Minutes
Major Applications Planning Committee 29 March 2017 Meeting held at Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW

Committee Members Present: Councillors Eddie Lavery (Chairman), Ian Edwards (Vice-Chairman), Peter Curling, Janet Duncan, Henry Higgins, John Morgan, John Oswell, Brian Stead and David Yarrow LBH Officers Present: James Rodger - Head of Planning & Enforcement, Neil McCLellen - Major Applications Team Leader, Manmohan Ranger - Highways Advisor, Jyoti Mehta - Legal Advisor and Anisha Teji - Democratic Services Officer

Apologies for Absence (Agenda Item 1) There were no apologies for absence

Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting (Agenda Item 2) None.

Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent (Agenda Item 3) None.

To confirm that the items marked in Part 1 will be considered inpublic and those items marked in Part 2 will be heard in private (Agenda Item 4) It was confirmed that all items were Part I and would be heard in public.

36-40 Rickmansworth Road - 69978/APP/2016/2564 (Agenda Item 5)
Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of three detached dwellings and redevelopment to provide 24 residential flats, amenity space and associated car parking. Members noted that this application had been considered on two separate occasions namely on 14 March 2016 and 4 October 2016, and had been subject to a Committee site visit. The application was deferred on 4 October 2016 to allow the applicant to submit further information. The application was considered on 14 March 2017 and Members resolved to grant the scheme permission subject to conditions. Subsequent to the planning meeting a petition from local residents came to light which was not heard due to an oversight in administration. This application therefore came back to the Committee to allow the petitioner an opportunity to speak. The petition submitted was in objection of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points: the proposed development would cause road safety risks and the location historically had many accidents; sufficient account was not taken of all the properties directly opposite the proposed site which would impact residents' access needs; the road safety audits which took place in March 2014 took place during quiet times; highway safety would be compromised even with the proposed road changes; the scale and bolt of the application would be visually intrusive and the proposed yellow brick will also be visually intrusive; the location of the proposed car parking for this proposed development would cause excessive noise and disturbance levels; concerns were raised about the outside lighting and how it would impact on local residents; and there was a suggestion that a boundary wall be put in place whilst work was being carried out on the site. The applicant's agent spoke in support of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution the agent spoke and made the following points: the oversight in administration was far reaching beyond planning matters; considerable further work had been undertaken by the applicant as required by the Committee. This work has been reviewed by planning teams in the Council; the scheme was considered to be acceptable and would achieve safe highways for this proposed development; no new issues had arisen that should impact the proposed development; and the latest highways junctions had been tested and the proposed junction was now supported by the Council's highways officer. Members apologised to residents for hearing the application again and the oversight in administration. Members noted that rear site did not allow for rear access to the site. Members clarified that the speed surveys carried out and the safety audit demonstrated that the vehicles accorded with the speed limits in the area. Members noted that there were no dedicated facilities for "U" turn for a small development. Members acknowledged that "U" turns were dangerous but accepted that they could be done anywhere. Members clarified that any landscaping issues had been covered as conditions in the planning application. Members noted that it had considered traffic and all highway information at the last meeting, and all the issues raised by the petitioner were mentioned and raised. Members agreed that there was no new information before the Committee. Members moved and seconded the officer's recommendation, and upon being put to a vote, there were six votes in favour and two abstentions. RESOLVED: The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation subject to the conditions and s106 agreement set out in the report, as amended in the addendum.

Silverdale Industrial Estate, Siverdale Road, Hayes - 71374/APP/2016/4027 (Agenda Item 6)
Officers introduced the application, the addendum and provided an overview. The application sought planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a podium at ground level and buildings ranging from four storeys to nine storeys, comprising 124 residential units and flexible commercial space. The proposed layout would not have an adverse impact on local residents and would be compatible with regulations. A viable level of affordable housing had been agreed. This site had been subject to a Members site visit. In response to matters raised by Members, officers confirmed that: the photos and images displayed were an accurate reflection of the proposed development; the conditions in the report required for the development to be built in accordance with the plans and there were detailed alleviations which matched the CGIs. Any variations would need to be put before the planning committee; the scheme would improve public access allowing the public to access the area near the canal; any necessary changes to Blocks C & D to address any overlooking issues between the two blocks would be delegated to the head of planning; and there would be a minimum of 20 socially rented units providing affordable housing. Members noted that the residents of the development would not be eligible for parking permits. The Legal Advisor advised that this position had been discussed previously and the position had now changed that Councils could word conditions in specific ways so that parking was restricted. Members commented that the scheme would set the bench mark for redevelopment of the site and regeneration in Hayes town. Members also commented that the CGIs looked "wonderful" and overall be a good scheme. A motion for the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation, subject to the conditions set out in the report as amended in the addendum, but with the additional amendments agreed by Members.

Randall's, 7-9 Vine street, Uxbridge - 41309/APP/2016/3391 (Full) 41309/APP/2016/3392 (Listed Building) (Agenda Item 7)
Officers introduced the application, the addendum and provided an overview. Planning permission was sought for the change of use fro residential led and mixed use development. This included planning permission to change the ground and part first floor of the Randall's building from Use Class A1 to Use Class A3, conversion of part of the first floor from use Class A1 to use class C3; addition of a second storey roof top extension to provide residential apartments and external restoration works; the erection of three new residential blocks ranging from 3 to 6 storeys in height, a new ground floor retail unit; a conversion of the Old Fire Station Building to duplex apartments; the provision of associated landscaping car parking and associated works, to provide 58 residential units in total and 750 sq of commercial floor space involving the demolition of the 1960 's extension to the Randalls building, caretakers flat and warehouse building. In response to matters raised by Members, officers confirmed that: the Conservation and Design team officers have been very involved with the scheme, they had been to the building many times and picked up all the different points of value. Officers would look into preserving "Lansom cash tubes" as they were of a historic nature and value; there would be affordable housing although this had not been finalised yet. Delegation would be given to the Chairman and Labour Lead to agree the matter outside the Committee; the retail units to be built would be in isolated, No negative issues would arise from being more flexible with the use of the building; and conditions 18 and 19 would be reconsidered to ensure that there was nothing to onerous in them. Members commented that this would be a good development and welcomed the scheme. Members were pleased to see that the fire station would be retained in principal as it was part of Uxbridge's history. The listed building consent was also approved by Members. A motion for the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed. RESOLVED: The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation, subject to the conditions set out in the report as amended in the addendum, but with the additional amendments agreed by Members.

The meeting, which commenced at 6pm, closed at 7:02 pm.
These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Anisha Teji on 01895 277655 . Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public. The public part of this meeting was filmed live on the Council's YouTube Channel to increase transparency in decision-making, however these minutes remain the official and definitive record of proceedings.