Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Brian Stead with Councillor Patricia Jackson substituting.  Apologies had also been received from Councillor Robin Sansarpuri and there was no substitute.

Councillor Judith Cooper declared a personal interest in Items 6, (121 Cowley Road, Uxbridge), as the application was in her Ward, and remained in the room during consideration of the item.

Councillor Janet Duncan declared a personal interest in Items 14, (67 Berrydale Road, Hayes), as the application was in her Ward, and remained in the room during consideration of the item.

Councillor Dominic Gilham declared a personal interest in Items 15, (Lock Up Garage Site adj. 91 Pinewood Avenue, Hillingdon), as the application was in his Ward, and remained in the room during consideration of the item.

The minutes of the meetings held on 24 May 2011 and 7 June 2011 were agreed by the Committee as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Item 18, 92 – 104 High Street, Yiewsley on Agenda B was notified as urgent.

It was confirmed that items marked Part 1 would be considered in Public and all items marked Part 2 would be heard in Private.

Change of use from car sales and repair (mixed use sui generis and Class

B2) to supermarket (Class A1), involving demolition of existing building and

erection of single storey supermarket building, associated car parking and

landscaping.

Recommendation – Refusal 

Change of use from car sales and repair (mixed use sui generis and Class B2) to supermarket (Class A1), involving demolition of existing building and erection of single storey supermarket building, associated car parking and landscaping.

Officers presented the report to the Committee and drew their attention to the amendments in the Addendum sheet.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting to the application addressed the meeting raising the following points:

• That as a local tradesman, owned a newsagent in Cowley Road and had lived in Chiltern View for 24 years
• Was speaking as a representative for the whole community as customers had suggested that he petitioned against the development
• Over 300 residents had signed the petition
• Concerned about increase in traffic from customers using the proposed development
• Concerned about the increase in queue lengths on Cowley Road
• Additional traffic would result in disturbances to residents
• Late deliveries to the development would result in further disturbances to residents
• The development would result in increased pollution and further damage to road surfaces, which were already in a bad state
• There were already 8 super markets within the area and the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the local community as well as local shops
• Suggested that the consultation process was limited.

In response to a question about where customers come from, the petitioner responded that customers walked to the shop.

The applicant addressed the meeting in support of the application and raised the following points:

• Had worked on the application over the last 15 months and officers had confirmed that the store would not have an adverse effect on existing stores
• There were no significant or wide range of convenience retail provision
• Was disappointed at refusal on highway grounds
• A proposal had been put forward to install full size right hand turn into the development which fully complied with Government Guidelines. This had been rejected and officers had not explained why
• That it was standard practice usually for 2 deliveries to all Lidl stores and this had been accepted on appeal
• Had discussed the issue of HGV access and egress, which the highways officer had concluded was acceptable
• Was surprised to receive last minute objection on 2 November 2010 about the proposed improvements to the traffic light junction at Cowley Road/Cowley Mill, which TfL had confirmed would lead to improvements
• Only just been informed 15 months later that the Council intended to re-phase the traffic lights
• That re-phasing of traffic light alone would fully mitigate traffic impact
• That S106 had been approved
• That of the 14,000 households that were consulted, 83% supported the application
• The development would stimulate economic generation by creating 30 jobs

In response to a query raised, the applicant advised that the proposed development would be a discount with 60 customers expected per hour.

A ward councillor spoke in objection to the application and made the following comments:

• Fully supported the objections to the development in this particular area
• The area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Demolition of existing industrial units and erection of 2 three storey blocks of flats (fronting Yeading Lane) comprising 4 one bedroom flats, 18 two bedroom flats and 3 three bedroom flats together with 14 two storey houses comprising 10 three storey units and 4 four bedroom units, provision of new means of access together with associated car parking and landscaping.

Recommendation : Approval of a variation to a S106 agreement dated 1/11/05.

Demolition of existing industrial units and erection of existing industrial units and erection of 2 three storey blocks of flats (fronting yeading Lane) comprising 4 one bedroom flats, 18 two bedroom flats and 3 three bedroom flats together with 14 two storey houses comprising 10 three storey units and 4 four bedroom units, provision of new means of access together with associated car parking and landscaping.

Members sought clarification from officers that all obligations had been met and particular concerns were raised about the deed of variation taking away responsibility from the applicant/developer.

The Legal Advisor commented that it had been stated in the report that all the obligations had been met. Members were advised that it would be  in order for the Committee to ask officers to check and ensure that all obligations had been complied with, prior to agreeing the deed of variation.

In response to concerns raised in respect of the planting of trees, the Legal Advisor advised that if 5 years had lapsed since the planting of the trees, this would no longer be an issue.

The Chairman directed the Committee to agree the application subject to the evaluation of the obligations.

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

Resolved

a)         That the s106 agreement dated 5th November 2001 is varied as follows:

b)        That Clause 2.14 (page 7) is deleted and replaced with the following:

“It is hereby agreed and declared that the obligations contained in this deed shall not be binding upon any mortgagee or chargee of an RSL or receiver appointed by any such mortgagee or chargee or on any person deriving title by through under or from such person company or security trustee or any person acquiring 100% of the equity and the reversionary interest in any Affordable Housing Unit.”

c)         That the owner meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the Deed of Variation and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

d)        That if the Deed of Variation is not finalised within a period of 6 months from the date of this committee resolution, or any other period deemed appropriate by the Head of Planning, Trading Standards and Environmental Protection, then the application may be referred back to the Committee for determination.

e)         That subject to the above, the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning, Trading Standards and Environmental Protection under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

Temporary primary school comprising 3 forms of entry, including nursery, school hall and associated offices, staff room and amenity space.

Recommendation : Approval

Temporary primary school comprising 3 forms of entry, including nursery, school hall and associated offices, staff room and amenity space.

In introducing the report officers drew Members’ attention to the Addendum sheet and to note further amendments.

In response to a query relating to the use of the access way leading to Wood End Green Road, officers advised that this access way was not used by parents of secondary school children. It was noted that the school would Marshall drop-off and pick-up.

A Member added that a school travel plan would need to be submitted to ensure that there would be no vehicular access into the site.  Officers advised that the secondary school would be required to submit a revised School Travel Plan which would need to be in place by September 2011.

The Legal Advisor advised that if Members had real concerns, it would be in order for the Committee to ask for the submission of an interim 3 months Travel Plan.

The Chairman asked for Condition 11 to be amended to require an interim travel plan until the submission of a final plan.

Members directed that Condition 10 should be retained and not deleted as stated in the Addendum sheet, and Condition 2 was amended to include the requirement of a Construction Management Plan.

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, retention of and amendments to Condition 10, changes in the Addendum sheet and amendments to the Addendum as follows:

Condition 2 (page 5) to read as follows:

'The development shall not be carried out otherwise  than in strict accordance with the plans and details hereby approved, including the Construction Management Plan, as well as Drawing 26117A101A showing the proposed pedestrian access gate. 

Reason

To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory, to ensure construction impacts are mitigated and the access gate is appropriate and the site access is properly managed and complies with Policies AM7, AM14, OE1 and BE13 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).'

Condition 10 not to be deleted but amended as follows:

'Not withstanding the information submitted, prior to occupation of the development, a Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The Traffic Management Plan, including signage, accessway maintenance, marshalling, and other such measures which shall be put in place to manage pedestrian and vehicular traffic associated with the use hereby approved and minimise the impact of the development on Wood End Green Road (particularly close to the primary school's main entrance), as well s the access way leading into to the site, during peak drop-off and pick-up times.  The approved plan shall be implemented and shall remain in force for the lifetime of the development.

Reason

In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety in accordance with policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Single storey rear extension.

Recommendation – Refusal

Single storey rear extension.

In introducing the report, officers drew the Committee’s attention to the Addendum sheet to note the amendment to the reason for refusal.

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

The petitioner objecting made the following points:

• The proposed extension would dismantle the already very small gardens at 41 and 43 Princess Park Lane in a local area which was lacking in green spaces
• The size and scale of the development would result in excessive density, as permission has already be granted for the erection of  a detached house on part of the rear gardens of 41 and 43 Princes Park Lane
• No objection would have been raised to this application had planning permission not already been granted for the erection of a detached house 
• Concerned about the proposed side extension at 43, as this was the main access way by which Thames Water could access the 3 access hatches to the drains located in the side garden No. 43
• Thames Water had been called out 4 times this year already
• Concerned that proposed development would be built on the 3 main hatches
• Proposed development would result in potential new house in the back garden
• Drop kerbs had already been created at 41 and 43
• Previous applications had already been opposed as proposed developments could not be allowed in the back garden.

In response to a point of clarification, the applicant confirmed that the front garden benefited from a concreted drop kerb, which enabled vehicle parking.

The applicant made the following points:

• Could not see how the extension affected the petitioner
• Considerable time had been spent rectifying inconsistencies
• Had been very flexible
• Felt that he should have been initially told that he could not proceed with the application if it was considered to be unsuitable for the site
• The proposal met with UDP requirements
• Had been told at no time that there was a problem
• Concerns were only raised two months after the application process
• Wondered why permission had been granted for No.7 Princes Park Lane

In answer to a question about the concreted front gardens at Nos.41 and 43 Princes Park Lane, the applicant confirmed that cars were not being parked in the front gardens.

A Member asked whether any Permitted Development (PD) Rights were removed when permission was granted on appeal for the erection of a detached dwelling on part of the rear gardens at Nos. 41 and 43. Officers advised that PD Rights had only been removed on the application that was allowed on appeal and that Nos. 41 and 43 still had PD rights.

A Member asked whether there had been discussions with the applicant about the different planning issues and material planning matters and added that it was unfortunate that this issue had not been addressed by the Planning Inspector at the time it went to appeal.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

Single storey side/ rear extension.

Recommendation : Refusal

Single storey side/ rear extension.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners as well as the applicant addressed the meeting and raised the points set out in minute 307 above.

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, and amendments in the Addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

Replacement and relocation of existing code D ground run pen with a new code F ground run pen

Recommendation : Approval

Replacement and relocation of existing code D ground run pen with a new code F ground run pen.

In introducing the report, officers asked the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

A Member asked whether the ground run testing of engines were undertaken individually. As officers were unable to respond to this query, the meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes to seek clarification from the applicant who was available and was prepared to provide the information.

When the meeting convened, officers advised that the applicant had confirmed that both engines were required to be tested at the same time.

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

Resolved

1.         That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Trading Standards and Environmental Protection to grant planning permission, subject to the following:

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

i) A contribution £5,000 towards the monitoring of air quality impacts

b) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

c) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement.

d) That if any of the heads of terms set out above have not been agreed and the S106 legal agreement has not been finalised within 6 months of the date of this committee resolution, then the application will be referred back to the Committee for determination.

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

Replacement of existing code E ground run pen with a new code F ground run pen.

Recommendation : Approval

BA East maintenance base Heathrow Airport Hounslow replacement of existing code E ground run pen with a new code F ground run pen.

In introducing the report, officers asked the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

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

Resolved

That delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Community Services to grant planning permission, subject to the following:

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

i) A contribution £5,000 towards the monitoring of air quality impacts

b)     That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

c)      That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement.

d)     That if any of the heads of terms set out above have not been agreed and the S106 legal agreement has not been finalised within 6 months of the date of this committee resolution, then the application will be referred back to the Committee for determination.

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

Redevelopment of site to include 2 x single storey detached buildings with associated drive through for use as A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) with associated car parking, landscaping, cycle store, bin store, ancillary sub-station and alterations to existing vehicular crossover to front  (involving demolition of the existing public house).

Recommendation : Approval

Redevelopment of site to include 2 x single storey detached buildings with associated drive through for use as A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) with associated car parking, landscaping, cycle store, bin store, ancillary substation and alterations to existing vehicular crossover to front (involving demolition of the existing public house).

In introducing the report, officers advised that the number of car parking spaces exceeded the maximum number of spaces, with some car parking spaces doubling up as areas where loading vehicles would park.  A strict management regime would be operated to allow parking for no more than 2 hours at a time with the proposal for one operator to manage the site, which would enable close monitoring of delivery times and would enable them to put cones around the parking area half an hour before. It was noted that there would be three suppliers having daily regular deliveries of food in standard vans.

The Committee was asked to note the changes to the proposed hours of operation in the Addendum sheet.

The Chairman raised concerns about the potential for the electric charging points being obstructed by delivery vehicles. Officers responded that a condition had been imposed requiring the applicant to provide final details of the location electric charging points.

A Member added that the some recognition of the history of the area, such as the coaching inns (which were disappearing) should be preserved. The meeting agreed for an additional condition requiring a commemorative plaque.

A Member expressed concerns about entry into the site and enquired whether a slip road could be installed. Officers advised that Transport for London (TfL) (The highway authority for Bath Road) had examined the plans in detail and had raised no objection to entry into the site from the road.

A Member commented that the boulevard nature of the Bath Road should be respected and approval would need to be sought for any proposed advertising.

The Chairman added that the Committee could ask for any signage to be determined by the Committee.

In response to concerns raised about the lack of motor cycle designated area, officer’s advised that with the high percentage of parking provision, some of this area could be converted, and pointed out that some areas would also be designated for use by  Brown Badge holders.

A member commented that opening hours of 6am would be more realistic than 8am. Officers advised that conditions 14 and 16 were imposed to ensure that residents were not affected by noise and light.  The Legal Advisor directed the Committee to note the comments from Environmental Services Protection (EPU) in respect of the opening hours and the comments particularly in relation to noise, in order to safeguard the residential amenity of the occupiers and adjoining nearby properties. 

The Committee attached an additional condition to ensure parking outside of hours was permitted only for staff. Officers were requested to prepare the wording in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

The recommendation set out in the officers’ report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

Single storey side extension (Part-Retrospective)

Recommendation – Approval

Single storey side extension (Part-Retrospective)

In introducing report, officers drew the Committee’s attention to the Addendum sheet to note the correct description of the proposed development as a single storey side extension.

The Chairman asked officers what the size of the garden space was prior to the part completed development. Officers advised that the garden at the front even without the extension was very close to the front. The size of the garden space of the proposed development would be 25sqm and approval was sought on the basis that it was a small house rather than a family accommodation where the standard garden requirement was 40sqm.

Members were informed that any further extension would need to be assessed on its merit and would require planning permission.

The Chairman added that if the Committee was to agree the officer recommendation, it would be going against the Hillingdon Design & Accessibility Statement (HDAS), thus undermining policy.

The Legal Advisor added that an application had been submitted which had raised issues of setting precedent which Committee Members were fully aware of.

Officers advised that in terms of garden space, this proposal was below the standard requirement and officers had taken the view that, as the property benefited from a small internal space, on balance, considered that this garden was acceptable.

A Member added that no harm would befall adjoining properties except to the owner and occupier of the proposed development.

The Legal Advisor drew Members attention to the comments on public consultation in the report which stated that 11 adjoining owners had been consulted, with no comments received.

In response to concerns raised relating to issues about daylight and overshadowing, officers advised that so long as the dimensions were no more than 3.6m or 3.4m high, the application could be safely approved.

Concerns were raised about the development being very narrow with the proposed extension resulting in a disproportionate effect.  Officers explained that the standard garden requirement for a house was 40sqm compared to the proposal in this instance, which was a small house which would result in having a 25sqm garden space.

The Chairman raised concerns about the loss of amenity space which the Committee had always tried to maintain in the HDAS.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused, and on being put to the vote was agreed that the proposal did not meet the required standard for amenity space and failed to do so by 40%, and would consequently result in overdevelopment of the site and would fail to accord with Policy BE19 and BE23 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) and HDAS – Residential Extensions.

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out above.

Following the decision, it was asserted that the plans before Members may not have been up to date. In this instance, the Legal Advisor advised that if it had been found that the plans in front of Members may not have been up to date;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Two storey three-bedroom dwelling with associated parking, involving demolition of existing garages.

Recommendation : Approval

Two storey three-bedroom dwelling with associated parking, involving demolition of existing garages.

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

Resolved

a)         The plan referred to and contained in the Statement of Intent shall be replaced by the Plan attached to this Deed at Appendix 1; and

b)        That clause 1.10 of the Statement of Intent dated 10 September 2010 be replaced by the following:

“1.10 The Owner covenants not to deal with, dispose of, surrender or disclaim any legal interest in the Land (whether existing or prospectively acquired from the date of this Deed) or to assign any interest or create any new interest from the land or mortgage the Land until it has complied with the covenants AND it shall ensure that in any dealings whatsoever with the Land any person acquiring an interest in the Land (including an RSL) the Council in its capacity as housing authority shall have ensured the person other than the Council who shall have that interest shall be legally bound to enter into a legal agreement under section 106 of the Act and pursuant to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 and Section 16 of the greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (save for individual owner-occupiers or individual tenants of dwellings constructed pursuant to the Planning Permission) in a form which is to the satisfaction of the local planning authority having regard to the extent of the obligation already performed or those which are ongoing before the time of or contemporaneous with the disposal contemporaneous with the disposal of any interest by the Council in the Land.”

c)         That the owner meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the Deed of Variation and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

d)        That if the Deed of Variation is not finalised within a period of 6 months from the date of this committee resolution, or any other period deemed appropriate by the Head of Planning, Trading Standards and Environmental Protection, then the application may be referred back to the Committee for determination.

e)         That subject to the above, the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning, Trading Standards and Environmental Protection under delegated powers, subject to the completion of the legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

f)          That if the application is approved, it be subject to the conditions and informatives agreed by the Central and South Planning Committee on 3 November 2009 (detailed in the Committee report and minutes) and attached to the officer’s report.

Erection of a four storey building for a mixed use development comprising retail units (class a1) at ground floor and 54 residential units on the upper floors (class c3) with basement parking (involving demolition of existing

building

Recommendation : Approval of a Deed of Variation to a Section 106 Agreement

Erection of a four storey building for a mixed use development comprising retail units (Class A1) at ground floor and 54 residential units on the upper floors (Class C3) with basement parking (involving demolition of existing buildings).

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

Resolved

a)         That the s106 agreement dated 20 February 2007 is varied as follows:

b)        That the definition of Affordable Housing Mix be varied as follows:

“Affordable Housing Mix” means that the Affordable Housing Units shall comprise nineteen Social rented Units.”

c)         That the owner meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the Deed of Variation and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

d)        That if the Deed of Variation is not finalised within a period of 6 months from the date of this committee resolution, or any other period deemed appropriate by the Head of Planning, Trading Standards and Environmental Protection, then the application may be referred back to the Committee for determination.

e)         That subject to the above the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning, Trading Standards and Environmental Protection under delegated powers, subject to the completion of the legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

f)          That if the application is approved, it be subject to the conditions and informatives agreed by the Central and South Planning Committee on 24 August 2006 (detailed in the Committee report and minutes) and attached to the officer’s report.

Enforcement 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 enforcement 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).