Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Edwards and Councillor Chamdal. Councillor Yarrow was in the Chair.

Councillor Khursheed declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of items 6 and 8, as the applications were in his ward.

Councillor Yarrow and Councillor Money declared non-pecuniary interests in respect of items 12, and 17, respectively, as the applications were in their wards.

All Members confirmed that the interests declared were not significant and thus they would remain in the room and take part in deliberating on the items.

It was noted that Councillor Morse was not present at the meeting of the 11 May 2017.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2017 be approved as a correct record.

None.

It was confirmed that items marked Part I would be considered in public, and items marked Part II would be considered in private.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Use Class A5), involving installation of extract flue.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Use Class A5), involving installation of extract flue.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the application sought retrospective planning permission for the change of use from retail to hot food takeaway, involving installation of extract flue. The proposal was considered on balance to be acceptable given that 70% retail use would be retained within the application site and that the proposal would not erode the retail function and attractiveness of the primary shopping area of this part of Hayes Town Centre. The site was already subject to some level of noise and disturbance due to the existing gift shops, florists and other kiosks present on the site, and it was not felt that the application would significantly contribute to this.

Officers highlighted the addendum which set out a request from the applicant that Condition 2 be amended to allow the site to open at an earlier time. In support of this, the applicant had listed similar premises that had extended opening hours. As such, an opening time of 7am during the weekdays and Saturday was deemed to be acceptable, and on this basis the application was recommended for approval.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in support of the application, highlighting that the site was a popular venue for tradesmen, as well as the elderly, members of book clubs, and the nearby Church. The Committee was informed that the site provided an important hub for the local community and on this basis it was requested that the Committee approve the application.

Members sought clarity on whether the walkways in the communal seating areas were wide enough to admit people with pushchairs or wheelchairs. Officers confirmed that these walkways were over 1m wide and were therefore sufficiently wide.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Change of use from single family dwelling (Use Class C3) to house of multiple occupancy (Use Class C4) (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Change of use from single family dwelling (Use Class C3) to house of multiple occupancy (Use Class C4) (Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report and confirmed that the application sought retrospective planning permission for the conversion of an end of terrace house in a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The main issues for Members to consider were confirmed as the principle of use, the quality of accommodation provided, the impact on adjoining residents, and the provision of parking.

Regarding principle of use, the property fell within an area in which the Council had applied an article 4 direction restricting permitted development rights to convert properties to multiple occupation. In addition, the Council's HM1 policy supported a threshold approach and stated that there should be at least 15% of properties at neighbourhood level, when considering properties in a street length. Within 100m of the application site, only 1 HMO was known to exist, and within the whole street of 163 houses, there were 3 others. Thus, officers confirmed that the conversion of this property to an HMO would not breach the 15% threshold. However, paragraph 3.5 of the Council's supplementary planning guidance required that such properties should have a minimum gross floor area of 120sqm before they could be considered for conversion. In this instance the floor area, including all extensions, totalled 94sqm which fell below the required minimum, and was therefore deemed unsuitable for this form of accommodation.

In terms of quality of accommodation, all of the rooms complied with the Council's supplementary planning guidance on room sizes, communal facilities and amenity space. However, the plans showed that the proposed communal kitchen shared a party wall with the adjoining property, and thus could have an adverse impact on the residents of that property by way of noise and disturbance. Given the size and separation of the rooms, there was the potential for the property to house up to 8 occupants, and the impact on neighbours, including vehicle movements, noise and disturbance, was considered to be greater than if the property were to be occupied by even a large family.

Regarding parking, the Council required provision of 1 space for every 2 bedrooms. The plans submitted only made provision for 2 parking spaces while retaining access for pedestrians, and so the parking provision was deemed to be unacceptable. For the above reasons the application was recommended for refusal.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, highlighting that the property was unsuitable for an HMO for a variety of reasons, including the small size of the bedrooms and the lack of amenity space. In addition, instances of anti social behaviour were highlighted, including noise disturbances, property damage, confrontations with residents and refuse left in the street. To address these issues Hillingdon's ASBIT team had been involved, as had the Police, though issues remained. For these reasons, the Committee was requested to refuse the application.

Members sought further information on the kind of property damage the petitioner was referring to.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Reinstate House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) to a single family dwelling (Use Class C3)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved; and

2.    That the Head of Planning and Enforcement be given delegated authority to agree the final wording of condition 1.

Reinstate House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4) to a single family

dwelling (Use Class C3)

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the application was seeking to revert an HMO to a single dwelling house. This was as a result of lengthy enforcement action taken by the Council against the applicant and as such, the application was recommended for approval.

Members sought confirmation of how quickly the work could be undertaken, were the application to be approved. Officers confirmed that any time limit would be set by Enforcement officers, and would potentially require a Court appearance, to be requested by Legal officers. It was suggested that the Head of Planning and Enforcement could be delegated authority to check with the Legal team and draft the wording of condition 1, relating to a time limit, if required.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved; and

2.    That the Head of Planning and Enforcement be given delegated authority to agree the final wording of condition 1.

Single storey compound unit, alterations to existing and associated plant and removal of bin store and relocation of cycles to other stores on site

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Single storey compound unit, alterations to existing and associated plant and removal of bin store and relocation of cycles to other stores on site.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the application was for minor works that would have no impact to the openness of the Green Belt within the Major Developed Site or the amenities of nearby occupiers, and on that basis was recommended for approval.

Members sought clarity on why, in light of the future opening of the nearby Computer Centre, there were no conditions to specify that the site was for temporary use only. Officers confirmed that there was no indication that the site was to be temporary, and so had to be considered as a permanent building. It was likely that the University had another use in mind for the site, once the Computer Centre had opened.

In addition, officers reiterated that the application was for a building on an already very developed site, and would have no adverse impact on the Green belt.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Single storey outbuilding to rear for use as a gym

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Single storey outbuilding to rear for use as a gym.

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the proposed small outbuilding was conditioned for use as a gym with shower facilities, but with no other use permitted. The officer recommended that the application be approved.

Members highlighted their concerns that such buildings could be used as 'beds in sheds but accepted that conditions were in place to prevent this. On that basis, the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Variation of conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref: 4450/APP/2016/1928 dated 28/07/2016 (Provision of three temporary modular classroom/administration units, substation, car/cycle parking, new access arrangements and ancillary development on existing school site) to extend the use until 30th September 2019

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Variation of conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref:

4450/APP/2016/1928 dated 28/07/2016 (Provision of three temporary modular classroom/administration units, substation, car/cycle parking, new access arrangements and ancillary development on existing school site) to extend the use until 30th September 2019.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the school had experienced funding issues which had prevented them from progressing with the construction of permanent school buildings. As such, the application was for permission to retain the temporary buildings on site until 30 September 2020. It was highlighted that the school was no longer taking on new pupils, and the extension was required to ensure the current pupils finished their education at the school, at which point the temporary buildings would be removed. The officer recommended that the application be approved.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 2 rear dormers, 6 front and 2 rear roof lights and 2 new stairway entrance towers to front, to create a 1-bed self-contained flat and widening of vehicular crossover to front

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Conversion of roof space to habitable use to include 2 rear dormers, 6 front and 2 rear roof lights and 2 new stairway entrance towers to front, to create a 1-bed self-contained flat and widening of vehicular crossover to front.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the proposed roof additions and entrance towers would result in bulky and discordant additions, that would be considered to be intrusive features harmful to the character and appearance of the existing building and the Area of Special Local Character. In addition, the applicant had not demonstrated that sufficient off street parking/manoeuvring/access arrangements would be provided, and therefore the development was considered to result in substandard car parking provision to the Council's approved car parking standard, leading to on-street parking/queuing to the detriment of public and highway safety. For these reasons, the application was recommended for refusal.

Members requested confirmation of whether there was any overlooking of adjacent properties from the balconies. Officers confirmed that there would be no overlooking as there was sufficient distance from balconies.

Members sought further clarity regarding the required parking spaces. Officers confirmed that the guidance stated that only 1 parking space was required, but that the area was the subject of a parking management scheme already, due to pre-existing difficulty with parking.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Erection of 2 detached buildings to accommodate a storage depot and ancillary office (Use class B8)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Erection of 2 detached buildings to accommodate a storage depot and

ancillary office (Use class B8)

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the application was consistent with the character of the industrial area, would not result in additional traffic generation, and would contribute towards improving the junction at Wallingford Road and Cowley Mill Road. The application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to the addition of a condition to restrict deliveries to the hours as set out in condition 8.

Members sought clarity on the drainage system, and what safeguards were in place to prevent liquid from entering the canal, should a tank leak. Officers confirmed that condition 5, as set out in the report, covered such an eventuality.  

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Alterations and refurbishment of existing school frontage

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Alterations and refurbishment of existing school frontage.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the application was located within the Green Belt. However, it was considered that as the proposed works were well within the school compound site, there was no detrimental impact to the Green Belt as a result of the works.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

RESOLVED:  That the officer's recommendation be agreed.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report was 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.

This item is included in Part II as it contains information which a) is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and b) contains information which reveals that the authority proposes to give, under an enactment, a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person. The authority believes that the public interest in withholding the Information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraphs 2 and 6(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

RESOLVED:  That the officer's recommendation be agreed.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report was 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.

This item is included in Part II as it contains information which a) is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and b) contains information which reveals that the authority proposes to give, under an enactment, a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person. The authority believes that the public interest in withholding the Information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraphs 2 and 6(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

RESOLVED:  That the officer's recommendation be agreed.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report was 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.

This item is included in Part II as it contains information which a) is likely to reveal the identity of an individual and b) contains information which reveals that the authority proposes to give, under an enactment, a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person. The authority believes that the public interest in withholding the Information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it (exempt information under paragraphs 2 and 6(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).