Agenda and minutes

Cllr Cooper declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 6 (Honeycroft Day Centre, Honeycroft Hill) and did not take part in this item.  As the Ward Councillor, Cllr Cooper declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in item 19 (Former Cape Boards Site Iver Lane) and did take part in this item.

As the Ward Councillor, Cllr Gilham declared a personal and prejudicial interest in item 12 (Land rear of 22, 22A and 24 Dickens Avenue) and did not take part in this item.

As the Ward Councillor, Cllr Bridges declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in item 15 (4 Sedgwick Avenue) and did take part in this item.

As the Ward Councillor, Cllr Sansupuri declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in item 8 (Hayes Gate House) and item 17 (Land rear of Montague Passage) and did take part in this item.

Cllr Duncan declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in item 18 (Land rear of Montague Passage) and did take part in this item.

The minutes were agreed as an accurate record by the Committee.

Officers invited the Committee to consider an urgent enforcement item which had been deemed urgent for the following reason: The use of the site is unauthorised and is considered to pose an immediate risk to the environment, as such there is an urgent need to obtain authorisation to restrain the use of the site. The Chairman of the Committee accepted this item which would be considered in Part 2.

It was confirmed that all items on the agenda were marked Part 1 and would therefore be considered in public. It was confirmed that the urgent enforcement item which the Chairman had accepted as a late item was marked Part 2 and would be considered in private.

Redevelopment of site to provide a two storey building, with roofspace accommodation, comprising 26 residential units with associated access, parking and amenity space (Outline application with details of access, layout and scale only).

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Redevelopment of site to provide a two storey building, with roofspace accommodation, comprising 26 residential units with associated access, parking and amenity space (Outline application with details of access, layout and scale only).

Officer’s presented the report to the Committee. A petition had been received in objection to the application. The petitioner was invited to address the Committee and raised the following points:

• Residents were concerned that the proposed building would require a large amount of space on the site
• Residents believe a larger number of parking spaces should be proposed to coincide with the number of dwellings on site
• Congestion in the area may rise due to the increase in residents alone Honeycroft Hill
• The size of the flats in the building was very small and residents felt a large number of small dwellings were being built in a very large building
• The lead petitioner invited the Committee Members to undertake a site visit.

Members informed the petitioners that a site visit had been undertaken by the Committee prior to this meeting. Regarding the parking, Officers clarified that the London Plan guidance suggested a 1:1 car parking to dwelling ratio, whilst the Council’s maximum standard was 1:1.5. The proposed application met the standards by proposing a 1:1.3 car parking to dwelling ratio.

Members asked Officers to delete condition 43 from the report, and this had been recorded as part of the addendum sheet.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. The application was unanimously approved in accordance with the officer’s report and addendum, and the deletion of condition 43.

Construction of new building (2056sqm internal floor space at first floor level, undercroft parking beneath) southwest of terminal 2A Heathrow (Consultation under Part 18 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Construction of new building (2056sqm internal floor space at first floor level, undercroft parking beneath) southwest of terminal 2A Heathrow (Consultation under Part 18 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

Officers presented the report to the Committee.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. The application was unanimously approved in accordance with the officer’s report.

Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation ref: 2385/APP/2005/3477 dated 16/6/2008- Change of use of Hayes gate house from office to hotel and conference facilities, alterations to Hayes Gate House building, erection of a freestanding three storey media centre, ancillary car parking and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Application for a new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission in order to extend the time limit for implementation ref: 2385/APP/2005/3477 dated 16/6/2008- Change of use of Hayes gate house from office to hotel and conference facilities, alterations to Hayes Gate House building, erection of a freestanding three storey media centre, ancillary car parking and landscaping.

Officer’s presented the report to the Committee. The Ward Councillor was present and urged Members to make a decision on the application as the matter had been going on for a number of years.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. The application was unanimously approved in accordance with the officer’s report and addendum

Reserved matters (appearance and landscaping) in compliance with conditions 2 and 3 for Phase 2, second application (89 dwellings including  landscaping and associated works) of planning permission ref: 5107/APP/2009/2348 dated 01/10/2010: Proposed mixed-use redevelopment comprising: 773 dwellings; Class D1 Primary Healthcare facility including room for joint community use (up to 1085sq.m gea); Class C2.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Reserved matters (appearance and landscaping) in compliance with conditions 2 and 3 for Phase 2, second application (89 dwellings including  landscaping and associated works) of planning permission ref: 5107/APP/2009/2348 dated 01/10/2010: Proposed mixed-use redevelopment comprising: 773 dwellings; Class D1 Primary Healthcare facility including room for joint community use (up to 1085sq.m gea); Class C2.

Officer’s presented the report to the Committee. Members asked Officers whether a description of the exact building materials and landscaping was included in the report pack or plans. Officers said these were not included but were described to the Committee. Members asked whether the Urban Design Officer had seen the plans. Officers confirmed that the Urban Design Officer had seen the plans and did not have objections to the materials or design of the site.

Officers confirmed that condition “secure by design and CCTV” had been imposed on the site. Officers also clarified that street lighting had been taken into consideration and included in the designs of the site.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. The application was unanimously approved in accordance with the officer’s report and addendum.

Erection of single storey rear extension to educational premises (former caretaker's house).

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Erection of single storey rear extension to educational premises (former caretaker's house).

Officer’s presented the report to the Committee. A petition had been received in objection to the application. The lead petitioner was present and invited to address the Committee:

• Carlyon Road was a small dead end road, and approval of such an application may have an adverse affect on traffic congestion along the road
• The site was over-developed and such an application was unnecessary
• Parking in the road would be difficult for residents if the application were approved

Members agreed that parking concerns were out of the remit of the Planning Committee and petitioners should raise this issue with their local Ward Councillors who could take the matter up with Parking Technicians.

A Ward Councillor was present and confirmed that she supported the application but would work with petitioners to resolved parking issues along Carlyon Road

Members asked Officers whether a new School Travel Plan had been submitted by the applicant or agent. Officers informed Members that because there was no increase in student numbers proposed the School Travel Plan would retain the status quo. It was a legal requirement for every school to ensure they had an adequate School Travel Plan but it was not necessary to attach it to this application.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. The application was unanimously approved in accordance with the officer’s report and addendum.

Single storey side extension (Part retrospective application).

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Single storey side extension (Part retrospective application).

Officers presented the report to the Committee. A petition had been received in objection to the application. The Lead Petitioner was invited to address the Committee, and raised the following points:

• Parts of the site were being used for parking with cars mounting pavements without dropped curbs
• Previous extensions had been started but not finished, resulting in unnecessary clutter on the site
• The plan for the site had the location of one driveway highlighted. However, the current site had two driveway.

The Ward Councillor was present and supported the petitioner’s concerns.

Members informed the petitioner that most of the issues raised were enforcement matters. These were to be taken up with the local Ward Councillor who could raise the concerns with the Enforcement Team.

Members agreed that the plans did not highlight whether the guttering of the site encroached on the site next door. This should be highlighted with an informative.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. The application was unanimously approved in accordance with the officer’s report and addendum, and with the following informative:

“You are advised that all parts of the approved structure, including any guttering shall be located entirely within the boundary of the site and should not encroach beyond the boundary.”

2 x two storey, 2-bed, semi-detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

2 x two storey, 2-bed, semi-detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover.

Officers presented the report to Members. A petition had been received in objection to the proposed application. The Lead Petitioner was present and invited to address the Committee:

• Although the plans for the proposed application listed it as a 2 bedroom house with a study it was apparent that the study could or would be used as a third bedroom, making it a 3 bedroom dwelling
• The land of the site belonged to a non-residents of Daleham Drive
• The area outside the land was used as a turning point for cars, and should the application be approved this may be dangerous for residents reversing out of their driveways
• There would be a privacy issue as the proposed site would have direct view of the garden and rear rooms of house number 27
• Parking on the site would be under huge pressure if another dwelling was athorised along the road
• Trees on the site had been removed prior to planning permission being granted.

Members clarified for petitioners that trees could be removed from a site for which planning application had not yet been received if the trees were not protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

Members advised petitioners to speak to their local Ward Councillor about parking issues along the road, as this was out of the Committee’s remit.

The Committee queried the ownership of the land. Officers said they had received the correct certificate of ownership which showed that there were two named persons who owned the land and the London Borough of Hillingdon. The Legal Advisor informed the Committee that the certificates were bona fide and were therefore a true and accurate record of the land ownership details. However, Members felt they could not make a decision on the site without knowing the exact details of what part of the site were owned by whom.

Members felt a site visit was necessary to clarify the parking and traffic issues along the road.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred. The application was unanimously deferred for the following reasons:

• To allow Members to undertaken a site visit
• For Officers to establish what parking management arrangements exist in the area
• For access and ownership issues clarified at front of the site
• For the Highways Officer to confirm there is not a vehicular traffic conflict issue.

Single storey outbuilding to rear for use as a gym and store involving part demolition of existing outbuilding (Part-retrospective) (Resubmission)

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Single storey outbuilding to rear for use as a gym and store involving part demolition of existing outbuilding (Part-retrospective) (Resubmission)

Officers presented the report to the Committee.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. The application was unanimously approved in accordance with the officer’s report and addendum.

Application for change of use from Public Library (Class D1) to residential dwellings (Class C3), including associated internal alterations, external landscaping works, changes to access and parking arrangements.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Application for change of use from Public Library (Class D1) to residential dwellings (Class C3), including associated internal alterations, external landscaping works, changes to access and parking arrangements.

Officer presented their report to the Committee. Some Members of the Committee said a petition had been submitted in objection to this application but had not been reported. Officers clarified that no petition had been received by Planning Officers, Democratic Services or the Director of Planning, Environment, Education and Community Services.

Some Members said an objection had been submitted by a Ward Councillor but this had not been reported in the application report. Officers said the objection was received via an online form which did not highlight the name of the objector. Therefore, the objections had been reported but not accredited to the Ward Councillor. The Chairman of the Committee advised Members to log their queries through Members’ Enquiries sent to the Planning directorate. In this way their query can be logged, tracked and processed as a Member Enquiry and there is an accurate record of said query.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. The application was approved with five Members voting to approve and two Members voting to refuse. The application was therefore approved in accordance with the officer’s report and addendum, and with the following information:

• Supersede P11 B and replace with amended plan P11 C.
• Amend condition 22 by removing the words ‘where possible’.

Conversion of existing dwelling to form 1 x studio flat and 1 x 2 bed flat with associated parking and amenity space (Part Retrospective)

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL

Conversion of existing dwelling to form 1 x studio flat and 1 x 2 bed flat with associated parking and amenity space (Part Retrospective)

Officers presented the report to Members.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused. The application was unanimously refused in accordance with the officer’s report.

Application for variation of condition 3 (to allow the use of the garage for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house) of planning permission ref: 12026/APP/2004/2734 dated 25/05/2005: Erection of a single storey detached garage at the end of the rear garden.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL

Application for variation of condition 3 (to allow the use of the garage for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house) of planning permission ref: 12026/APP/2004/2734 dated 25/05/2005: Erection of a single storey detached garage at the end of the rear garden.

The Officers presented the report to the Committee Members.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused. The application was unanimously refused in accordance with the officer’s report.

Alteration to roof pitch and front elevation of side extension as amendment to planning permission ref: 10680/APP/2006/1365 dated 04/07/2006 (Part retrospective application)

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Alteration to roof pitch and front elevation of side extension as amendment to planning permission ref: 10680/APP/2006/1365 dated 04/07/2006 (Part retrospective application)

Officer’s presented the report to the Committee. The Ward Councillor was present and urged Members to make a decision on the application as the matter had been going on for a number of years.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. The application was unanimously approved in accordance with the officer’s report and addendum, and with the following condition:

“Before development commences: plans, details and a construction method statement setting out the exact position of the extension in relation to the boundary with the street and how construction (including any gutters and fixings) will be undertaken without encroaching on adjoining land.

REASON
To ensure the development is completed within the application site and prevent encroachment into neighbouring land and to accord with policy BE15  of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).”

Erection of a two storey block of four flats with associated car parking and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Erection of a two storey block of four flats with associated car parking and landscaping.

Officers presented the report to the Committee. Members queried whether a gate should be situated at this location along with lockable bollards to ensure residents could secure their parking spaced. Officers said these actions could be undertaken.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. The application was unanimously approved in accordance with the officer’s report and addendum, and with the following information:

“1. Delete the condition on page 7 of addendum referring to installation of bollards

Add the following condition:

Prior to commencement of the development a Car Park Management Plan covering the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority.  The management plan shall include (but bot be limited to) details of allocation of spaces, how the unauthorised users will be prevented from occupying the spaces, security, lighting and maintenance arrangements.  The provisions of the Car parking Management Plan will be carried and out for the lifetime of the development.

REASON

To ensure the suitable management of parking on site and to impact on the surrounding area in accordance with policies Pt1.10, AM14, AM15, AM16 of the Hillingdon Unitary development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

2. Add the following condition:

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of the access gate to  the car park, incorporating facilities for its operation by disabled persons, and capable of being manually operated in the event of a power failure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter the access gate shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and maintained for so long as the development remains on site.

REASON

To provide safe and adequate access for pedestrians and vehicles accessing the new parking area in accordance with Policies AM7 and AM8 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

3. Amend condition 15 by adding the words 'and recycling' between the words refuse and bins.”

Erection of two detached single storey buildings for the use of light industrial and offices with associated parking (Retrospective application).

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL

Erection of two detached single storey buildings for the use of light industrial and offices with associated parking (Retrospective application).

Officers presented their report to the Committee.

Resolved:

It was moved and seconded that the application be approved. The application was unanimously approved in accordance with the officer’s report and addendum.