Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Brian Stead declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 10 – 19a Church Road, Cowley as the application site was in his ward. He withdrew from the room and did not take part in the decision for this item.

Councillor Neil Fyfe declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 14 – Enforcement Report as the site was in his ward. He withdrew from the room and did not take part in the decision for this item.

There were no matters notified in advance or urgent.

It was confirmed that all business marked Part 1 would be heard in public.

Items 14, 15 and 16 were Part 2 and were therefore considered in private.

Redevelopment of the site to provide a 301 bedroom hotel (Class C1) and 4 new industrial units accommodating a combined total 9,562sq.m of floor space (Use Classes B1(b), B1(c), B2 and B8) alterations to access arrangements (including from Hatch Lane), associated landscaping and car parking together (involving demolition of the existing buildings on site).

Deferred from Central & South Planning Committee 24/01/2012

Recommendation: Delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces to grant planning permission.

Redevelopment of the site to provide a 301 bedroom hotel (Class C1) and 4 new industrial units accommodating a combined total 9,562sq.m of floor space (Use Classes B1(b), B1(c), B2 and B8) alterations to access arrangements (including from Hatch Lane), associated landscaping and car parking together (involving the demolition of existing buildings on site).

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

A Member raised concerns about the proposed access to the site from Hatch Lane which could have a significant impact on traffic in the area. It was suggested that the access road needed to be longer than set out in the plans in order to avoid traffic and highway safety issues on Hatch Lane during busy periods.

Officers noted that it was possible to add an informative and alter condition 11 to ensure that the access road did not pose a threat to highway safety or create traffic problems on Hatch Lane.

It was agreed that an additional informative would be added as follows:

'You are advised that in submitted details in relation to condition 11 the Local Planning Authority will expect the submitted details to contain an amended layout and design of the hotel access point to minimise the potential impacts of queueing and ensure that vehicles manoeuvring into the hotel do not have adverse impacts on the operation or safety of the public highway.'

It was also agreed that Condition 11 should be amended as follows:

'Development shall not begin within any phase, until details of all traffic arrangements relevant to that phase (including where appropriate ingress/egress to the hotel car park, including vehicle swept paths, gates and barriers; carriageways; footways; turning space; safety strips; sight lines at road junctions; kerb radii; car parking areas and marking out of spaces; loading facilities; closure  of existing access and means of surfacing) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved development in the relevant phase shall not be occupied until all approved works for the phase have been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter, the parking areas, sight lines and loading areas must be permanently retained and used for no other purpose at any time.’

REASON

To ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety and convenience and to ensure adequate off street parking, and loading facilities in compliance with Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) and Chapter 6 of the London Plan (July 2011).'

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 officer recommendation, the changes outlined in the addendum sheet and the following additional informative and amended condition 11:

'You are advised that in submitted details in relation to condition 11 the Local Planning Authority will expect the submitted details to contain an amended layout and design of the hotel access point to minimise the potential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Reserved matters (landscaping) in compliance with condition 2 of the Secretary of State's Appeal Decision ref:APP/R5510/A/09/2119085 dated 17/06/2010 (LBH ref:15407/APP/2009/1838): Erection of new health centre and 12 residential units with ancillary car parking and landscaped amenity space (involving demolition of existing building).

Deferred from Central & South Planning Committee 11/10/2011

Recommendation: Approval.

Reserved matters (landscaping) in compliance with condition 2 of the Secretary of State’s Appeal Decision ref: APP/R5510/A/09/2119085 dated 17/06/2010 (LBH ref: 15407/APP/2009/1838): Erection of new health centre and 12 residential units with ancillary car parking and landscaped amenity space (involving demolition of existing buildings).

Officers introduced the report.

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 officer recommendation.

Application to remove condition 51 (provision of a south bound bus lane) of planning permission 60929/APP/2007/3744 for the "Erection of mixed use development comprising 7,390 sq.m (gross) retail (Class A1 Use) floorspace and 97 residential units, including new access, car parking, amenity space and landscaping (Full Application) approved  31 January 2008.

Recommendation: Delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces to grant planning permission.

Application to remove condition 51 (provision of a south bound bus lane) of planning permission 60929/APP/2007/3744 for the “Erection of mixed use development comprising 7,390 sq.m (gross) retail (Class A1 Use) floorspace and 97 residential units, including new access, car parking, amenity space and landscaping” (Full Application) approved 31 January 2008.

Officers introduced the report.

Members agreed to officers’ request for delegated authority to update all policy references in the condition reasons for this application in view of the Core Strategy.

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 officer recommendation and the changes outlined in the addendum sheet.

Change of use of ground floor from Use Class B1 (Offices) and Use Class B8 (Storage) to Use Class A1 (Shops) to include alterations to front elevations and new shopfronts.

Recommendation: Approval.

Change of use of ground floor from Use Class B1 (Offices) and Use Class B8 (Storage) to Use Class A1 (Shops) to include alterations to front elevations and new shopfronts.

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

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:

§         That the proposed change of use from Use Class B1 (Offices) and Use Class B (Storage) to Use Class A1 (Retail) would cause harm to the amenities of the surrounding properties.

§         That Policy S12, Service Uses in Secondary Shopping Areas was not applicable to this application as Cherry Orchard was not within the boundaries of the Secondary Shopping Area and would therefore lead to retail units being located within a residential area.

§         That there was a history of traffic and parking problems on Cherry Orchard and Station Road caused by the narrowness of the road. Problems had persisted despite the fact that a petition to the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling had led to parking restrictions in the area.

§         A plumbing firm which had previously used the units had presented no problems but later occupants of the units had created parking issues for local residents. It was feared that this development would cause similar problems.

§         That the proposals did not meet fire service access requirements. The petitioner noted that they had witnessed emergency service vehicles being unable to access the area due to current parking arrangements. This would be worsened by new retail units and associated parking.

§         There was concern raised that any conditions to mitigate parking issues and the risk of emergency services having insufficient access to the area would not be enforceable.

The agent made the following points:

§         The proposed development would lead to unsightly buildings being developed into useful units which would help to improve the area.

§         Deliveries to the units would be no more than a few cardboard boxes per week and would not involve the use of vans or lorries.

§         The Council’s Highways Officer had scrutinised the plans and considered them acceptable.

Officers confirmed that Cherry Orchard was within the Secondary Shopping Area and that the change of use would not lead to an increase in parking. It was also noted that there were loading facilities on Station Road and that it would therefore be difficult to sustain a refusal on parking grounds.

Members noted that parking and traffic in this area were problematic and that these problems were partly caused by the servicing of the shops in the area. It was noted that the prospect of new businesses in West Drayton was positive but that it would not be possible to determine whether the application should be approved without a site visit to assess the parking, loading and traffic situation.

It was noted that an additional condition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Single storey rear extension.

Recommendation: Refusal.

Single storey rear extension.

Officers introduced the report.

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 officer recommendation.

Conversion of dwelling to 2 x 1-bedroom flats (Resubmission).

Recommendation: Refusal.

Conversion of dwelling to 2 x – bedroom flats (Resubmission)

Single storey rear extension.

Officers introduced the report.

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 officer recommendation.

Change of use to Betting Shop (Use Class A2) from Retail (Use Class A1).

Recommendation: Approval.

Change of use to Betting Shop (Use Class A2) from Retail (Use Class A1).

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting. It was also noted that the Addendum for this application needed to be amended from “Replace 3” to “Replace condition 3”.

Councillor Cooper noted that, on a personal level, she disagreed with locating a betting shop in an area where children congregated.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded, and on being put to the vote, was agreed with 6 votes in favour and 1 abstention from Councillor Cooper.

Resolved that the application be approved as per officer recommendation and the changes outlined in the addendum sheet.

A Member asked what was happening with the money for Health Care Provision.

Officers advised that this money would be handed across once a service level agreement was in place. The expectation was that the agreement would be in place soon.

Councillor Duncan requested that the issue be flagged as there were a number of doctors’ surgeries which were at breaking point and that money needed to be spent on patients now rather than in the future.

Resolved that Members noted the contents of the report.

The recommendations as set out in the officer report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved:

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

2.That the Committee resolved 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 recommendations as set out in the officer report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved:

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

2.That the Committee resolved 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 recommendations as set out in the officer report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved:

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

2.That the Committee resolved 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).