Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Manjit Khatra, with Cllr John Morse substituting.

Cllr Ahmad-Wallana declared a non pecuniary interest in agenda item number 5 (27A and B Daleham Drive). Cllr Ahmad-Wallana left the room during discussion of the item.

No matters had been notified in advance or were urgent.

It was confirmed that all items were Part I and would be heard in public.

Retention of 2 semi-detached dwelling houses (Retrospective Application)

Recommendation: Refusal

Resolved: That the application be refused.

Retention of 2 semi-detached dwelling houses (Retrospective Application).

Officers introduced the application which sought retrospective planning permission for the retention of two semi-detached residential properties. These had not been constructed in accordance with previously approved plans.

Members were referred to the addendum sheet that had been circulated. This confirmed receipt of an additional petition in opposition to the scheme.

The Chairman requested that officers explain how the scheme as built differed from the plans that had previously been approved. Members were shown the floor plans of what had been built in comparison to what had been approved. These showed that the roof form and the elevations were different. The key changes related to an increase in the number of bedrooms, from two to three, alterations to the roof form and height, with provision of a gable instead of a hip roof. There had also been alterations to roof lights, to the design of rear elements and use of different materials. In addition, there had been alterations to the doors and omission of landscaping at the front of the site.

A petition had been submitted in objection to the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The officer's introduction had stated that the houses had changed from having two bedrooms to having three. The minutes of the meeting from 6 January 2016 showed that the agent for the builder had stated that each unit had three bedrooms with a study and not four bedrooms as claimed by the petitioner.

·         Publicity material produced by the Letting Agent, Turbervilles advertised brand new luxury four bedroom houses.

·         The petitioner read the officer's summary from page 1 of the agenda pack. This information had been available to the Committee prior to Members going on a site visit. The summary stated the following:

"This application seeks retrospective consent for the retention of two semi detached dwellings at 27A and 27B Daleham Drive. During the construction of the dwellings, a number of alterations were made to the approved scheme, which included alterations to the roof form, changes to the fenestration locations, materials used in the construction of the buildings, location of the entrances and a reduction in the amount of soft landscaping to the front. The alterations to the approved scheme have been considered in the context of the site and surrounding street scene, and are considered unacceptable. The addition of gable end roofs to each of the dwellings and all of the elevation alterations combined, result in a development that appears visually at odds and incongruous to the established character and pattern of development within Daleham Drive. The scheme thereby fails to comply with the adopted policies and guidance. Refusal is therefore recommended."

·      The petitioner said that the Officer's summary condemned the construction that had taken place at the site and the publicity material produced by Tubervilles was evidence that two four bedroom properties had been constructed.

·      Section 7.07 of the officer report made reference to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Single storey side/rear extension

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Single storey side/rear extension, Heathrow Medical Centre, 1 St Peter's Way, Harlington.

Officers introduced the application which sought approval for the erection of a single storey extension to provide enhanced facilities for the Heathrow Medical Centre. The application site was within Harlington Village Conservation area. The proposed extension would be sizeable and would extend across the width of the rear garden area of the property.

Taking into account the need for the facility and subject to changes to enhance the visual impact, as recommended by the Council's Conservation Officer, which would be secured prior to the granting of planning permission, the development was considered to be visually acceptable in the location. Accordingly, the application was recommended for approval.

Members were referred to the addendum sheet circulated, which reflected comments received from the Director of Public Health in support of the scheme.

A petition had been submitted by the applicant in support of the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The petitioner wished to highlight some key points that he felt may not have been considered as part of the original proposal.

·         Primary Care services dealt with over 90% of NHS encounters with patients.

·         The practice had previously had 3,000 patients, which had now grown to 6,000 patients. This increase had been due to the merger of the practice with a neighbouring practice in May 2015. The practice currently had three consulting rooms on site, but the requirement was now for six rooms due to the increased number of patients.

·         The practice had qualified for the Primary Care Infrastructure Grant. This suggested that the Government was in favour of the development.

·         The proposal had four main aims:

1.    To provide essential primary care services from a single fit for purpose premises.

2.    To bring together health and social care provision.

3.    To reduce emergency hospital admissions.

4.    To provide a wider range of services in the community.

·         The elderly and most vulnerable patient groups would benefit the most from the development. The practice had almost 600 patients over the age of 65, 75 of which were at the highest risk of emergency hospital admission. This was defined as them having a one in three chance of an emergency admission within the next 12 months.

·         The practice did not currently have the capacity to be able to offer additional services provided by Health and Social Care Co-ordinators or by Primary Care Navigators. The practice wished to provide these professionals with rooms to enable them to consult patients at the practice.

·         Age UK supported the scheme and had commented that the services that the practice was looking to provide worked best when Primary Care Navigators and office space within surgeries were attached as this enabled patients to be seen in a surgery setting. Hillingdon CCG, NHS England and the surgery's own Patient Participation Group were all supportive of the plans. No objections had been received from any of the surgery's neighbours, with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to a mixed use comprising drinking establishment and single storey rear extension for use as a Shisha Lounge (Use Class A4/Sui Generis)

Recommendation: Refusal

Resolved: That the application be refused.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to a mixed use comprising drinking establishment and single storey rear extension for use as a shisha lounge (Use Class A4/Sui Generis).

Officers introduced the report which sought permission for the change of use of the ground floor of the premises from retail use to a mixed use, comprising a drinking establishment and a shisha lounge. This would be provided in a single storey rear extension. There were no specific constraints or designations in relation to the application site.

Members were referred to the addendum sheet circulated in advance of the meeting. This highlighted the receipt of a 121 signature petition in support of the proposals.

Taking into account the nature of the shopping parade, no objections were raised to the principle of the development or to the provision of the rear extension. However, the site lay within close proximity to residential properties and concern was raised over the potential impact that noise disturbance and odour could have on local residents. There were also concerns that the application had the potential to result in additional traffic and parking demand, which could be detrimental to pedestrian and highway safety. No Transport Statement had been provided and in the absence of this or any details of how the potential for noise disturbance and odour could be controlled, refusal of the application was recommended.

Two petitions had been submitted in objection to the application. One of the petitioners declined the opportunity to address the Committee with regards to their petition. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, a representative of the petitioner responsible for the second petition in objection addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The proposal would have a significant impact on the living conditions of local residents, especially those who lived above the parade of shops and others who lived in close proximity to the proposed development.

·         The proposed use was considered to be inappropriate for the location and would result in noise and disturbance, especially late in the evening. The use as a shisha lounge would also cause smoke and smells.

·         Local residents already suffered from late night noise due to restaurants in the parade of shops. There was also considerable anti-social behaviour taking place in the area, including people relieving themselves on the streets. Any additional drinking or smoking would add to the existing problems.

·         Brookside Road and other neighbouring roads were already heavily congested due to customers using the restaurants in the parade. The hotel that would soon open in the area would also exacerbate the problem. The proposed use provided no off street parking for staff or customers. This would lead to additional congestion on nearby roads.

·         The officer's report recommended that the application be refused. Local residents fully support the recommendation and this was demonstrated by the high turnout at the meeting.

·         The petitioners felt that the applicant's submission was poor as no transport assessment or noise report had been provided. It had also not indicated the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.