north planning committee - · pdf filejohn hensley mary o’connor dave allam janet duncan...

North Planning Committee

Meeting date: TUESDAY 18TH OCTOBER 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 (Ruislip)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 Wednesday 12th October 2005. If yoinformation about the meeting please call Miriam Wearing in Hilling01895 556517 email [email protected] or visit the Counwww.hillingdon.gov.uk

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 556517.

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 427, 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.

u would like further don’s Cabinet Office on cil’s website

This agenda is available in large print

mailto:[email protected]

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

Reports – Continued

Non-Major Applications Without Petitions Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page9. Ruislip Fire Station,

Bury Street, Ruislip West Ruislip Replacement Of Existing 4m High Stub

Tower With One 6.5m High Guyed Pole Mast On Fire Station Drill Tower (Consultation Under Schedule 2, Part 18 Of The Town And Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 As Amended) Recommendation – Prior approval of siting and design is not required

1.

10. 158 Northwood Road, Harefield

Harefield Unauthorised Use Of Land For The Storage, Display And Sale Of Motor Vehicles Recommendation – Enforcement Action

7.

11. 41 Joel Street, Nothwood

Northwood Hills

Change Of Use From Class A1 (Retail) To Class A2 (Financial & Professional) For Use As A Solicitors Office And Installation Of New Shopfront. Recommendation - Approval

12

This agenda has been dispatched less than 5 working days before the meeting and the items of business will be considered only if the Chairman agrees that they are urgent for the reasons given in the reports.

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18 OCTOBER 2005 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (NORTH) OF PLANNING AND

TRANSPORTATION URGENT ITEMS

B Item No. 9 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: RUISLIP FIRE STATION, BURY STREET, RUISLIP Development: REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING 4M HIGH STUB TOWER WITH

ONE 6.5M HIGH GUYED POLE MAST ON FIRE STATION DRILL TOWER (CONSULTATION UNDER SCHEDULE 2, PART 18 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995 AS AMENDED)

LBH Ref Nos: 19851/APP/2005/2456 Drawing Nos: CS/014279-46003-01, CS/014279-46003-02, CS/014279-

46003-03 Date of receipt: 05/09/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None REASON FOR URGENCY This proposal is permitted development and will automatically obtain a deemed approval if no decision is made before 31.10.05. If the proposal is not considered by Committee then its assessment would have to be made by officers under delegated powers.

Current policy is that all telecommunications applications should be dealt with at committee. CONSULTATIONS Consultation letters were sent to 38 local properties, the Ruislip Residents’ Association and a site notice was posted. No responses have been received. KEY PLANNING ISSUES 1. The site comprises an existing 4m high stub tower which is located on the roof

of the five-storey brick built drill tower at Ruislip Fire Station. The site is bounded by Bury Street to the east and Withy Lane to the West, the other

North Planning Committee – 18 October 2005 Page 1

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

side of which is Breakspear Crematorium. To the north of the site are residential properties with commercial properties adjoining to the south. The site falls within the ‘Developed Area’ as designated in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan. The existing telecommunications installation was first permitted in 1998.

2. The application seeks to determine whether prior approval is required for the replacement of the existing 4m high stub tower with a 6.5m high pole mast which would be guyed by cables to the roof of the drill tower. The new installation would have the same three antennas, as does the existing installation, but the slight increase in overall height would improve the area of telephone coverage provided. No additional equipment cabinets are required.

3. The proposed installation does not exceed the limits for installations on existing buildings as set out in Part 24 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (As Amended). The site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, such as a conservation area or on a listed building where more restrictive criteria are applicable. Accordingly the proposal constitutes permitted development.

4. In accordance with Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (As Amended) O2 (UK) Ltd 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, to either approve or refuse those details.

5. The application has 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. This part of Ruislip is characterised by a mix of residential and commercial properties. Most of the wider areas to the west, north and east fall within the Green Belt and the area to the south is largely residential. There are few obvious tall buildings or existing masts in the area. The existing O2 stub mast is visible from various points on Bury Street and Breakspear Road, however the drill tower is set back from both roads, and its visual impact is slightly reduced by surrounding two and three storey buildings, and nearby trees.

7. In design terms the proposed installation would appear taller (2.5m higher) but less bulky than the existing. This is due to the replacement of the existing three-legged stub mast with a single pole plus guyed cables. Because the existing drill tower is over 16m in height the additional height is not out of proportion.

8. Given the constraints in the local area it is considered that the proposal provides an appropriate solution in this area and complies with planning policy. There are no obvious buildings where antennas could be located nearby and a streetworks pole is likely to be harmful to the character and



appearance of the area. Any such installation would also be in close proximity to residents. The most appropriate alternative site is likely to be an installation in the nearby Green Belt. A recent application from Vodaphone for a 24m high lattice tower in a field just off Ducks Hill Road a few hundred metres north of the site was withdrawn earlier this year.

9. In terms of potential health concerns, the applicant has confirmed that the proposed installation complies with the ICNIRP (International Commission for Non Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines. Accordingly, in terms of Government policy advice, there is not considered to be any direct health impact.

10. It is considered that the proposed site for the installation is appropriate and consistent with advice in Policy BE37 of the Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 in that it upgrades an existing telecommunications site that is on an existing large structure. No objections have been received. Approval is recommended.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.



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: (A) That prior approval of siting and design is not required Contact Officer: JOHANNA HARFOOT Telephone No:01895 277580



BLOCK PLAN



B

Item No. 10 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: 158 NORTHWOOD ROAD, HAREFIELD Development: UNAUTHORISED USE OF LAND FOR THE STORAGE,

DISPLAY AND SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLES LBH Ref Nos: ENF/04/2981 REASON FOR URGENCY Although this report has not been available 5 working days prior to the meeting, the Chairman has agreed to consider this report as an urgent item due to continuing unauthorized use causing detriment to local amenity and adjoining Green Belt Land. CONSULTATION The applicant has provided 9 letters/documents in support of his application. KEY PLANNING ENFORCEMENT ISSUES: 1. 158 Northwood Road, Harefield is an in-fill property situated on the south side

of Northwood Road to the rear of nos. 154, 156 and 160.The property comprises a bungalow with a rear and side garden and long narrow drive running alongside no.160. A mixture of semi-detached and detached properties characterise the surrounding area. An area of Green Belt borders the development on the eastern side boundary. The site forms part of the ‘Developed Area’ as designated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

2. In response to concerns regarding the alleged sale of cars from the property, Council Officers visited the site on 1 October 2004 where it was observed that 9 vehicles were present.

3. On 22 October 2004 after consultation with Legal Services, a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) was served upon Croft Motors at 158 Northwood Road, Harefield in order to establish the exact nature and use of the development. In deciding whether to issue the PCN, Legal Services had taken into consideration the neighbour complaints, the nine cars observed by an Enforcement Officer and the apparent existence of a web site detailing the sale of cars at the same address.

4. In response to the notice the owner stated that he had operated a mixed use of residential and car sales since 1984 under the business names of ‘Fontain



Motors’ and ‘Croft Motors’. He employed three people (9-5pm) and estimated that he sold between 10-20 vehicles per month.

5. On 13 June 2005 Hillingdon Council received an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness (ref. 36044/APP/2005/1699) for “the use of land for the sale of motor vehicles with office accommodation”. This was refused on 8 August 2005, as the applicant had not demonstrated that the operation had been in use for a continuous period of ten years prior to the date of submission. No documentary evidence to substantiate the claim was submitted to demonstrate continuous use.

6. The driveway of the property allows for four unmarked car-parking spaces to the front of the property and three to the side of the property. However, as many as ten cars can be accommodated on site. One space is for the use of the householder and, on average, seven for the alleged sale of motor vehicles. It is not clear if the three members of staff park on the road or block the access to the above premises. Potential customers would almost certainly have to park on the main road and the road testing of vehicles may on occasion require the backing up of several vehicles into the road. This is considered to be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. The current use is therefore considered to be contrary to policies AM7 (II) and AM14 of the UDP.

7. An area of Green Belt lies immediately adjacent to the east of the

development. Unitary Development Plan policies state that there should be no undue intensification of use within or adjacent to the Green Belt that may injure the visual amenities of the countryside. The current arrangement is therefore contrary to policy OL3 of the UDP.

8. The storage, display and test-driving of vehicles for sale at this site within

close proximity to neighbouring residential properties and the adjacent Green Belt, is considered to have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. As such the unauthorised use is considered to be contrary to Policy BE19 of the UDP.

9. Taking into account other Planning Inspectorate decisions in similar cases, it

is considered that the above activities could not be considered de minimis. These activities are significant enough to constitute a material change of use. It is therefore considered that planning permission is required and that the Council may take enforcement action to bring about a cessation of the activities should it be considered expedient. If no enforcement action were to be taken and they are allowed to continue for another eight years, the activities will become lawful, which could result in permanent or unabated harm to local amenity.

10. It is considered that planning conditions could not overcome the harm caused by the unauthorised use. Therefore, and in the light of the foregoing, it is considered expedient and in the public interest to issue an Enforcement Notice to secure the cessation of the unauthorised use.



Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. 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 or breaches of planning control. It 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 hearing are negligible. At the present time, there is satisfactory provision within the enforcement budget with which to fund these likely costs.



RECOMMENDATION: 1. Members should consider the expediency of Enforcement Action under

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

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

Notice in respect of:

(i) The unauthorised use of the land for the storage, display and sale of motor vehicles.

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

this breach of planning control:

(i) Cease the use of the land for the storage, display and sale of motor vehicles.

(ii) Remove from the land all vehicles for sale.

4. That the reason to be stated for the issue of the Notice be as follows:

(i) The storage, display and sale of motor vehicles from the property, by reason of the incongruous nature of these activities in a residential area and the adjacent Green Belt, are considered to detract from the visual amenities and the character of the area. As such the unauthorised use is considered to be contrary to Policies BE19 and OL5, of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

(ii) The storage, display and sale of motor vehicles from the property, by reason of the incongruous nature of these activities and movement of vehicles to and from Northwood Road, is likely to prejudice the free flow of traffic to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety. As such the unauthorised use is considered to be contrary to Policies AM7 and AM14 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

5. That a period of 28 days be given for compliance with the terms of the Enforcement Notice.

Contact Officer: COLIN SQUIRE Telephone No: 01895 25 6767



B

Item No. 11 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: 41 JOEL STREET, NORTHWOOD Development: CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS A1 (RETAIL) TO CLASS A2

(FINANCIAL & PROFESSIONAL) FOR USE AS A SOLICITORS OFFICE AND INSTALLATION OF NEW SHOPFRONT.

LBH Ref Nos: 22761/APP/2005/2416 Drawing Nos: Unnumbered site location and layout plan, AP/SF/05/01,

AP/SF/05/011 received 25/08/05 Date of receipt: 25/08/2005 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None REASON FOR URGENCY Although this report has not been available 5 working days prior to the meeting, the Chairman has agreed to consider this report as an urgent item to ensure a timely decision to bring back into use vacant / unsightly premises in the interest of local amenity. CONSULTATIONS: 14 nearby owners/occupiers have been consulted. No responses have been received. Northwood Hills Residents Association No response received. Policy & Environmental Planning: The proposal is for a change of use from

Class A1 (Retail) to Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services). The main policies considered relevant are policies S6 and S12 which seek to maintain the amenity and vitality of shopping areas by maintaining a range of A1 units appropriate to the size of the shopping area, although in this case the site is not located in a core shopping area.

PEP would not object in principle to the

change of use proposed.



KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The application site is located within a parade of shops on the north side of

Northwood Hills Underground Station and south of Briarwood Drive. It consists of a vacant Class A1 retail shop unit on the ground floor and basement, with residential use above. The site lies within the Northwood Hills Secondary Shopping Area as defined within the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

2. Planning permission is sought for the change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to

Class A2 (Financial & Professional) use for a Solicitors office. 3. The main policies considered relevant to this proposal are policies S6 and

S12, which seek to safeguard the vitality and the amenity of shopping areas by maintaining a range of A1 units appropriate to the size of the shopping area.

4. Both policy S12 and S6 seek to avoid changes of use that would contribute

towards an inappropriate concentration of non- A1 class use. A recent survey (22 September 2005) for the Northwood Hills Secondary Shopping Area indicates 57.57% of the secondary frontage in Class A use. This percentage was reduced to 56.6% following the recent approval for part A1/part A5 use at 79 Joel Street at the last Committee on 06/10/05. This proposal would result in a further reduction of the A1 frontage within the secondary parade to 54.35%. The Council would seek to maintain at least 50% of the retail frontage to avoid over concentrations of service uses in Secondary Shopping Areas. A1 uses occupy units on both sides of N0.41. No separation of A1 units exceeding 12m would arise. A copy of the survey is attached to the report.

5. There is no objection in principle to the change of use, as the proposed use

would not result in a concentration of non-retail uses. Consequently, it is not considered to harm the viability or vitality of the Joel Street Shopping Parade. The nature of the proposed use and the provision of Solicitors services to the public are considered to be appropriate in this location.

6. A new shopfront is also proposed as part of the application for the premises.

The elevation shows the overall appearance of the proposed shopfront to be in keeping with the street scene and sympathetically proportioned to the building, which is considered to be in compliance with Policies BE13 and BE15 of the UDP. However, details of the materials for the shopfront are not specified in the current application and it is considered that these details should be conditioned for further approval, to ensure that they are satisfactory.

7. The proposed change of use is unlikely to generate a significant increase in

noise nuisance over and above the existing use and surrounding uses. Appropriate conditions relating to the hours of operation of delivery/services



are recommended to ensure that the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers are protected from noise nuisance, in accordance with Policy S6.

8. There are no proposed changes to car parking provided for the development

and the car parking standards for the proposed use are the same as that for the existing use. The Council’s highway engineer raises no objection to the proposed change of use. As such, it is not considered that the proposal would result in additional on street car parking to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety in accordance with Policies AM7 and AM14 of the UDP.

9. The proposal is not considered to adversely affect the viability of the shopping

centre, as more than 54% of the secondary shopping parade would remain in A1 use. Furthermore, the proposal is unlikely to adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residential properties to create traffic congestion. Accordingly, planning permission is recommended.

Observations of Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.



Observations of the Director 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 (Full) 1. (T1) Standards 2. (MCD10) Refuse Facilities 2. (MCD10) Standard 3. (M1) External Materials to

shopfront 3. (M1) Standard

4. The premises shall not be used for the delivery and loading or unloading of goods outside the hours of 08.00 and 18.00, Monday to Friday, and between the hours of 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

4. To safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy OE1 of the UDP.

INFORMATIVES 1. (52) Standard Human Rights 2. (1) Building to Approved Drawing 3. (3) Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works 4. (14) Installation of Plant and Machinery 5. (25) Consent for the Display of Advertisement and Illuminated Signs 6. (26) Retail Development – Installation of a Shop Front 7. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having 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: S6 Change of use of shops – safeguarding the amenities of

shopping areas S12 Change of use of shops in secondary shopping areas BE13 Appearance to harmonise with street scene BE15 Alterations to be in proportion with original building AM7 Traffic generation and impact on road network AM14 New development will be in accordance with the council’s

adopted car parking standards Contact Officer: CAMERON STANLEY Telephone No: 07849471539



north planning committee - · pdf filejohn hensley mary o’connor dave allam janet duncan...

Documents