Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Dominic Gilham and Councillor Judith Cooper. Councillor Mike Bull and Councillor Edward Lavery were in attendance as substitutes.

Councillor MoKhursheed declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 6 as it was in his ward and remained in the room to discuss and vote on the item.

Councillor Brian Stead declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 9 as it was in his ward and remained in the room to discuss and vote on the item.

Councillor Janet Dunca declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 14 as it was in her ward and remained in the room to discuss and vote on the item.

An additional item had been included to the agenda, item 14, 67 Berrydale Road, Hayes, 64145/APP/2012/1534. Although this report had not been before Members at least five working days before the date of committee, it was considered that the application merited an urgent decision. 

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Takeaway) to include installation of extractor outlet to rear.

Recommendation :

Change of use from Use Class A1 (Shops) to Use Class A5 (Hot Food

Takeaway) to include installation of extractor outlet to rear

The application was for planning permission for the change of use of ground floor retail unit from a Butchers (A1) to a Hot Food Takeaway (A5). The proposed business would operate with an internal ventilation system, so no external flue would be required for the extraction of odours from the cooking areas of the building. No external alterations were proposed as part of this application for the change of use.

There was no evidence base upon which to suggest the change of use to a hot food takeaway would cause an increase in anti-social behaviour. Therefore, the proposed change of use, with suitable conditions relating to CCTV and opening hours, was considered to have an acceptable impact on adjoining occupiers in the surrounding area.

The change of use to an A5 unit would retain a sufficient proportion of A1 units within the designated retail parade, so was not to undermine its functionality. The proposed extraction system was considered to have an acceptable impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers in terms of odour and noise disturbance and the change of use to a hot food takeaway would have an acceptable impact on the character of the area. Therefore, the application was recommended for approval.

The lead petitioner did not speak on behalf of the petition submitted to the Council and had asked a Ward Councillor to speak on the petitions behalf.

The applicant spoke on behalf of the application:

-          With regard to anti-social behaviour the applicant had taken expert advice and installed CCTV to prevent any potential anti-social behaviour.

-          The CCTV coverage would be 24/7, include inside and outside the premises.

-          The recording would be available for the police if required.

-          Notices would be put up requesting customers to leave quietly, dispose of litter and to be courteous to residents.

-          Training records of staff would be available to police. All staff would be trained.

-          The applicant would join the Neighbourhood Watch Team. He would be willing to work together with local residents and the police.

-          The applicant would take on any advice from the Police/SNT and Council.

-          The applicant stated that another off-licence close by closed at 10pm because of anti-social behaviour. That there was not any anti-social behaviour anymore.

-          The applicant was confident that with trained staff and CCTV this would act as a deterrent to any possible anti-social behaviour.

-          He would be happy to accept any conditions on the application and suggestions/advice. 

Members clarified that the nearby off-licence had not been instructed to close early and that the owner made a choice to close the store at 10pm. The licence was until 11pm and if the owner wished to stay open until 11pm then he had the option to do so.

The Ward Councillor spoke on behalf of the petition:

-          The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Erection of a 50 bedroom hotel use with an ancillary bar/restaurant with basement parking, alterations to existing access and landscaping (involving demolition of existing public house function hall) (extension of time for implementation of planning permission ref. 4607/APP/2008/1615 dated 22/07/2009).

Recommendation :

Erection of a 50 bedroom hotel use with an ancillary bar/restaurant with basement parking, alterations to existing access and landscaping (involving demolition of existing public house function hall) (extension of time for implementation of planning permission ref. 4607/APP/2008/1615 dated 22/07/2009)

This application seeked permission to renew an extant permission to erect a 50 bedroom hotel with an ancillary bar/restaurant with basement parking, alterations to existing access and landscaping (involving the demolition of existing public house function hall) which was initially deferred from the Central and South Committee meeting on the 14/10/08, before being re-presented to the meeting on the 25/11/08, with permission being granted on the 22/07/09 (4607/APP/2008/1615 refers).

As the permission was extant at the time this renewal application was submitted, the only issue that falls to the Local Planning Authority to consider was if there had been a material change in policy or site circumstances that would suggest that it would no longer be appropriate to grant permission.

National planning policy was now contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, which was published in March 2012. The London Plan was also replaced in July 2011. In relation to the proposal, both national and strategic guidance had not materially changed.

Where there had been alterations/new policy requirement, this was discussed in the relevant section of the report. Policies of the Unitary Development Plan remained unaltered (September 2007). The Council's guidance on accessibility was revised in January 2010.

It was noted that the numbering of the conditions on the application needed to be amended or deleted.

It was noted that the s.106 was to be signed. It was also noted that new plans were not required as it was the same as the previous application which was approved.

The issue of the application being for a bar/restaurant in ancillary to the hotel and not a pub was discussed. Members asked that condition 5 be re-worded so that this was made clear. Members agreed that the wording would be agreed with the legal officer, Chairman and Labour Lead.

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

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.

Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission Ref: 36616/APP/2002/2206 dated 22/01/2003 (Variation of condition 7 (to allow sale of a wider range of bulky goods) of planning permission ref: 2625/AH/85/86 D) to allow a wider range of retail goods to be sold.

Recommendation :

Application to vary condition 2 of planning permission ref:

5505/APP/2010/2455 to make minor internal alterations at the ground, first and second floor level and increase height of rear extension adjoining northern boundary by 1.3m

Planning permission was granted (Ref: 5505/APP/2010/2455) on the 7th December 2010, for the change of use of the existing office building at Airlink House to a hotel, along with the erection of a single storey rear extension. It was proposed that the hotel would comprise restaurant/banqueting facilities on the ground floor with a seating capacity for up to 200 people. A total of 23 hotel rooms catering for up to 40 guests would occupy the first and second floors.

This application seeked planning permission for the variation of condition 2 (In accordance with the approved plans) of the above planning consent to allow for minor internal alterations at the ground, first and second floor level, along with an increase in height of the proposed rear extension adjoining northern boundary by 1.3m.

The proposed changes would not harm the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area or the residential amenity of surrounding occupiers. Approval was recommended accordingly.

Members discussed the increase in the height of the application in detail and officers clarified the size. Members discussed what was permitted development and officers commented that the height proposed would be permitted.

Overshadowing and the proximity of other properties were discussed by Members.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed. Councillors’ Khursheed and Duncan abstained.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.

Erection of part 2, part 3, part 4 storey building comprising basement parking, mixed use at ground level (430 square metres of non-food retail space and 4 residential units) and a further 17 residential units above ground level (21 residential dwellings total), as well as associated landscaping and refuse storage areas.

Recommendation :

Erection of part 2, part 3, part 4 storey building comprising basement

parking, mixed use at ground level (430 square metres of non-food retail space and 4 residential units) and a further 17 residential units above ground level (21 residential dwellings total), as well as associated landscaping and refuse storage areas

The application seeked full planning permission for the erection of a mixed use (residential/retail) part 2, part 3 and part 4 storey building with basement car park serving use both components. The residential element consisted of 21 flats (12 x 2 bedroom and 9 x 1 bedroom flats) and the commercial element comprises a 430sqm retail unit (A1) for non-food retail sales.

The site was situated on a corner site with 3 direct street frontages and this combined with the schemes height, rising to 4 storeys on the Coldharbour Lane frontage, would mean the scheme will make for a reasonably prominent appearance in the locality at the north end of the Hayes Town Centre.

There was no objection to the principle of a mixed use development in planning policy terms given the sites location within the designated Hayes Town Centre. The scheme avoided undue dominance, most notably to the more modest existing residential housing estates located to the west and north of the site by the use of familiar local vernacular brick finish, the adoption of softening curves on the main street frontages, a recessed 4^th storey and the proposed construction of only a 2 storey block on the East Avenue/rear of East Way street frontage.

The density of the development accords with the recommendations of the London Plan. The scheme would not result in any significant detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties. The car parking provision and vehicle access arrangements for the retail and residential are considered acceptable. The internal floor areas to the additional units comply with the London Plan's minimum space standards and the private external amenity space areas meets the Council's minimum standards

The proposal would not provide any on site affordable housing units. A Financial Viability Appraisal for affordable housing was submitted any its financial analysis accepted. Subject to a S106 agreement, the proposal is recommended for approval.

The Head of Planning Services stated that the application was on a gateway site into Hayes, the Council’s urban design officer had been involved and was happy with the proposal. Condition 6 relating to allocated car parking and this could be expanded in more detail to be more specific.

Members asked for clarification on waste and officers explained that plans had been amended recently to provide the information that was requested. Officers commented that the waste storage area complied with standard requirements.

Members asked for clarification on vehicle access. Officers advised that they could ask for details on security measures to access the car park, and this be included in condition 15.

Members also asked a detailed condition be added with regard to the footway and that the development should not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a part 11, part 9, part 5 and part 4 storey building comprising 123 residential units, flexible business floorspace, 95 car parking spaces, hard and soft landscaping and revised access arrangements.

Recommendation :

Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission Ref: 36616/APP/2002/2206 dated 22/01/2003 (Variation of condition 7 (to allow sale of a wider range of bulky goods) of planning permission ref: 2625/AH/85/86 D) to allow a wider range of retail goods to be sold

The application proposals seek to widen the existing lawful A1 use of Unit 1 to provide for a mixture of comparison and convenience goods to be sold from the site. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposal meets the test set out in policy LE2 (the site has an established, but limited A1 consent). It has been demonstrated that there is no realistic prospect of the land being used for industrial or warehousing purposes in the future.

The applicant's Retail Statement demonstrates compliance with the sequential approach and that the proposed development will not lead to significant adverse impacts. The positive impacts of the proposal outweigh the negative impact and the proposed development complies with the National Planning Policy Framework.

It was considered that the proposal would not result in any significant increase in traffic or negative neighbour amenity impacts.

Members commented on floor space and that the 20% stated in the report was in relation to sales space and not floor space. This should include vertical stacking. Officers agreed that condition 1 could be changed to reflect this and an informative be included.

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

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda and changes to condition 1 and informative on floor space.

Alterations and conversion of the existing Lancaster Centre building into 8 self-contained flats. Demolition of the existing Hermitage Nursery Building and construction of a two storey (with accommodation in roof) block of 12 flats with associated car parking, soft and hard landscaping (20 residential flats in total). (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED)

Recommendation :

Alterations and conversion of the existing Lancaster Centre building into 7 self-contained flats. Demolition of the existing Hermitage Nursery Building and construction of a two storey (with accommodation in roof) block of 12 flats with associated car parking, soft and hard landscaping (19 residential flats in total)

The application was heard at the 27th March 2012 Central & South Planning Committee. The application was deferred to enable officers to review the issues raised in relation to overlooking in Lancaster Road, parking and for an overshadowing diagram to be provided.

Plans had been submitted, showing 1:1 parking. This had been achieved by reducing the number of units from 20 to 19. Windows had been amended to address concerns raised by Committee. Overshadowing diagrams had also been produced. In light of these officers have sought changes to the scheme which has resulted in improved outlook from and reduced overshadowing to no. 1 Lancaster Road to a satisfactory level. The rear part of the block facing Lancaster Road, closest to the boundary with no. 1 Lancaster Road has been reduced to single storey in height.

The application seeks planning permission to redevelop the Lancaster Centre & Hermitage Nursery site for residential purposes, in the form of a new two storey building fronting the site and the conversion of the Lancaster Centre comprising a total of 18 x 1 bedroom and 1 x 2 bedroom units. In total, 19 units are proposed.

The proposed scheme was considered to be of an acceptable design which would be compatible within the local context and result in an adequate standard of amenity for future occupiers. The proposal would not detrimentally impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers and would provide an acceptable area of soft landscaped amenity space for

the benefit of future occupiers.

Accordingly, the application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and the signing of a S106 Legal Agreement.

Members noted that since this item had been deferred a number of amendments to the application had been carried out. This application had been re-consulted and comments had been included in the report.

Members had some concerns with the design of the building and possible future occupiers. The application had a congregated steel roof, obscure windows and aluminium doors. Members commented that this could feel like a ‘prison’. The Head of Planning suggested that if given delegated authority that he could discuss the matter of materials used with the developers. That, presently, there was not a policy which allowed the Council to refuse the application on those grounds. Members could wish to include a condition on the materials. Officers could liaise to come up with a robust list of materials to be used.

Members asked for a condition on balconies and screening to be included, another condition on the materials to be used and informative 13 to be replaced by a detailed condition.

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

Resolved –

That the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Two storey, 3-bed attached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space (Retrospective).

Recommendation :

Two storey, 3-bed attached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space (Retrospective)

This application seeked retrospective permission for the retention of the two storey side extension to 20A Keats Way to be used as a separate dwelling.

The application proposal was still considered to be unacceptable as there would be insufficient internal floorspace and external amenity space provision and Liftimes Homes compliance had not been demonstrated. The scheme was recommended for refusal.

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

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the agenda.

Installation of boiler flue through side wall of single storey boiler room.

Recommendation :

Installation of boiler flue through side wall of single storey boiler room

The application seeked planning permission for the erection of an external boiler flue on the side elevation of the single storey boiler room at the Holiday Inn, Sipson, which was situated within the Green Belt.

The proposed flue would be a proportionate addition to the existing hotel building, which would cause no significant harm to the Green Belt, the appearance of the existing building or the visual amenities of the surrounding area. There would be no adverse impact on the amenities of any nearby properties. Therefore, the application was recommended for approval.

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

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda.

Erection of 4 x three bedroom dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving installation of vehicular crossover and demolition of existing dwelling (Revisions to approved planning permission reference 53690/APP/2011/236 dated 21/09/2011 to permit raising of roof height and other alterations)

Recommendation :

Erection of 4 x three bedroom dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving installation of vehicular crossover and demolition of existing dwelling (Revisions to approved planning permission reference 53690/APP/2011/236 dated 21/09/2011 to permit raising of roof height and other alterations)

The scheme proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and erect 4 two storey, 3 bedroom semi-detached dwelling houses with associated landscaping, a vehicular crossover and parking.

The proposals were a variation to the scheme recently approved at Planning Committee under reference 53690/APP/2011/236. The principle differences were the raising in height of the roof of the current proposal over that already approved, the introduction of a gable feature over the bay projections to the front and fenestration changes.

The number of bedrooms would remain as per the previous approval at 3, however, as opposed to having all 3 bedrooms at first floor level the application proposal seeked to have 2 bedrooms at first floor level and 1 bedroom within the roof space. 2 roof windows were proposed to the rear roof slope to facilitate this.

The proposals were not considered to result in any loss of amenity to adjoining occupiers. The proposed dwellings would meet all relevant council standard in terms of car parking, unit size and amenity space provision and would, as such, afford future occupiers with adequate levels of amenity. As such approval was recommended subject to conditions

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

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda.

Single storey side extension(Part Retrospective)

Single storey side extension (Part Retrospective)

This application proposed to reduce the projection of the extension at the side of the house to 2.0m. As it was not proposed to alter the height or pitch of the roof, the eaves height would increase to 3.0m on its south eastern elevation. The existing fenestration would be altered with one window facing front and a new door and window inserted to the garden elevation on the side facing Broadmead Road with these upvc openings and all other external materials (brick, roof tiles) matching those used on the existing house. The extension would provide a kitchen.

Planning permission 1217DN/83/547 for the development of these houses removed permitted development rights for extensions, windows and garages to these properties.

In October 2009, a retrospective application 64145/APP/2009/1813 that sought to retain the as built extension was refused for the following reasons:

A subsequent application, 64145/APP/2011/858 which proposed reducing the width of the extension to 3.0m was refused in August 2011 for the following reason:

A further application, 64145/APP/2011/2204 which further reduced the depth of the extension to 2.5m was refused in May 2012 for the following reason:

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

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the agenda.