being overdominant within the street scene and not preserving the character of the surrounding area, which is likely to set a precedent for others to follow. The Ward Councillor has requested that this application is determined by the Planning Committee.

Ickenham Residents’ Association No response has been received KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. 1 The Chase is located on the northern side of the road, near to the junction

with The Grove. It comprises a detached bungalow with a detached garage along the side boundary with 3 The Chase and a single storey rear extension. The property lies within the ‘developed area’ as designated in the UDP. The surrounding area is characterised by similar detached bungalows with roof



extensions with front and side dormer windows. Many of these dormer windows have been implemented under ‘Permitted Development’.

2. Planning permission is sought for the conversion of the roof space to form

habitable accommodation with the installation of two dormers on the side (east and west) elevations of the bungalow. The four dormers would be identical in size being 2.5m wide, 1.8m deep and 1.4m high with flat roofs. The proposal also involves a small window in the roof of the front elevation.

3. A planning application (ref: 12433/APP/2004/1990) for a similar development

was refused on 14/09/04 for the following two reasons:

(1) The proposed development by reason of the siting of the proposed windows would result in the direct overlooking of the adjoining property No. 1a The Chase resulting in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the adjoining occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy BE24 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and fails to meet the requirement of design principal A3 from the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.

(2) The proposed dormer windows by reason of their size and design

represent a visually intrusive form of development detrimental to the appearance of the existing property and character and appearance of the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and fails to meet the requirements of design principles A5 and B4 of the Councils Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.

4. This application to overcomes the previous reason for refusal by removing the

glazing within the side dormers facing 1a The Chase, two smaller dormers are now proposed on each side of the bungalow, set in 600mm from the eaves and ridge of the roof and positioned within the middle third of the existing roof, complying with the requirements of design principle B4 from the Councils’ Design Guide: Residential Extensions. These alterations address the previous two reasons for refusal.

5. There is a separation distance of approximately 4.5m from 1a The Chase.

This property has built side dormers under ‘Permitted Development’. The dormer window facing 1 The Chase is to a bedroom. The amended scheme would not result in overlooking onto 1a The Chase and furthermore, the rear first floor window has been omitted to prevent overlooking into the rear gardens of the adjoining properties. Therefore it is considered that the proposal would overcome the first reason for refusal and would maintain the privacy of 1a The Chase.

6. 3 The Chase has no habitable room windows facing 1 The Chase. As this

neighbouring property has a rear extension there would be a minimal loss of privacy from the rear most dormer window onto the rear patio area of this property. In addition, the site is north facing and therefore would not result in



a loss of sunlight to the rear garden of the neighbouring properties. As such, the proposal would meet the requirements of design principle A3 of the Council’s Design Guide: Residential Extensions and would be in accordance with policies BE20, BE21 and BE24 of the UDP.

7. The proposed side dormers have been amended to meet the requirements of

design principle B4 of the Council’s Design Guide: Residential Extensions. The revised dormers have resulted in a reduction of their overall bulk and appearance and are now considered to be subordinate to the existing bungalow. 2a The Chase has side dormers, which are visible within the street scene. Therefore the proposed dormers are considered to be consistent with the appearance of the street scene. The proposal would therefore address the second reason for refusal. As such, the proposal would comply with policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and would meet the requirements of design principles A5 and B4 from the Council’s Design Guide: Residential Extensions.

8. An additional window has been incorporated in the first floor front elevation. It

would allow further daylight into a bedroom. A second window on the first floor rear elevation has been omitted to meet the request of the neighbouring property. Sufficient amenity space would be retained and off-street car parking would not be affected by the proposal.

9. It is considered that this application is acceptable and addresses the previous

reasons for refusal. As such, approval is recommended. 10. The concern raised has been addressed by the amended plans showing the

removal of the rear window. The Ward Councillor’s concerns have been addressed in the report.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.



RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:- 1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M2) External Surfaces to Match

Existing Building 2. (M2) Standard

3. (RPD1) No Additional Windows or Doors (‘facing Nos. 1a & 3 The Chase’)

3. (RPD1) Standard

4. (OM1) Development in accordance with Approved Plans

4. (OM1) Standard

INFORMATIVES 1. (1) Building to Approved Drawing 2. (3) Legislation Administered by Building Control 3. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 4. (6) Property Rights / Rights of Light 5. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to

the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE15 Alterations and extensions to existing buildings BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and

improving amenity and character of the area BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE23 External amenity space and new residential development BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy SPG: Residential Extensions A3 - Impact of mass bulk and overlooking A4 - Visual impact of a development A5 - Design of extensions / materials and B4 Dormer windows roof Extensions


7. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work

Contact Officer: NOSHEEN JAVED Telephone No: 01895 277722





A

Item No. 9 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: LAND REAR OF AND FORMING PART OF 21 AND 23 THE

GROVE, ICKENHAM Development: ERECTION OF A THREE-BEDROOM DETACHED CHALET

BUNGALOW WITH ATTACHED GARAGE LBH Ref Nos: 59316/APP/2004/3105 Drawing Nos: 1391-1A, 1391-2A, 1391-3A received 16/11/04 and 1391-4B,

1391-5B and facsimile received 10/01/05 Date of receipt: 16/11/04 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 10/01/05 This report was deferred from the North Planning Committee held on 3 February 2005 to enable Members to make a site visit. 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached chalet bungalow

in the rear gardens of 21 and 23 The Grove, Ickenham.

1.2 The proposed bungalow is considered to be in keeping with the surrounding residential area and is unlikely to adversely affect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. The proposal is not considered to detract from the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.

1.3 The proposal is considered to be acceptable and overcomes the previous reasons for refusal. Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:- 1. (T1) Time Limit - full planning

application 1. (T1) Standard

2. (M1) Details / Samples to be Submitted

2. (M1) Standard

3. (M3) Boundary Treatment – details 3. (M3) Standard 4. (M6) Boundary Fencing – retention

(“… on the boundary with 49A Halford Road and 21 – 25 The Grove”)

4. (M6) Standard

5. (MRD4) Single Dwellings Occupation

5. (MRD4) Standard

6. (OM5) Provision of Bin Stores 6. (OM5) Standard



7. (RPD1) No additional Windows or

Doors (“… facing 49A Halford Road and 21 – 25 The Grove”)

7. (RPD1) Standard

8. (RPD2) Obscured Glazing and Non-Opening Windows (“…window(s) facing 21 & 23 The Grove”)

8. (RPD2) Standard

9. (RPD5) Restrictions on Erection of Extensions, Garages, Sheds and Outbuildings

9. (RPD5) Standard

10. (RPD7) Exclusion of Garages, Sheds and Outbuildings

10. (RPD7) Standard

11. (RPD9) Enlargement to Houses Consisting of Roof Additions / Alterations

11. (RPD9) Standard

12. (RCU3) Loss of Integral Garage to Living Accommodation

12. (RCU3) Standard

13. (H5) Sight Lines – submission of details

13. (H5) Standard

14. (H7) Parking Arrangements (Residential)

14. (H7) Standard

15. (H13) Installation of Gates onto a Highway

15. (H13) Standard

16. (TL1) Existing Trees – survey 16. (TL1) Standard 17. (TL2) Trees to be Retained 17. (TL2) Standard 18. (TL3) Protection of Trees and

Plants During Site Clearance and Development

18. (TL3) Standard

19. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme (full applications where details are reserved for future approval)

19. (TL5) Standard

20. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme – implementation

20. (TL6) Standard

INFORMATIVES 1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to

the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE4 New development within or on the fringes of conservation areas BE13 New development to harmonise with the existing street scene BE19 New development to complement and improve the amenity and

character of the area BE20 Ensure adequate daylight and sunlight can penetrate into and

between buildings and the amenities of existing houses are safeguarded



BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of extensions not to result in a significant loss of residential amenity

BE22 Setbacks from side boundaries BE23 Sufficient external amenity space BE24 Design to protect privacy of occupiers and neighbours BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of

new planting and landscaping in developments proposals H6 Residential density AM7 Impact on the capacity and function of existing road network AM14 Car parking standards SPG: Residential Extensions – A1 and A2: Building lines A3: Impact of mass bulk and overlooking. A4: visual impact of a development. A5: Design of extensions / materials B1: Front extension and porches

B2: Side Extensions and Distances from side boundary B3: Single storey and two storey rear extensions B4: Dormer Windows and Roof extensions SPG: Residential Layouts & House Design – 3.1 Elevational Treatment 4.1 Outlook and Overdomination 5.1 & 5.2 – Privacy 7.1 Amenity Space 7.2 Amenity Space for Houses

2. (1) Building to Approved Drawing 3. (2) Encroachment 4. (3) Building Regulations 5. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 6. (5) Party Walls 7. (6) Property Rights/Rights of Light 8. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance 9. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works

hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts.

3.0 CONSIDERATIONS Site and Locality 3.1 The site is located on the southern side of Halford Road, forming part of the

rear gardens of 21 and 23 The Grove, Ickenham. The site lies within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. Halford Road is characterised by detached bungalows, whereas The Grove is characterised by two-storey semi-detached houses.



Scheme 3.2 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 3-bedroom detached

chalet bungalow fronting Halford Road. The bungalow would be setback 1.2m from the rear boundary shared with 49A Halford Road and would measure 10.2m deep, 9.2m wide and have an attached garage on the side measuring 5.3m deep and 3.2m wide. An additional car space can be provided in the front driveway. The proposed chalet bungalow would have a pitched roof at a height of 7m and be on a plot approximately 320m² in area. Approximately 60m² of private rear amenity space can be provided.

3.3 This application attempts to overcome the previous reasons for refusal by reducing the height of the chalet bungalow by 1m and setting the garage back by 2m. The proposed garage to the side of 21 The Grove has been omitted from the proposal.

Planning History

3.4 A planning application for the erection of a three-bedroom detached chalet bungalow and a single storey attached side garage to 21 The Grove (ref: 59316/APP/2004/610) was refused on 12/08/04 for the following reasons:

1. The proposed chalet bungalow by reason of its siting, overall height and design represents an obtrusive form of development that would be out of keeping with the general scale of other bungalows in the area to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area and the visual amenities of the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE4, BE13 and BE19 from the Borough‘s adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principle 3.1 from the Council’s Design Guide: “Residential Layouts and House Design”.

2. The proposed chalet bungalow by reason of its projection forward of the recognised established building line along Halford Road represents an unduly intrusive / incongruous form of development detrimental to the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area and the visual amenities of the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE4, BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

3. The proposed garage by reason of its projection forward of the recognised established return building line along Halford Road on this prominent corner site represents an unduly intrusive and incongruous form of development detrimental to the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area and the visual amenities of the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE4, BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principles A1 and A2 from the Council’s design guide “Residential Extensions”.



Planning Policies and Standards UDP Designation: Ickenham Village Conservation Area

The relevant UDP Policies are:

Part 1 Policies:

Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new developments will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas.

Part 2 Policies:

BE4 New development within or on the fringes of conservation areas BE13 Layout and appearance of new development.

BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area


BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions

BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys

BE23 External amenity space and new residential development

BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy

BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in developments proposals

AM7 Highway/Pedestrian Safety

AM14 New development and car parking standards

SPG: ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ Consultations External Consultees

15 nearby owners / occupiers have been consulted and 6 letters of objection have been received, raising the following comments:

(i) Proposed hard-standing to 21 The Grove is not appropriate in the Conservation Area;

(ii) Car parking should remain in the current location where the proposed bungalow would be sited;

(iii) Development led by financial gain rather than a community benefit;



(iv) Potential parking problems from over-development of site; (v) Size of proposed bungalow is excessive for the proposed site; (vi) Overlooking and loss of privacy; (vii) Limited amenity space provided; (viii) Over-dominant form of development; (ix) The proposed garage would be forward of the building line in Halford

Road; (x) The proposed ridge height would be higher than the neighbouring

bungalow at 49A Halford Road; (xi) Precedent for further infill development, which is detrimental to the

surrounding area; (xii) The proposal does not enhance or preserve the Conservation Area; (xiii) 21 & 23 The Grove are tenanted, and are unlikely to object to the

proposal.

Ickenham Residents’ Association

No response received.

Ickenham Conservation Panel

Object to the proposal, for the following reasons: a) compared to the previously

refused scheme, the proposal is of a poor design, has increased scale and density and a more imposing infill development out of character with the streetscape.

b) the integral garage appears to be an appendage to the main house, and the flat roof is not desirable;

c) insufficient space for car parking and manoeuvring;

d) the driveway does not align with the vehicular crossover;

e) the front elevation is uninteresting, and the front door and porch should be centrally located to align with the first floor window;

f) insufficient amenity space.

Internal Consultees

Highways Engineer No objections, subject to the following conditions: The width of a standard crossing is 2.44m at the back of the public footway, increasing to about 4.58m at the kerbline.



Unobstructed visibility above the height of 1m must be maintained from the site access for vehicles at least 2.4m in both directions along the back edge of the footway. Any fencing / hedging above 1m would have to allow drivers to be able to see through it, for the safety of pedestrians walking along the footway.

Conservation / Urban Design Officer

The proposal appears to be cramped and over-developed, out of character with the surrounding area. However, the proposal would have little impact on the Conservation Area.

Trees / Landscape Officer Trees on the site are not protected by TPO but are afforded some protection through the Ickenham Village Conservation Area status. One tree (not clearly shown on the plan) will be removed from the proposed front garden in order to accommodate the proposal. This specimen is not worthy of protection and a suitable replacement could be planted as part of a new landscape proposal. Two other nearby street trees, in Halford Road, will not be affected by the development. No objection, subject to landscaping and tree protection conditions.

Main Planning Issues 3.5 The main planning issues for consideration relate to:

(i) Impact on the character and appearance of the area (ii) Impact on the amenities of adjoining properties (iii) Suitability of the accommodation provided (iv) Means of access (v) Impact on trees



(i) Impact on the character and appearance of the area

3.6 UDP policy H6 states that residential densities should harmonise with the surrounding area, and new housing is generally expected to be within the range of 100-200hr/ha. The proposal represents a density of approximately 125hr/ha and 31u/ha. This is considered to be an acceptable level of density for the site.

3.7 Policy BE23 of the UDP requires the provision of amenity space, which is usable in terms of its shape and siting. The Council’s design guide “Residential Layouts and House Design” specifies a minimum amount of usable amenity space for a 3-bedroom dwelling to be 60m². The proposal provides approx. 60m² for the proposed chalet bungalow, which would be significantly less than other properties in the surrounding area. However, the size of the plot would not be apparent from the street, and therefore, it is not considered that the size of the rear amenity space would adversely affect the character of the area. Sufficient rear amenity space can be retained for the existing houses at 21 and 23 The Grove. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy BE23 of the UDP.

3.8 The ridge height of the proposed chalet bungalow would be approximately 1.5m higher than that of the neighbouring bungalow at 49A Halford Road and would be higher than the other bungalows in the surrounding area. However, the proposed dwelling would also neighbour a two-storey house (21 The Grove) and therefore, it is considered that its height would be acceptable in this location, and would not appear out of character with surrounding properties.

3.9 The proposed garage would be positioned approximately 0.8m in front of the established building line in Halford Road. However, the existing house at 21 The Grove is positioned approximately 3m in front of the Halford Road building line, and therefore, given the location of the proposed chalet bungalow near to this house, the breach of the return building line is unlikely to adversely affect the visual amenities of the street scene, and is considered acceptable in this instance. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy BE13 of the UDP.

3.10 The siting and design of the proposed chalet bungalow is considered to be in keeping with the character and visual amenities of the surrounding area and the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area in accordance with policies BE4, BE13, BE19 and BE22 of the Unitary Development Plan.

(ii) Impact on the amenities of adjoining properties

3.11 Design Principle 4.4 from the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Layouts and House Design” requires where a two or more storey building abuts a property or its garden, adequate distance is maintained to overcome possible overdominance. The minimum recommended distance is 15m. The proposal



would be approximately 17m from 21 The Grove. In this regard, it is considered that the proposed bungalow complies with this design principle.

3.12 Design principles 5.1 and 5.2 from the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Layouts and House Design” requires new residential development to be designed so as to ensure privacy of occupants and neighbours is maintained. The minimum recommended distance between buildings to prevent overlooking is 21m. The proposed chalet bungalow would be over 21m from neighbouring properties. The proposed bungalow would partially overlook the rear garden of 25 and 27 The Grove and 49A Halford Road. However, all of these properties are currently overlooked by neighbouring houses, and therefore, it is not considered that the existing neighbouring properties would be overlooked by the proposed bungalow to an unacceptable degree. The proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with Policy BE24 of the UDP.

3.13 The shadow assessment demonstrates that the proposed bungalow would result in some loss of sunlight to the rear gardens of 21 and 23 The Grove and the neighbouring property at 49A Halford Road. However, this loss is considered to be minimal and is unlikely to detrimentally affect the amenities of the occupiers of these properties. The extent of overshadowing is not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

(iii) Suitability of the accommodation provided

3.14 The proposed chalet bungalow would provide an acceptable standard of outlook from front and rear facing windows. The proposed amenity space would be partially overlooked by 21, 23 and 25 The Grove. However, the most usable amenity space, outside the rear patio doors serving the lounge would be over 21m away and screening vegetation could be provided to minimise the extent of overlooking of this rear amenity space. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be compliant with Policy BE23 of the UDP.

(iv) Means of access

3.15 The proposal provides for an attached garage and one off-street car parking space for the proposed chalet bungalow, with access via a new crossover located on Halford Road near the shared boundary with 21 The Grove. The proposal also involves the creation of a new crossover at 21 The Grove to provide two off-street car parking spaces. Two spaces are provided for 23 The Grove. The Council’s interim car parking standards require a maximum of 2 spaces per dwelling, and therefore, the proposal complies with this standard. The Council’s Highways Engineer has no objections to the proposed crossovers provided adequate sight lines are provided. This can be secured by condition. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policies AM7(ii) and AM14 of the UDP.



(v) Impact on trees

3.16 The proposal would result in the loss of a tree fronting Halford Road. However, the tree is not protected and the proposal allows for replacement planting in the front garden of the proposed chalet bungalow, which is secured by condition.

Comments on Public Consultations 3.17 Points (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix) and (xii) raised in the letters of objection

have been addressed in the report. The remaining issues are addressed below:

Point (i): The proposed front garden area would provide a planted area and front garden hardstanding is commonplace in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the Conservation Officer and Traffic Engineer do not object to the proposal.

Point (ii): This is not part of the application proposed.

Point (iii): This is not a planning consideration.

Point (iv): The Council’s Traffic Engineer does not object to the proposal.

Point (xi): Infill development is appropriate where it complies with relevant UDP policies and Design Guidance.

Point (xiii): Potential impact on the residential amenity of these properties has been considered as part of the assessment of the application.


planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.

5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance 5.1 There are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations

have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.



6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 In summary, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable, and adequately

addresses the previous reasons for refusal. The proposal complies with Policies BE4, BE13, BE19, BE20, BE21, BE22, BE23 and BE24 of the UDP. Accordingly, planning permission is recommended.

Reference Documents: (a) UDP (b) Supplementary Planning Guidance (c) Council’s adopted Car Parking Standards (d) Letters of objection Contact Officer: VANESSA SERIN Telephone No: 01895 250836





B

Item No. 10 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: 5-7 MAXWELL ROAD, NORTHWOOD Development: CHANGE OF USE OF THE GROUND FLOOR FROM CLASS

A1 (RETAIL) TO CLASS A3 (FOOD AND DRINK) (RETROSPECTIVE) ENF Ref Nos: 46076/ENF/2005/3220 KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The site is located on the eastern side of Maxwell Road close to its junction

with Green Lane. The site comprises an attached two-storey building. The ground floor is currently in use as a café/restaurant falling within class A3, without the benefit of planning permission. A display and seating area occupies the front area of the unit, the kitchen/preparatory facilities occupy the middle portion and an office, toilet and storage area are located to the rear. Hot food is served with seating for up to 18 customers. A take away service is also available. A residential unit is located on the first floor.

2. The area is predominantly commercial in character and appearance and the application site is located within the Primary Shopping Area of the Northwood Town Centre as identified in the Unitary Development Plan.

3. An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for an existing use (ref. 46076/APP/2004/59) was submitted in January 2004 but was subsequently withdrawn following advice that the Certificate of Lawfulness could not be issued due to insufficient information.

4. An application for retrospective planning permission for the retention of the use was submitted in August 2004 (ref. 46076/APP/2004/2353) but again was subsequently withdrawn following advice that the application would be recommended for refusal.

5. Policy S11 states that the loss of a shop use is acceptable where the remaining facilities are adequate to accord with the character or function of the shopping centre and to provide for the needs of modern retailing including consumer interests, and where the use does not result in a separation of shop uses or a concentration of non shop uses that might harm the viability or vitality of the centre.

6. Paragraph 8.26 of the UDP advises that a centre is vulnerable if class A1 shop uses form less that 70% of the frontage length to be in class A1 use. The Primary Shopping centre of the Northwood Major Town Centre was surveyed in February 2005. Excluding the vacant units, the current provision of class A1 shop frontage in this primary area is 61.6%. The unauthorised use reduces this figure to 58.2%. This is 11.8% less than that advised in the UDP.



Accordingly, the retention of the class A3 use is considered to be detrimental to the continued viability of the Northwood Town Centre, as the centre would not maintain sufficient retail frontage to offer the range of services and goods expected of a primary shopping centre

7. An over-concentration of non-shop uses can harm the vitality of the shopping centre. To prevent avoidable interruptions of non-shop uses, paragraph 8.26 of the UDP advises that the Local Planning Authority will prevent a separation or an increase in the separation of class A1 uses of more than 12m.

8. 5-7 Maxwell Road has a 9m frontage. 3 Maxwell Road is a vacant class A2 unit with a frontage of 6m and 9 Maxwell Road is in use as a building society with a frontage of 7.5m. The unauthorised use creates a non-retail frontage that exceeds 12m. It is therefore considered that the unauthorised use unacceptably increases the distance between those remaining retail units in the primary centre further fragmenting the retail core and harming the vitality and viability of the shopping centre.

9. Accordingly, the development does not comply with Policy S11, and is therefore unacceptable in principle. Having regard to the adverse impact the unauthorised A3 use has on the Northwood Major Town Centre, it is considered expedient to take enforcement action for the cessation of the use as a planning condition cannot overcome the harm caused by the unauthorised use.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulation, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account. The power to issue an Enforcement Notice is discretionary and should only be used where the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that there has been a breach of planning control. They must also be satisfied that it is expedient to issue the notice having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and to any other material considerations. Consequently the Council must decide based on the particular circumstances of each individual case the question of expediency. The decision to take enforcement action must be reasonable and not based on irrational factors or taken without proper consideration of the relevant facts and planning issues or based on non-planning grounds. Enforcement action should not be taken purely to regularise the situation. Observations of the Director of Finance The costs of issuing an Enforcement Notice are not significant, but costs of the order of £5,000 are likely if an appeal is made against the notice and a public enquiry results. The costs of an appeal to be heard by written representations or informal



hearing are negligible. At the present time, there is satisfactory provision within the enforcement budget with which to fund these potential costs. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Committee should consider the expediency of enforcement

action including the service of an Enforcement Notice under section 172 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).


Enforcement Notice to remedy the breach of planning control in respect of: The unauthorised use of an A1 retail unit for A3 (food and drink) activities.

3. That the notice shall require the following steps be taken to remedy the breach of planning control: (i) Cease the use of the land as a café/restaurant including the

preparation and service of hot and cold food and the seating of customers.

(ii) Remove from the land all fittings and other equipment and paraphernalia associated with the unauthorised use of the land as a cafe.

(iii) Return the land (as shown edged in black on the attached Plan) to A1 retail use.

4. That the reasons to be stated for the issue of this Notice to be as

follows: (i) The proposal would remove retail frontage which contributes to

maintaining the continued viability of the Northwood Major Town Centre. The loss of this retail use would reduce the range and variety of retail goods available within the area, while simultaneously unacceptably increasing the separation between Green Lane and Maxwell Road retail frontage, to the detriment of pedestrian traffic flows. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy S11 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

5. That the period of 3 months be given for compliance with the terms of

the Enforcement Notice. Contact Officer: REBECCA STOCKLEY Telephone No: 01895 250840





A

Item No. 11 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: 41 HALLOWELL ROAD, NORTHWOOD Development: CONVERSION TO 4 ONE-BEDROOM FLATS AND

PROVISION OF PARKING (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) LBH Ref Nos: 9770/APP/2002/1545 Drawing Nos: 0222/1, 0222/2, 0222/3, unnumbered location plan received

03/07/02; parking and garden layout plan received 17/05/04 Date of receipt: 03/07/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 It is proposed to regularise an unauthorised conversion of a semi-detached

house to 4 one bedroom flats, including the hard surfacing of the front and rear gardens to provide parking. The house is considered suitable in principle for conversion to flats. However, the hardsurfacing of the rear garden for parking is considered to be visually obtrusive and detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. It has resulted in the loss of almost the entire usable amenity space for residents of the flats and is detrimental to the amenities of nearby occupiers by reason of noise, fumes and pollution. The front parking area is also unacceptable as it would encourage vehicles to mount the pavement prejudicing pedestrian safety. The application is therefore recommended for refusal and it is considered expedient to take enforcement action.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION (A): REFUSAL - for the following reasons:- 1. The provision of parking in the front garden without a front garden wall

would encourage vehicles to mount the pavement for the length of the front boundary prejudicing general pedestrian safety. This is contrary to policies AM7(ii), H7(ii) and AM14 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

2. The hardsurfacing of the rear garden for car parking results in inadequate private usable amenity space for the occupiers of the flats. It is therefore contrary to policies H7 and BE23 of the adopted UDP and fails to meet the requirements of the Council’s design guide ‘Car Parking in Front Gardens’.



3. The provision of parking spaces in the rear garden detracts from the appearance of the area and is detrimental to the amenities of nearby occupiers through noise, disturbance, fumes, smells and other pollutants. It also affects the privacy and usability of their rear amenity space and the outlook of nearby occupiers. It is therefore contrary to policies H7, BE13, BE19, BE23, BE24 and OE1 of the adopted UDP and fails to meet the requirements of the Council’s design guide “Car Parking in Front Gardens”.

RECOMMENDATION (B): 1. The Committee should consider the expediency of Enforcement Action

including the service of an Enforcement Notice under section 172 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to issue an appropriate Enforcement Notice to remedy the breach of planning control in respect of:

The change of use of the land from a dwellinghouse to 4 one-bedroom self-contained flats.

2. That the notice shall require the following steps be taken to remedy the breach of planning control: (a) Cease the use of the land as four one-bedroom self-contained

flats. (b) Return the land to a single family dwellinghouse by removal of all

kitchen surfaces, appliances and equipment, all bathroom suites, fixtures and fittings, partition walls, internal doors, door locks, bells and door numbers associated with the use of the land as four one bedroom self contained flats and reinstate a family kitchen at ground floor level and a family bathroom at first floor level.

(c) Remove from the land the concrete hardstanding in the rear garden including removal of all resulting concrete, rubble and debris associated with the removal of the hardstanding.

(d) Restore the rear garden to its former condition by the introduction of a patio area and topsoil and reseed with grass seed repeating the process until the grass thrives.

3. That the reasons to be stated for the issue of this Notice to be as follows:

(1) The provision of parking in the front garden without a front garden

wall would encourage vehicles to mount the pavement for the length of the front boundary prejudicing general pedestrian safety. This is contrary to policies AM7(ii), H7(ii) and AM14 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.



(2) The hardsurfacing of the rear garden for car parking results in inadequate private usable amenity space for the occupiers of the flats. It is therefore contrary to policies H7 and BE23 of the adopted UDP and fails to meet the requirements of the Council’s design guide ‘Car Parking in Front Gardens’.

(3) The provision of parking spaces in the rear garden detracts from the appearance of the area and is detrimental to the amenities of nearby occupiers through noise, disturbance, fumes, smells and other pollutants. It also affects the privacy and usability of their rear amenity space and the outlook of nearby occupiers. It is therefore contrary to policies H7, BE13, BE19, BE23, BE24 and OE1 of the adopted UDP and fails to meet the requirements of the Council’s design guide “Car Parking in Front Gardens”.

4. That the period of 12 months be given for compliance with the terms of the Enforcement Notice.

3.0 CONSIDERATIONS Site and Locality 3.1 41 Hallowell Road is a semi-detached Victorian property located on the east

side of Hallowell Road. It has been converted into 4 self-contained flats. There are 2 ground floor flats, one at the rear with a separate access. The others are accessed from the original front door. One of the upper floor flats has a bedroom in the roof lit by 2 rear rooflights. The front and most of the rear garden have been concreted to provide parking. There is a 2.3m wide side vehicular access to the rear garden.

3.2 39 Hallowell Road to the north, is in use as a house in multiple occupation by

a charitable organisation. 43 Hallowell Road to the south, is an extended semi-detached house converted into 3 flats. 43a is a chalet bungalow to the rear. St Matthews Church, hall and car park lie opposite the application site.

3.3 The surrounding area is predominantly residential with the exception of the

church opposite. The UDP designation is Developed Area. Scheme 3.4 Retrospective planning permission is sought to retain the use of the house as

4 one-bedroom flats and the hard surfacing of the front and rear gardens to provide 6 car-parking spaces.

Planning and Enforcement History 3.5 Retrospective planning permission was granted in March 1972 for the

retention of a domestic studio, store and garage. There are no planning records relating to the property as a dwellinghouse, however a building control



application for a loft conversion in 1998 (ref. 9770/M/98/984592) states that the property was in use at that time as a single family dwellinghouse.

3.6 In February 2002 it was brought to the Council’s attention that building works

were being carried out at 41 Hallowell Road. The site was inspected in May 2002 and it was found that the house had been converted into 4 one-bedroom flats. An application proposing to retain the works was submitted.

Planning Policies and Standards

UDP Designation: Developed Area

Part 1 Policies: Pt1.10 Seeks to ensure that new development does not adversely affect the

amenity and character of the Borough's residential areas. Part 2 Policies: H7 Conversion of houses to flats. OE1 Amenity considerations. BE13 New development should harmonise with the existing street scene. BE15 Extensions should harmonise with the scale, form and architectural

composition of the original building. BE19 New development should improve or complement the character of the

area. BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations. BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions. BE23 Requires the provision of adequate amenity space. BE24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to

neighbours. AM7 Highway Safety and Congestion. AM14 Parking Standards. Design Guides: ‘Residential Extensions’ and ‘Car Parking in Front Gardens’.



Consultations External Consultees 5 adjoining owner/occupiers were consulted and 6 letters of objection were

received making the following comments:

(i) No amenity space for tenants, out of character with nearby area – front and rear gardens fully concreted over to a poor standard.

(ii) Excessive density would cause parking problems opposite a well-used church car park on a busy road used as a cut-through. The rear parking spaces are not laid out properly and cars park randomly. Access is particularly difficult when church is in use and hazardous especially to children.

(iii) Noise and fumes to side kitchen door at 45 Hallowell Road caused by narrow side access.

(iv) Damage to fences during conversion - repair and retention of fencing should be required to protect against noise, exhaust fumes and headlights from vehicles.

(v) Rubbish bins left on display are detrimental to appearance of area. (vi) Appearance at rear unsightly and out of keeping with area. Would

create a precedent for alterations to nearby 1890’s properties that should be preserved.

(vii) A fine should be imposed as the works were done without planning permission.

(viii) The two-storey rear extension would cause loss of light to 39 Hallowell Road.

Internal Consultees Highways Engineer: The layout of the front parking area combined

with the access road to the rear parking area results in vehicles mounting the pavement for the whole length of the boundary. This is unacceptable.

The width of the access road to the rear parking area is unacceptable. The access road should be a minimum of 4.1 metres wide.

Parking spaces 3 to 6 are substandard. There should be a minimum distance of 6.0 metres in front of the parking spaces to ensure vehicles can safely manoeuvre in and out of parking spaces.

Refusal is recommended.



Main Planning Issues 3.7 The main issues are considered to be:

(i) Acceptability of the property for conversion to flats (ii) Impact on the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers (iii) Impact on the character and appearance of surrounding area (iv) Provision of adequate parking and amenity space for occupiers of the

flats (v) Expediency of enforcement action

(i) Acceptability of the property for conversion to flats 3.8 The conversion of the property is considered to be acceptable in principle.

There are other properties in the street that have been converted into flats, notably 43 Hallowell Road. Each flat is self-contained and is configured to allow adequate sound insulation between the units. The house is therefore considered suitable in principle under UDP policy H7 for conversion to flats, subject to there being adequate parking and no harm being caused to the amenities of nearby occupiers.

(ii) Impact on the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers 3.9 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and

appearance and many of the houses have large rear gardens which are used as private amenity space.

3.10 Parking for 43a Hallowell Road is provided at the rear of 43 Hallowell Road,

however this does not affect residential amenity as the parking is separated from 43 Hallowell Road by both the front garden of 43a Hallowell Road and the rear garden of 43 Hallowell Road. In addition the parking space is only for a dwellinghouse and therefore the intensification of the use is minimal.

3.11 The rear garden of 41 Hallowell Road provides parking for 4 flats, and is used

more intensively than the parking at 43a Hallowell Road. It is considered to generate significant noise, disturbance, fumes, smell and other pollutants which harm the amenity and outlook of adjoining residential properties. The parking is also located in close proximity to the rear of 39 Hallowell Road and thus has a greater impact on the amenity enjoyed by the occupants of this house. It is therefore considered that the proposed location of car parking in the rear garden causes harm to the visual amenity of the surrounding area and to the residential amenity of adjoining occupants contrary to policies H7, BE19 and BE24 and OE1 of the Unitary Development Plan.



(iii) Impact on the character and appearance of surrounding area 3.12 Although the front garden was partly hardsurfaced prior to the change of use,

it had a marbled surface, flowerbeds, front planting and a low fence. A greater area is now hardsurfaced and these features have been lost. However as adjoining properties have hardsurfaced front gardens and planning permission is not required for the removal of the front fence this aspect of the scheme does not detract from the appearance of the street scene.

3.13 The rear garden is not visible from the street. However, the extent of the

hardsurfacing is considered to be unattractive and has resulted in the loss of landscaping and vegetation in the rear garden which is out of keeping with the area. The development is thus contrary to UDP policy BE13 and fails to meet the requirements of the design guide "Car Parking in Front Gardens.

(iv) Provision of adequate parking and amenity space for occupiers of the

flats 3.14 4 parking spaces are shown at the rear and 2 in the front. This complies with

the Council’s Interim Parking Standards which requires 1.5 spaces per flat. However, the provision of parking spaces has resulted in the loss of the rear garden for private amenity space for the occupiers of the units. As such, the development fails to provide sufficient amenity space for the occupiers contrary to policy BE23 of the adopted UDP.

3.15 The Highways Officer has also identified that the proposed parking scheme is

deficient in several ways. In particular, parking spaces 3 to 6 are substandard as the 6m required in front of the parking spaces to ensure that vehicles can safely manoeuvre in and out of the parking spaces, is not provided. The layout of the front car parking is also unacceptable as it encourages vehicles to mount the pavement for the whole length of the boundary as there is no front boundary fence. Finally, the width of the access road is also unacceptable. Access roads greater than 16m long are required to be 4.1m wide. However the access road is only 2.3m wide and therefore fails to comply with the design guide. The current parking layout therefore prejudices pedestrian safety and is contrary to policies AM7 and H7 of the adopted UDP.

(vi) Expediency of enforcement action 3.16 Whilst the Council does not condone unauthorised development, breaches of

the planning regulations are not, in general, offences. Government advice makes it clear that enforcement action must be related to the planning harm resulting from the breach.

3.17 In this case, the unauthorised conversion is acceptable in principle, however

the development fails to provide sufficient amenity space and acceptable parking and is thus contrary to UDP policies and Council design guidance. Enforcement action is considered justified, as the harm caused by the development cannot be mitigated by conditions.



Comments on Public Consultations 3.18 Points (i), (ii), (iii), (v) and (viii) have been dealt with in the main report. On

point (vi), damage during construction is not a planning matter and on point (vii), fines cannot be imposed for the unauthorised change of use, as breaches of the planning regulations are not an offence. There is no two-storey rear extension proposed.


planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.

4.2 The power to issue an Enforcement Notice is discretionary and should only be

used where the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that there has been a breach of planning control. They must also be satisfied that it is expedient to issue the notice having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and to any other material considerations. Consequently the Council must decide based on the particular circumstances of each individual case the question of expediency. The decision to take enforcement action must be reasonable and not based on irrational factors or taken without proper consideration of the relevant facts and planning issues or be based on non-planning grounds. Enforcement action should not be taken purely to regularise the situation.

5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance 5.1 The costs of issuing an enforcement notice are not significant, but costs of the

order of £5,000 are likely if an appeal is made against the notice and a public inquiry results. The costs of an appeal heard by written representations or informal hearing are negligible. At the present time, there is satisfactory provision within the enforcement budget with which to fund these likely costs.

6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 The hardsurfacing of the front and rear gardens is considered detrimental to

the character and appearance of the area and to the amenities of nearby occupiers. It also prejudices pedestrian safety, contrary to UDP policies and Council design guidance. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused and an Enforcement Notice be served.

Reference Documents: (a) Unitary Development Plan 1998 (b) Design Guide: "Residential Extensions" "Car Parking in Front Gardens" (c) PPG18 Enforcement Contact Officer: JENNIE MASSON Telephone No: 01895 277825





B

Item No. 12 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: I BRADFIELD ROAD, FIELD END ROAD, SOUTH RUISLIP Development: REPLACEMENT OF 2 EQUIPMENT CABINETS AND THE

INSTALLATION OF 4 ADDITIONAL CABINETS, REMOVAL OF HOOPED ACCESS LADDER, FORMATION OF NEW ROOF ACCESS HATCH AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT (CONSULTATION UNDER SCHEDULE 2, PART 24 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995)

LBH Ref Nos: 2391/APP/2005/180 Drawing Nos: 30/GLN3004B/74 A, 30/GLN3004B/71 B, 30/GLN/3004B/70 B

received 17/01/05 Date of receipt: 17/01/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS:

External Consultees

Consultation letters were sent to 20 adjoining owner/occupiers. No letters of objection have been received.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

1. The application site is located on the corner of Bradfield Road and Field End

Road in South Ruislip. The site comprises a two-storey, flat roofed, commercial building, located on the edge of an industrial/business area. The opposite side of Field End Road is characterised by two-storey semi detached residential properties. This site falls within an ‘Industrial and Business’ area, as designated in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

2. Orange PCS has applied for a determination of whether prior approval is

required for the replacement of 2 equipment cabinets and the installation of 4 additional cabinets at roof level. These have a height of up to approximately 2m and are mounted on a metal roof frame. Also proposed is the removal of an existing hooped access ladder and formation of a new roof access hatch.

3. The rooftop installation currently comprises 3 existing masts of varying

heights, the shortest of which is approximately 4.6m high and the tallest of which is approximately 6.4m high. These masts support various antennas and dishes. The roof also houses a range of equipment cabinets.



4. The applicants state that the proposed equipment upgrade will increase the capacity of the existing site enabling it to provide further coverage as part of the company’s licence obligations, and will thus prevent the need for an additional site.

5. The proposed installation does not exceed the limits set out in Part 24 of

Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). It is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, such as a conservation area, where more restrictive criteria are applicable. Accordingly the proposal constitutes permitted development.

6. In accordance with the conditions of Part 24, Orange PCS is required to apply

to the Local Planning Authority for a determination as to whether prior approval of the details of siting and design is required and, if so, for the LPA to either approve or refuse those details.

7. The application has been assessed principally against Policy BE37 of the

Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications. Both seek to find solutions which minimise the impact of telecommunications development on the appearance of the surrounding area.

8. Although the visual impact of the proposed cabinets is limited and partly

screened by a parapet wall around the edge of the roof, it is considered that they would add to the existing proliferation of equipment on the roof, making them unacceptable. It is considered that the proposed cabinets would have an unacceptable visual impact upon the outlook from the front windows of the houses fronting this part of Field End Road, and on users of Field End Road. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies Pt1.11, BE13, BE37, and OE1 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and the application is recommended for refusal. Enforcement

9. In terms of the planning history of this site a certificate of lawfulness was granted for installation of telecommunications equipment comprising a 5m high Hutchison stub tower, equipment cabin, 6 antennas, meter cabinet platform, cable ladder and hooped access ladder on 19/04/02 (ref: 2391/APP/2002/589).

10. A prior determination application was submitted to the Council in June 2002

for the installation of a 5m high stub tower, 6 antennas, 4 dishes, two equipment cabinets, a hooped access ladder and handrail, and ancillary development (ref: 2391/APP/2002/1498). However, this application was refused on grounds of unacceptable visual impact on 23/06/02. There has been no subsequent application for the existing 3 masts and ancillary equipment now on the roof, and therefore this development is unauthorised. There were also some procedural errors within these applications.



11. Having regard to the detrimental visual impacts of this unauthorised

development, which is directly visible from the front windows of residential properties opposite, it is considered expedient to pursue enforcement action to remove the existing masts and associated equipment. Significantly this site comprises part of an extensive industrial and business area within which there are likely to be more appropriate locations for siting telecommunications development in accordance with UDP policy BE37.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor The power to issue an enforcement notice is discretionary and should only be used where the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that there has been a breach of planning control. They must also be satisfied that it is expedient to issue the notice having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and to any other material considerations. Consequently the Council must decide based on the particular circumstances of each individual case the question of expediency. The decision to take enforcement action must be reasonable and not based on irrational factors or taken without proper consideration of the relevant facts and planning issues or based on non-planning grounds. Enforcement action should not be taken purely to regularise the situation. Observations of the Director of Finance The costs of issuing an enforcement notice are not significant, but costs of the order of £5,000 are likely if an appeal is made against the notice and a public inquiry results. The costs of an appeal to be heard by written representations or informal hearing is negligible. At the present time, there is satisfactory provision within the enforcement budget with which to fund these potential costs. RECOMMENDATION (A) That prior approval of siting and design is required RECOMMENDATION (B) The details of siting and design are refused

REASON: The proposed development by reason of its siting and design would result in an incongruous and visually obtrusive form of development which would be out of keeping with the visual character of the area, the adjoining street scene and the residential amenities of the surrounding properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies Pt1.11, BE13, BE37, and OE1 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: (C) ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATION 1. The Committee should consider the expediency of enforcement action

including the service of an enforcement notice under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended).


enforcement notice to remedy the breach of planning control in respect of:



The unauthorised telecommunications equipment installed on the rooftop of 1 Bradfield Road, South Ruislip.

3. That the notice shall require the following steps be taken to remedy the

breach of planning control:

(i) Cease the use of the land and building as a telecommunications station.

(ii) Remove from the land the masts, equipment cabinets, hooped

access ladder, handrail and all other ancillary equipment associated with the unauthorised telecommunications station.

4. That the reasons to be stated for the issue of the Notice will be as

follows:-

(i) The unauthorised development, due to its siting and design is detrimental to the character and amenities of the surrounding properties and the area generally, contrary to Policies BE13, BE37 and OE1 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

5. That the period of 6 months be given for compliance with the terms of

the Enforcement Notice. Contact Officer: JOHANNA HARFOOT Telephone No: 01895 277580





B

Item No. 13 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: RUISLIP UNDERGROUND STATION, STATION APPROACH,

RUISLIP Development: INSTALLATION OF CHIP AND PIN CARD READER TO

TICKET OFFICE COUNTER (APPLICATION FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)

LBH Ref Nos: 47775/APP/2005/78 Drawing Nos: Document 9521-37025 Rev A, 1:1250 Scale Location Plan,

9521-02039 and 9549-05025 received 22 December 2004 Date of receipt: 22/12/04 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: Ruislip, Northwood & Eastcote Local History Society

No response received

English Heritage Has authorised the Local Planning Authority to determine this application.

Conservation/Urban Design Officer No objections

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The application site is located at the southern end of Station Approach, and is

occupied by the Ruislip Underground Station. While the exterior of the station maintains its original appearance, the interior has been modified to incorporate features such as ticket machines, turnstiles and other modern facilities. The station is a Grade II Listed Building, and is located within the Ruislip Town Centre as identified in the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

2. Land immediately adjacent to the site is utilised for transport activities, including a bus terminal and a large public car parking facility. The wider surrounding area is predominantly residential, with some commercial activities located at ground floor level of those properties fronting West End Road.

3. The proposal involves the placement of a chip and pin card reader on the ticket office counter. The reader comprises a small box shaped unit to read chip and pin enabled credit cards, and a keypad to allow a personal identification number (PIN) to be entered. A privacy screen would enclose three sides of the reader, which is to be finished in ‘heritage bronze’. Associated cabling will connect the unit to the existing ticket office machine. Cabling will be either flexible or fixed conduit, or a combination of the two as



required by site conditions. However the cabling would not be visible from the public areas of the station. The proposal would assist London Underground in upgrading their existing facilities.

4. The proposed chip and pin reader is considered to be a minimal addition and would be discreetly placed on the ticket counter. The use of a ‘heritage bronze’ finish would ensure that the works would integrate with existing materials and harmonise with the surroundings. As such the works are not considered to harm the special interest of the listed building.

5. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies BE8, BE9 and AM11 of the UDP and is therefore recommended for approval.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulation, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the wider Council. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT LISTED BUILDING CONSENT - subject to the following conditions:- 1. (CAC1) Time Limit – Listed

Building Consent 1. (CAC1) Standard

2. (OM1) Development in accordance with Approval Plans

2. (OM1) Standard (‘… policy BE13’)

3. (CAC4) Making good any damage (‘… within 1 month …’)

3. (CAC4) Standard

INFORMATIVES 1. The decision to grant Listed Building Consent has been taken having

regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE8 Planning applications for alteration or extension of listed buildings BE9 Listed building consent applications for alterations or extensions BE13 New development to harmonise with the existing street scene.



BE15 Extensions to harmonise with the scale, form, architectural composition and proportions of the original building.

AM11 Improvement in facilities and promotion of safety and security at bus and rail interchanges; use of planning agreements to secure improvements in public transport services.

2. (1) Building to Approved Drawing Contact Officer: REBECCA STOCKLEY Telephone No: 01895 250840





B

Item No. 14 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: THE SWAN PUBLIC HOUSE, 10 HIGH STREET, RUISLIP Development (A): THE UNAUTHORISED DISPLAY OF TWO NON-ILLUMINATED

DISPLAY CASES (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) (RETROSPECTIVE)

Development (B): THE UNAUTHORISED DISPLAY OF TWO NON-ILLUMINATED

DISPLAY CASES (ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT) (RETROSPECTIVE)

LBH ENF: 2005/3221 1.0 INFORMATION 1.1 This report considers enforcement action in respect of the unauthorised works

carried out at the Swan Public House, 10 High Street, Ruislip for the display of two non-illuminated display cases. This follows a decision by this Committee on 13th January 2005 to refuse Listed Building and Advertisement consent for the following reasons:-

Development (A):

‘The display cases, by reason of their size, siting and materials detracts from the visual amenities of the surrounding area contrary to policies BE27 and BE29 of the Unitary Development Plan.’

Development (B):

‘The display cases, by reason of their size, siting and materials, harm the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building and detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area and the visual amenities of the surrounding area. They are therefore contrary to policies BE4, BE8, BE13 and BE19 of the Unitary Development Plan.’

1.2 A copy of the Committee report is attached at Appendix A. 2.0 EXPEDIENCY OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION 2.1 Officers’ consideration of the development is set out in the attached report. It

is considered that conditions would not overcome the harm identified by Members in the reason for refusal. Enforcement action is therefore considered to be expedient.



3.0 RECOMMENDATION (A):

That the Committee instruct the Borough Solicitor to prosecute under section 224 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 for the unauthorised display of two display cases at the Swan Public House, 10 High Street, Ruislip.

RECOMMENDATION (B): 1. To consider the expediency of a Listed building Enforcement Notice

under section 38 of the Planning (Listed buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2. That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to issue a Listed Building

Enforcement Notice to remedy the unauthorised works under Delegated Authority and to take all necessary legal steps including prosecution, to secure compliance, in respect of:

‘The unauthorised display of two non-illuminated display cases’.

3. That the notice shall require the following steps to be taken to remedy

this breach in planning control:

(i) Remove from the land the two display cases attached to the rear elevation of the extension to the public house.

(ii) Remove from the land all fittings and other equipment associated with the unauthorised display of the 2 display cases.

(iii) Make good any damage to the brickwork caused by the unauthorised display of the 2 display cases to the written satisfaction of the local planning authority.

4. That a period of 1 month be given for compliance with the notice. 5. That the reason to be stated for the issue of the notice to be as follows:-

‘The display cases, by reason of their size, siting and materials, harms the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building and detracts from the character and appearance of the conservation area and the visual amenities of the surrounding area. They are therefore contrary to policies BE4, BE8, BE13 and BE19 of the Unitary Development Plan.’

Contact Officer: DAVIDCASSELLS Telephone No: 01895 277420





B

Item No. 15 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: LAND NORTH OF THE OLD WORKHOUSE, DUCKS HILL

ROAD, RUISLIP Development: INSTALLATION OF A 24M HIGH SLIMLINE TELECOMS

LATTICE TOWER SUPPORTING 6 ANTENNAS AND 2 TRANSMISSION DISHES, 2 GROUND BASED EQUIPMENT CABINETS, FENCING AND LANDSCAPING

LBH Ref Nos: 60213/APP/2005/34 Drawing Nos: VF/11245/A3/2022/1366-01 A, VF/11245/A3/2022/1366-02 A,

VF/11245/A3/2022/1366-03 A, VF/11245/A3/2022/1366-04 A, VF/11245/A3/2022/1366-05 A – received 03/01/05

Date of receipt: 05/01/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: External Consultees Consultations were sent to 4 local owner/occupiers, Ruislip Residents’ Association, and a site notice was posted. 2 letters of objection have been received, which raise the following concerns: (i) Negative impact on property values. (ii) Negative impact on woodland. Internal Consultees Trees and Landscape Officer No reply Highways No objection KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The application site is located within an area of private woodland and

paddocks, to the north of The Old Workhouse on Ruislip Common. The proposed mast would be located approximately 30m from Ducks Hill Road. The site falls within the Green Belt as designated on the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

2. This full planning application is submitted by Vodafone in order to meet its 2G

and 3G coverage requirements in relation to Ducks Hill Road (A4180), a section of Breakspear Road, and the surrounding area.



3. The installation would consist of a 24m high slimline triangular lattice tower. 6

antennas and 2 transmission dishes (1 x 300mm and 1 x 600mm) would be mounted at the top, accompanied by 2 ground based equipment cabinets measuring 1.3m x 0.9m x 1.6m high and a smaller meter cabinet. These would be contained within a 1m high wooden stock proof fenced compound. In turn the stock fencing would be screened by a planted landscaped area to the north and west.

4. Access to the site would be across the paddock via an existing farm gate

leading onto Ducks Hill Road, and no special track or access way would be required. Proposed landscaping around the northern and western sides of the 1m high stock proof fence, together with existing hedgerows would screen the base of the mast and the ground based cabinets from view from all sides. The ground based equipment would be painted olive green.

5. The application has been assessed against Policy OL1 of the Unitary

Development Plan, which seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. The application has also been assessed against policy BE37 of the Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications. Both seek to find solutions, which minimise the impact of telecommunications development on the appearance of the surrounding area.

6. The proposed installation represents inappropriate development within the

Green Belt and it is therefore necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that very special circumstances apply that could enable an exception to be made to Green Belt policy.

7. The applicant undertook a full site search of 18 locations, which were mainly

located in the built up area of Ruislip Common to the south, which is closer to the centre of the target search area. One of the sites discounted was Ruislip Fire Station drill tower, where there is already an existing O2 installation. Use of existing buildings and structures is encouraged in principle by criteria within Policy BE37 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan. The reason given by the applicant for discounting this site is:

“Good site share with existing operator, but existing operator has been

requested to vacate.” However, the Council has been advised that this is not the case and that the

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority has no objection to an additional installation on this rooftop. There appear to be commercial issues that have prevented a London wide agreement being completed between Vodafone and the Fire Authority. But, the Fire Authority is a public body, has agreements in place with the other mobile operators, and its many drill towers across London provide appropriate locations for a range of telecommunications installations. In these circumstances, the applicant’s asserted lack of availability of Ruislip Fire Station is not considered a very



special circumstance sufficient to justify the erection of the proposed mast within the Green Belt.

8. Although the application site is set back approximately 30m from Ducks Hill

Road, and is over 120m from the nearest residential property, the development would have an adverse impact on visual amenity. Although some screening would exist from existing trees, it is considered that due to its height and design, the proposed mast would appear as an incongruous intrusion, which would be unacceptable in this location. As such it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the aims of Policies OL1, BE37, and supporting policies of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

9. It is possible that an improved design, e.g. imitation tree, could reduce the

visual impact of the proposed development. However, this should only be considered once alternative non-Green Belt sites have been clearly discounted.

10. In terms of potential health concerns, the applicant has confirmed that the

proposed installation complies with the ICNIRP guidelines. Accordingly, in terms of Government policy advice, there is not considered to be any direct health impact.

11. Concerns have been raised over possible negative impacts of the mast on

property values, however, this is not considered to be a valid material planning consideration.

12. The proposal is contrary to policy and refusal is recommended. Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council’s financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Environmental Services Group and the wider council.



RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL – for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed development represents an inappropriate form of development, detrimental to the visual amenity of the Green Belt. Very special circumstances do not apply and consequently the development is contrary to Policy OL1 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed development by reason of its siting and design would

result in an incongruous and visually obtrusive form of development which would be out of keeping with the visual character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies Pt1.1, Pt1.11, BE13, BE36, BE37, and OE1 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVE 1. The applicant is advised that, in planning terms, the Ruislip Fire Station,

Bury Street appears to be a more appropriate location for the proposed installation and that the Fire Authority has advised that it is available.

Contact Officer: JOHANNA HARFOOT Telephone No: 01895 277580





CONTACT OFFICER: DAVID CASSELLS EXTENSION: 3758 Item No. 16 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation BI-MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT ON BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL (1) RECOMMENDATION That Members note the contents of this report. (2) INFORMATION • The attached schedule provides information on progress with breaches of

planning control where enforcement action has been authorised by Committee. It updates Members on progress since the last schedule was presented to them, and it includes new investigations as appropriate.

• This information is placed on Part 1 of the Agenda



Site/Property Cannonsbridge Farm, Bury Street, Ruislip Ward Ruislip Date Received April & December 2000 Breach(es) i) Erection of front single-storey extension without planning

permission ii) Erection of a boundary fence to the side and rear of the property

without planning permission iii) Unauthorised works to a Listed Building

Background Extension

Retrospective planning permission for the front single-storey extension was refused in February 2002. An Appeal was received in August 2002 and dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in January 2003. Committee had already approved enforcement action regarding the extension. Enforcement Notices, including a Listed Building Enforcement Notice, were served on 4 February 2004. The Listed Building Notice requires compliance within 6 months. Fencing Although a Planning Contravention Notice was served in August 2003, further investigations have revealed that the fence is located at a lower level, screened by shrubbery and undergrowth, and has no effect on neighbouring properties or the street scene. As such, no further action is proposed.

Update An Appeal was lodged on 22 March 2004 against the Listed

Building Enforcement Notice. The appeal was dismissed on 11 November 2004. The listed building enforcement notice was upheld but varied to allow 12 Months period for compliance.



Site/Property 25 Oak Avenue, Ickenham Ward Ickenham Date Received May 2001 Breach(es) A landscaping business including the storage of machinery on site

is being carried out from the residential property Background An Enforcement Notice was served in April 2004 requiring the

owners to: i) Cease the use of the land as a depot for a garden maintenance

and landscaping business; ii) Remove from the land all vehicles, materials, equipment, tools,

plant, machinery, paraphernalia and other items associated with the unauthorised use; and

iii) Remove the ranch style front gates from the land. Update The notices have now been complied with.



Site/Property 15 - 17 High Road, Ickenham Ward Ickenham Date Received December 2003 Breach(es) The breaches involve:

i) Change of use of the land from the use as a garden centre to the use for the sale, parking and storage of vehicles without planning permission

ii) In addition, due to the untidy nature of the site, it is also considered that the current condition affects the amenity of the area.

Background In March 2004, the Planning Committee authorised Enforcement

Action against the site-owners. As a result, in June 2004 an Enforcement and Section 215 Notices were served. The Enforcement Notice requires the owners to: i) Cease the use of the land for the sale, parking and storage of

motor vehicles, ii) Remove all motor vehicles from the land, and iii) Remove from the land all advertisements bunking and

paraphernalia associated with the unauthorised use of the land.

The Section 215 Notice requires the owners to remove from the land all wood, rocking, shelving, corrugated roofing, general rubble and debris.

Update The two Notices were to be complied with by 19 August 2004. A

site visit by an Enforcement Officer confirmed that hoardings have enclosed the site and the operation of car sales has ceased. In addition, most of the rubbish on the site has been removed. Therefore, the Enforcement Notice and Section 215 Notice are being complied with. Officers are continuing to monitor the site.



Site/Property Jackets Lane, Harefield Ward Northwood Date Received June 2002 Breach(es) hange of use to a Travellers’ Site Background Enforcement action was authorised by Committee on 7 November

2002 and Enforcement Notices were served on 14 November 2002. Four families moved off the site permanently (in January 2003), but one family remained with a mobile home and caravan. An Appeal against the Enforcement Notice was lodged in January 2003. A Public Inquiry commenced in July 2003 and was adjourned to October 2003. The Inspector’s decision, made in January 2004, found in favour of the owners and a temporary planning permission for two years was granted.

Update This site is being closely monitored and the conditions of the

temporary planning permission are being complied with. Site/Property Woodland Heights, 95 Ducks Hill Road, Northwood Ward Northwood Date Received May 2003 Breach(es) ection of a Gated Entrance System without planning permission Background Retrospective planning permission to retain the Gated Entrance

System was refused by Committee in October 2002. A Planning Contravention Notice was served on 17 November 2003 and an Appeal was received in February 2004.

Update The Planning Inspectorate dismissed the Appeal on 26 May 2004

and the Planning Contravention Notice was subsequently varied and upheld. The Notice currently requires compliance by 26 November 2004. The site was inspected on 25 November 2004. It was found that the entrance gates had been removed in compliance with the requirements of the enforcement notice.



Site/Property The White House, Summerhouse Lane, Harefield Ward Harefield Date Received November 2001 Breach(es) he breach involves a loft conversion to a locally listed building within

a Conservation Area without the benefit of planning permission. Background Retrospective planning permission was refused in July 2002.

Enforcement Action was subsequently authorised by the Planning Committee in June 2003 and an Enforcement Notice was served on 20 November 2003. An Appeal against the Enforcement Notice was lodged in January 2004 but dismissed by The Planning Inspectorate on 26 April 2004. The Notice was upheld and to be complied with by 26 October 2004. A Planning Application for the erection of a part first-floor extension, extended roof and front conservatory was also received in July 2003. The case is still ongoing.

Update A report was heard at the North Planning Committee Meeting on 3

February 2005 recommending prosecution in the public interest for the non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice. The recommendation was agreed. Witness statements are in the process of being drafted.



Site/Property Harefield Lime Quarry, Springwell Lane, Harefield Ward Harefield Date Received June 2003 Breach(es) The breaches involve:

i) Importation of Waste and tipping into quarry ii) Importation of concrete waste and concrete crushing

Background Enforcement and Stop Notices were served on 16 July 2003.

Activity has since ceased. The site continues to be closely monitored. An Appeal against the Enforcement and Stop Notices was subsequently lodged in October 2003 and dismissed in part by the Planning Inspector on 30 March 2004. The Enforcement Notice was varied but upheld and Compliance of the Notice was required by 11 May 2004.

Update Recent site inspections have revealed that the Enforcement Notice

is being complied with. The site will be closely monitored by Enforcement Officers to ensure compliance of the Notice.



Site/Property Copthall Farm, Breakspear Road South, Ickenham Ward Ickenham Date Received January 2002 Breach(es) The breach involves the change of use without planning permission

from agricultural farm buildings to engineering business (Class B2) and use of an area of land for open storage, unconnected with the farm.

Background Following the withdrawal of an earlier Enforcement Notice on 9

December 2003 (issued on 13 February 2003) due to the need to take account of recent events, further enforcement action was authorised by Committee on 27 May 2004. An Enforcement Notice was issued on 13 July 2004 requiring the owners to cease the unauthorised uses and the storage of materials, vehicles, plant, equipment and Portacabins. This notice took effect on 16 August 2004 and the owners have been given six months for compliance. Much, if not all, of the unlawful storage has been cleared. EPU are currently investigating the unlawful engineering business in terms of noise nuisance.

Update An Appeal was received 27 August 2004 against the Enforcement

Notice. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn following negotiations with the Borough solicitor. Amendments have been made to the requirements of the notice to delete the elements of storage which have now ceased. The notice remains in force with regard to the change of use of the building and the external alterations to the building.



Site/Property 44 The Grove, Ickenham Ward Ickenham Date Received 2002 Breach(es) The breach involves the erection of storage shed in the rear garden Background Retrospective planning permission was refused in 2003 and a

subsequent appeal dismissed in January 2004. A further application proposing the retention of the shed with modifications to the roof was refused planning permission in July 2004. Enforcement action against the shed was authorised by the former Uxbridge Planning Committee in March 2003. Enforcement Notices took effect on 30 June 2003 and should have been complied with by 30 September 2003. Authority to prosecute was granted by this Committee. A summons was sent to the Court on 3 August 2003. At the Hearing held 7 September 2004, the defendants pleaded guilty and were fined £1400 and ordered to pay the Council’s Costs of £900.

Update A report relating to a planning application for the erection of a two

storey side and rear extension and the retention of an outbuilding in the rear garden was presented to the North Committee on 13 January 2005. The proposal involved an outbuilding smaller in size and scale to that which is being enforced against. Members resolved to grant planning permission. The site was inspected on 3 February 2005 and works were being carried out to the structure in the rear garden to accord with the approved scheme. The site will continue to be monitored.



Site/Property 22 Sunnydene Avenue, Ruislip Ward Manor Date Received N/A (generated from planning application) Breach(es) The unauthorised erection of a side dormer window, a front roof

extension, and the installation of clear glazing in the new rooflight. Background Planning permission (ref. 27366/APP/2004/299) was granted on 13

July 2004 for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension (involving the demolition of an existing lean-to) and the conversion of the roof space to habitable accommodation involving raising part of the roofline and the installation of one side and one rear facing dormer window.

The works have since been completed. However, a variety of elevational alterations have been carried out during the construction phase. The alterations include changes to the type, position and glazing of windows in all four elevations (most noticeably the installation of a new rooflight in the roof slope facing 157-163 Cornwall Road), the addition of a pitched roof above the front door, a front roof extension with the consequential removal of the double gable face on the front elevation, and significant alterations to the approved dormer windows.

Update A planning application was submitted to retain the above works in

November 2004. A report was presented to the North Planning Committee recommending refusal of planning permission and enforcement action. An Appeal was lodged in May 2004 against the Enforcement Notice. Members resolved to agree officer recommendation. An enforcement notice is in the process of being drafted.



Site/Property The Swan Public House, 10 High Street, Ruislip Ward West Ruislip Date Received N/A (generated from planning application) Breach(es) Unauthorised display of two non-illuminated display cases. Background Advertisement and Listed Building Consent applications for the

retention of two non-illuminated display cases were presented to the North Planning Committee on 13 January 2005 with a recommendation to grant permission and consent. Members resolved to refuse advertisement consent and listed building consent as it was considered that the display cases were harmful to the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.

Update A report will be presented to the North Committee on 24 February

2005 recommending prosecution and the issue of listed building enforcement notice.

Site/Property 28 Bridgewater Road, Ruislip Ward South Ruislip Date Received N/A (generated from planning application) Breach(es) Unauthorised erection of a single storey rear extension Background A planning application was submitted in August 2004 for the

retention of a single storey side and rear extension. The extension is not considered to adversely impact on the visual amenities of the street scene. However, it resulted in the unacceptable loss of residential amenity to the occupiers of 26 Bridgwater Road by reason of loss of sunlight and overdominance. A report was presented to the North Planning Committee on 3 February 2005 with a recommendation to refuse planning permission and to issue an enforcement notice. Members agreed officer recommendation.

Update An enforcement notice is in the process of being drafted.



Site/Property 31 Oak Avenue, Ickenham Ward Ickenham Date Received April 2004 Breach(es) Unauthorised erection of rear facing dormer windows and raised

roof lights Background Planning permission was granted on the 16 November 2001

(ref: 26577/APP/2000/2493) for the erection of a pair of two-storey, five bedroom, detached houses with integral garages incorporating rooms in the roof space, involving the demolition of the existing bungalow and garage.

Work commenced on site and in April 2004 it was brought to the Council’s attention that the works had not been carried out in accordance with the approved plans. The site was inspected in April 2004 and it was found that the following works had been carried out which did not form part of the approved scheme:

(i) The erection of a raised rooflight on the main roof of both

houses (ii) The reduction in the visual gap between the houses from 2m

to 1.7m (iii) The extension of the roof at the rear to form a rear dormer

window to both houses A report was presented to the North Planning Committee on 3 February 2005 with a recommendation to take enforcement action against (i) and (iii) above. Members agreed officer recommendation.




Site/Property 137 Beverly Road, Ruislip Ward Manor Date Received June 2004 Breach(es) Unauthorised erection of a single storey side and rear extension Background Planning permission was granted in October 2003 for single storey

side and rear extension with a flat roof. The side extension measured 2.8m wide, 9.8m deep, projecting 3.25m beyond the rear elevation of the house, and 3.3m high at the front with a dummy pitched roof reducing to 2.2m at rear. The rear extension measured 3.25m deep for the full width of the house, with a flat roof 2.8m high and parapet along the common boundary 3.3m high. In June 2004, it was brought to the Council’s attention that the extension was not being built in accordance with the approved plan. The site was inspected and it was found that the extensions were being built with a pitched roof and not with a flat roof. The new roof over the side extension has a dummy pitch at the front and rear, 3.85m high, and a flat roof between the dummy pitches, approximately 2.8m high. The rear dummy pitch roof continues over the rear extension creating a mono-pitched roof 3.85m at ridge level and approximately 2.8m high at eaves level. A report was presented to the North Planning Committee on 3 February 2005 with a recommendation to take enforcement action as the works were considered unacceptable. Members agreed officer recommendation.


Date post:	28-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongtu
View:	219 times
Download:	6 times