Agenda and minutes

There we no apologies submitted.

Councillor Neil Fife declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Item 8 – 4, 5 & 6 School Approach, Fredora Avenue, Hayes, as the application was in his ward and left the meeting whilst this item was discussed.

Councillor Dominic Gilham declared a personal interest in Item 12 – 89 - 90 High Street and 45, 47 47A Albert Road, Hayes, as the application was in his ward and remained in the meeting to discuss and vote on this item.

Councillor Janet Duncan declared a personal interest in Item 11 – 22 and 24 Swanage Way, Hayes, as the application was in her ward and remained in the meeting to discuss and vote on this item.

Councillor John Hensley declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Item 14– Brunel University, Kingston Lane, Hillingdon, as an adviser and ex don of the University and left the meeting whilst the item was discussed.

Councillor Brian Stead declared a personal interest in Item 14 – Brunel University, Kingston Lane, Hillingdon, as the application was in his ward and remained in the meeting to discuss and vote on this item.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2012 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There were no matters notified in advance as urgent.

It was confirmed that all items marked Part 1 would be heard in public and all items marked Part 2 would be heard in private.

Alterations and extensions to existing store consisting of an additional 5,059 sq.m (GEA) two storey extension accommodating retail floorspace, café and children's learning unit; alterations and re-configuration of access and car parking including the creation of a car parking deck; ancillary plant, equipment and associated landscaping.

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a S106 Agreement

Alterations and extensions to existing store consisting of an additional 5,059 sq.m (GEA) two storey extension accommodating retail floorspace, café and children's learning unit; alterations and re-configuration of access and car parking including the creation of a car parking deck; ancillary plant, equipment and associated landscaping.

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to the top of page 25 to note that it should read “the development permitted by planning permission...”

Members were informed that the Head of Term relating to the energy and Condition 5, which related to the external storage area, were no longer necessary, as the applicant had submitted additional information which addressed the head of term and as such, could be removed from the S106 Heads of Term agreed at the meeting n 21 November 2011.

The Committee asked for a limit to be placed on the external storage area and condition 4 was amended by deleting the word ‘display’ and by adding the sentence ‘The height of any goods, material, equipment etc shall not be stacked higher than the retaining wall to the boundary of the school or 4m (which ever is the lower)’.

A member commented that the Committee had not been provided with plans for the delivery and storage area. Officers advised that condition 11 had been imposed requiring details of all traffic arrangements to be provided prior to commencement of the development.

The Committee attached an additional informative in relation to Condition 11, to ensure that goods or materials stored in the storage area did not obstruct vehicle movements.

Condition 31 was amended by adding the word ‘and’ between ‘approved’.

The recommendation with amended Conditions 4, 31 and additional informative was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved

A) That the Council enters into an agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and/or Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and/ or other appropriate legislation to secure:

i)                    A financial contribution of up to £40,000 will be sought towards parking management/restrictions in the surrounding streets highway and pedestrian safety and improvement works subject to further studies to be funded by the applicant.

ii)                  A contribution in the sum of £10,000 is sought to enable off-site landscaping improvements along Belmont Road and/or within the vicinity of the site.

iii)                A scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Council detailing how construction training will be provided to Hillingdon residents, or a contribution towards construction training for Hillingdon residents in the sum of £2,500 for every £1m build cost.

iv)               A contribution of £14,000 towards CCTV provision.

v)                 A contribution in the sum of £30,000 is sought to address town centre improvements within the vicinity of the area.

vi)               A contribution of £12,500 towards the management of air quality within the vicinity of the site.

vii)              5% of total cash contributions secured towards the management and monitoring of the resulting agreement.

B) That  ...  view the full minutes text for item 256.

Application for a new planning permission to replace extant planning permission (Appeal Decision ref. APP/R5510/A/08/2071434 dated 15/10/2008.): demolition of existing garages and erection of a new two storey residential building comprising three units (2 studio flats and 1 one-bedroom flat) with four parking spaces and communal amenity spaces. (LBH Ref: 3587/APP/2007/2478 dated 07/08/2007)

Recommendation : Approval

Application for a new planning permission to replace extant planning permission (Appeal Decision ref. APP/R5510/A/08/2071434 dated 15/10/2008.): demolition of existing garages and erection of a new two storey residential building comprising three units (2 studio flats and 1 one-bedroom flat) with four parking spaces and communal amenity spaces. (LBH Ref: 3587/APP/2007/2478 dated 07/08/2007).

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the

petitioners in objection to the application addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:

• The proposed development would be in breach 10 Conditions out of the 16 imposed
• Regarding Informative AM7 -  there were already18 flats in the area and  traffic generated by the proposed development would intensify the problems with parking that already existed in the area
• Indicated that there was also a row of shops with flats on top
• Suggested that rear gardens would be facing proposed development 
• That it would be a disaster to add more flats on the same site and would result in over development
• That the proposed development would result in overlooking with less than 15m between the houses
• Advised that Informative 2 – AM7, BE13, 19, 21, 24, LPP3.5, LPP7.1 and OE1 would not be taken into consideration by this proposed development
• Rejected the Inspector’s comment and felt that the proposed development would lead to 100% breach of privacy and would be detrimental to the area
• Stated that seventeen properties would be affected
• Advised that some families would not open their curtains due to overlooking.

The Chairman emphasised that the Committee could not refuse the application, as it had been approved by the Inspector and explained that the only course available for petitioners was through a Judicial Review.

The agent spoke and advised that demolition of the site had occurred as a result of a fire and confirmed that construction had not commenced on the KMS application site.

Officers advised that there were conditions relating to construction management of the site, which must be satisfied prior to commencement of the proposed development.

In response to a query about the petitioners’ concerns not being addressed in the report, officers advised that the nature of the petitioners’ objections had not been set out in the petition.

A Member suggested that an addition condition should be attached to ensure compliance with the Lifetime Home Standards.

The Committee attached an additional condition requiring details of defensible space to be provided prior to commencement of the development, to protect the downstairs patio windows and doors of residents from overlooking.

The recommendation for approval and two additional conditions was moved and seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers report and addendum sheet circulated at the meeting; and the following additional conditions:

-          The standard condition RES18 (Life Time Homes)

-          Details of defensible space including railings, gates, fencing and landscaping to the front of ground floor habitable room windows, shall be submitted to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 257.

1 x 3-bed two storey detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of 3 no. existing garage units

Recommendation : Approval

1 x 3-bed two storey detached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of 3 no. existing garage units

In introducing the report, officer asked Members to note the overtyping at the top line on page 68 which should read “No development shall take place until landscape…”

Petitioners objecting to the application were not present at the meeting.

The agent did not wish to speak.

 A Member expressed concerns about the issue of safeguarding living conditions for the future occupiers, as the front door of the proposed development would be on the access road to the Grange Park NHS clinic.

Officers advised that the PCT had been in operation for over 20 years and the Inspector had concluded that the issue of right of way was a civil matter and therefore was not a matter that could be considered by the Planning Committee.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

Change of use from Class B1 (Office) to Class C1 (Hotels and Halls of Residence) for use as hotel with restaurant and installation of 1 rear and side dormers and new door to ground floor side.

Recommendation : Approval

Change of use from Class B1 (Office) to Class C1 (Hotels and Halls of Residence) for use as hotel with restaurant and installation of 1 rear and side dormers and new door to ground floor side.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting to the proposal and the agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:

• The building had been used for the last 40 years as offices, Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm with no disturbances to residents
• Hotel users would be arriving and departing late into the night and in the early hours of the morning to catch flights and would result in noise from doors slamming  and gates shutting
• There would not be enough room for taxis to pull up in the hotel, which would result in passengers being dropped off right outside residents’ houses
• Harvard House was surrounded by homes with young families who would be affected by noise in a quiet residential lane
•  Residents had a right to privacy and family life and considered that regulation HR1998, article 8 allowed for them to be afforded this right
• There were currently issues with parking in Summerhouse Lane; additional parking from delivery vehicles to the hotel would result in unacceptable traffic congestion
• Parking problems would be further compounded by 24/ 7 parking in the area by hotel users
• Access to Harvard House was on a narrow stretch of Summerhouse Lane and concerned that delivery vehicles would obstruct the lane, which could prevent  emergency vehicles reaching residents
• Suggested that delivery times for any future office occupiers of this building should be between the hours of 09.30am to 14.30pm to avoid school drop-off and pick-up times at the primary and nursery schools at the other end of the lane
• Already in a high pollution area and cooking fumes and smells 365 days a year from the hotel would be unacceptable and regardless of the height of the flues, cooking smells would blow into residents’ homes and gardens.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and made the following points:

• Supported all the points that had been raised by the petitioners

• Reiterated that Summerhouse Lane was a residential area with families with young children served by a nursery and a school
• A business had operated from Harvard House for over the last 40 years  from 9am to 5pm
• Acknowledged that there was currently an increasing requirement for more accommodation
• Suggested that Bath Road was now served exclusively by hotel accommodations
• The village had been blighted for over 20 years and did not need  another hotel in this residential area
• Suggested that there were ample public houses, restaurants and enough parking in Harmondsworth House and saw no reason for Harvard House to be converted into a hotel.

The agent made the following points:

• Had lived in the area for 15 years
• Disagreed with points raised about parking issues, as traffic occurred only during the school run
• Suggest that there was not so much traffic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 259.

Change of use from Class B1 (Office) to Class C1 (Hotels and Halls of Residence) for use as hotel with restaurant and installation of 1 rear and side dormers and new door to ground floor side (Application for Listed Building Consent.)

Recommendation : Approval

Change of use from Class B1 (Office) to Class C1 (Hotels and Halls of Residence) for use as hotel with restaurant and installation of 1 rear and side dormers and new door to ground floor side (Application for Listed Building Consent.)

It was moved, seconded and agreed that the application be deferred for clarity and Policy comments.

Resolved – That the application be deferred for clarity and Policy comments.

Change of use of existing dwelling house to care home involving  first floor rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 4 front rooflights and conversion of roof from hip to gable end with a new gable end window to form 2 new bedrooms and extension to existing single storey detached outbuilding to rear (Resubmission)

Recommendation : Refusal

Change of use of existing dwelling house to care home involving  first floor rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer, 4 front rooflights and conversion of roof from hip to gable end with a new gable end window to form 2 new bedrooms and extension to existing single storey detached outbuilding to rear (Resubmission)

There were no petitioners present and the applicant did not wish to speak.

The Committee amended refusal reason 3 by inserting the words ‘and position’ between the words ‘foot print’ and ‘is’.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Change of use of first and second floor from retail to residential forming 7 one-bedroom flats, and 1 studio flat, involving a second floor extension, roof terrace at third floor level, remodelling of existing elevations to include new balconies, alterations to form new entrance area at ground floor and associated parking to rear of land at 45, 47, and 47A Albert Road.

Recommendation : Refusal

Change of use of first and second floor from retail to residential forming 7 one-bedroom flats, and 1 studio flat, involving a second floor extension, roof terrace at third floor level, remodelling of existing elevations to include new balconies, alterations to form new entrance area at ground floor and associated parking to rear of land at 45, 47, and 47A Albert Road.

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to note the addendum (circulated at the meeting) to which was attached a letter that had been received from the applicant in support of this application.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Part retrospective change of use from Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) to

use as a higher educational college.

Recommendation : Approval

Part retrospective change of use from Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) to use as a higher educational college.

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to the top of page 145 to note that the first line should read “within three months of this consent, a Management Plan …” Members were advised that the application had been re-submitted following a previous refusal and the applicant had demonstrated through marketing for over 2 years, and provided compelling evidence to show that they had overcome the previous reasons for refusal.

Members raised concerns about parking and access for disable students. Officers advised that a number of issues had been raised in respect of the car parking layout, and these had been dealt with by Condition 17 and 18, requiring details to be provided within 3 months of the date of permission.

Concerns were raised about the prospect of the conditions being enforced, in the event of the applicant not being able to meet them.

Members considered that by virtue of the usage of this proposed development, details of the institute that accredits the courses should be provided.

Members expressed concerns about the proposed development being in an Industrial and Business Area (IBA) and highlighted that there may be potential impact on traffic generation.  Officers advised that a Transport Statement had been provided, which indicated that an automatic traffic count had been carried out and revealed the level of traffic generated by college users. The survey showed that 90% of the college users travelled by public transport or by walking.

The Committee indicated that it would be beneficial to Members to make a visit to the site in order to see how the proposed developed aligned with being located within the Council’s Core Strategy.

It was moved, seconded and agreed that the application be deferred for Members to visit the site and for details of disabled access to be provided on plans to demonstrate viability of compliance, as well as for details to be provided of the institute that accredited the courses.

Resolved – That the application be deferred for:

·        Members to make a site visit

·        Details of disabled access to be provided on plans to demonstrate viability of compliance

·        Details of the institute that accredits the courses to be provided.

Installation of 2 x non illuminated, two dimensional pole mounted signs

Recommendation : Approval

Installation of 2 x non illuminated, two dimensional pole mounted signs

This item was chaired by the Vice-Chairman, Councillor Judith Cooper in the absence of the Chairman.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

A New Astro-Turf Pitch and Fencing to replace the existing playing field.

Recommendation : Approval, subject to no objection from English Heritage

A New Astro-Turf Pitch and Fencing to replace the existing playing field.

n introducing the report, officers advised that condition 6 should be deleted, as the artificial surface could only be used during the day, as the light governed the time of day that the pitch could be used.

The Committee extended Condition 7 by adding ‘temporary or otherwise’ between the words ‘lighting and shall’.

The recommendation contained in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved - That delegated Powers be given to the Head of Planning, Consumer Protection, Sports and Green Spaces to grant planning permission subject to:

a)                   No objection being received from English Heritage within 14 days of the date of this resolution, which raise any planning issues not already addressed in the report

b)                   That if the application is approved, the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report be attached.

Change of use from Class A1 (Shops) to Class A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) (Retrospective) (Resubmission)

Recommendation : Approval

Change of use from Class A1 (Shops) to Class A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) (Retrospective) (Resubmission)

Officers withdrew this application as further investigation relating to ownership is required.

External terrace to south and alterations to doors.

Recommendation : Approval

External terrace to south and alterations to doors.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved

1.      That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed.

2.      That the Committee resolve to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in this report into the public domain, solely for the purposes of issuing the formal breach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

The report relating to this decision is not available to the public because it contains information which reveals that the authority proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; and (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved

1.      That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed.

2.      That the Committee resolve to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in this report into the public domain, solely for the purposes of issuing the formal breach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

The report relating to this decision is not available to the public because it contains information which reveals that the authority proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; and (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved

1.      That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed.

2.      That the Committee resolve to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in this report into the public domain, solely for the purposes of issuing the formal breach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

The report relating to this decision is not available to the public because it contains information which reveals that the authority proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; and (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved

1.      That the enforcement actions as recommended in the officer’s report be agreed.

2.      That the Committee resolve to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in this report into the public domain, solely for the purposes of issuing the formal breach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

The report relating to this decision is not available to the public because it contains information which reveals that the authority proposes (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; and (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).