Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2019 be agreed as a correct record.

None.

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

Part two-storey, part single-storey side extension and first-floor rear extension.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Part two-storey, part single-storey front / side / rear extension and first floor rear extension.

Councillor Tony Eginton, Ward Councillor for Barnhill, was in attendance for the discussion of this item.

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum, which included an amendment to reason for refusal 1 and the description of development.

The Committee noted there was a petition in objection to the application. Councillor Tony Eginton, Ward Councillor for Barnhill, addressed the Committee and stated that the application would create a terraced house in a road that is semi-detached properties, and this changed the street scene and environment of road, and approving the application would set a dangerous precedent.

Responding to Councillors’ questioning, officers noted that the application was almost identical to the previous application at the site, and confirmed that legislation stated the Council can decline to determine a planning application if, within the last two years, either a similar planning application has been dismissed at appeal or the Council has refused at least two similar planning applications without either of them being appealed.

Members noted that it was helpful to give this advice publicly so residents could be aware of the situation if they wished to place a petition, and agreed that an informative on the decision notice with the information would be a good way forward.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed at a vote.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Single-storey rear extension, involving demolition of existing rear element and part change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to use for food preparation (Use Class B2).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

RE Single-storey, rear extension involving demolition of existing rear element and part change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to use for food preparation (Use Class B2).

Officers introduced the application, and stated that the applicant was asked for further information on the food production area and confirmed to officers that food would be prepared for both the retail unit and other units elsewhere. When the applicant was asked for further information to mitigate the wider implications of this on the adjoining properties, no information was provided.

A petition in objection to the application was also received.

Members noted that there was no information provided to support the application, and the applicants had not engaged with the Council in the planning process. As such, the officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

The installation of a 20m monopole, 12 antenna apertures, nine equipment cabinets and the removal of the existing 13.2m monopole, three antennas, redundant equipment cabinets and development ancillary thereto.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

The installation of a 20m monopole, 12 antenna apertures, nine equipment cabinets and development ancillary thereto, and the removal of the existing 13.2m monopole, three antennas and redundant equipment cabinets.

Officers introduced the application and confirmed that the sought clarification on why so many equipment cabinets were requested, but received no answer.

The Committee were informed that this was an application to re-site a 20m monopole, and the Chairman noted that the Committee must be consistent in its decision making on this issue. The Chairman stated that he was mindful of the benefits of 5G network access, and 20m monopoles were a necessity for this, but the siting of monopoles must be acceptable.

Members agreed that 20m monopoles made the siting even more relevant, as did the increased number of equipment cabinets that accompany the applications. The Committee noted that they must have the infrastructure if they want 5G networks in Hillingdon, and agreed that it would be very beneficial to residents, but it must be ensured that these monopoles did not stand out and were sited in acceptable places.

Officers were informed that it would be helpful to reflect on the Committee’s discussion to arrive at a consistent position, but it was important to not be obstructive to future applications. Members stated that it was important to have a proper engagement on the issue to find the best siting for the monopoles to ensure the least detrimental impact on residents, but also provide 5G.

The Committee agreed that the siting and prominence of the proposal was unacceptable, and as such, the officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

The installation of a 20m monopole, 12 antenna apertures, nine equipment cabinets and the removal of the existing 14.7m monopole, three antennas, redundant equipment cabinets and development ancillary thereto.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration for an additional condition.

The installation of a 20m monopole, 12 antenna apertures, nine equipment cabinets and development ancillary thereto, and the removal of the existing 14.7m monopole, three antennas, and redundant equipment cabinets.

Officers introduced the application and stated that the application was considered acceptable due to landscaping and screening.

The Committee stated that the cabinets were relatively hidden, and the siting was good. Members questioned the impact on road safety while works were being carried out, and it was agreed that a condition for a construction logistics plan would be necessary. Officers also confirmed that Condition 3 would ensure that the colour of the pole would minimise its impact on the street.

The officer’s recommendation, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to agree a Construction Logistics Plan, was moved, seconded and, upon being put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to agree a Construction Logistics Plan.

Erection of a temporary single-storey prefabricated system building, together with a link to the AMU building, with a total floor area of 743 sq.m to provide for a 20-bed space decant and winter overspill ward, including four parking spaces, demolition of Building 17 and the creation of 30 replacement staff car parking spaces; reconfiguration of the parking area to the east of the Womens’ Services Building resulting in a net provision of 11 replacement visitor parking spaces.

Recommendation: Approval + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration for an additional condition.

Erection of a temporary single-storey, prefabricated system building, together with a link to the AMU building, with a total floor area of 743 sq.m, to provide for a 20-bed space decant and winter overspill ward, including four parking spaces; demolition of Building 17, and the creation of 30 replacement staff car parking spaces; reconfiguration of the parking area to the east of the Women’s Services Building, resulting in a net provision of 11 replacement visitor car parking spaces.

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum, which included a request to alter the five year temporary permission detailed in Condition 1 to a ten year temporary permission. The Committee was informed that officers considered that this altered timescale was considered acceptable.

The Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration expressed concern regarding a large building with a number of fire exits that involved staircases, and Members agreed to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to ensure that there were ramped accesses and exits to these fire exits.

Members welcomed the additional hospital capacity, as this was a concern for all residents. Responding the Councillors’ questioning, officers noted that there was no net loss of parking.

The Committee moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to:

1.     An amendment to Condition 1 to change the wording from “5 years” to “10 years”; and,

2.     Delegated authority to the Head of Planning to ensure that there is ramped access to all fire exits.

Installation of a 20m monopole, 12 antenna apertures, nine equipment cabinets, alongside the removal of the existing 12m monopole, three antennas, redundant equipment cabinets and development ancillary thereto.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Installation of a 20m monopole, 12 antenna apertures, nine equipment cabinets and development ancillary thereto, and the removal of the existing 12m monopole, three antennas and redundant equipment cabinets.

Officers introduced the application and stated that they had not received any information from the applicant to conclude that there would be no impact on the existing trees in the area.

Councillors agreed that valued street trees could be at risk, and no information had been received to suggest otherwise, while the siting was an open area and the equipment cabinets would be detrimental to the street scene.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of five two-storey, three-bed, attached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing detached house.

Recommendation: Approval + Sec 106

This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration prior to the meeting.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration prior to the meeting.

Change of use from A1 (shop) to B1 (office test centre).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to test centre for delivering screen-based tests (Use Class B1).

Officers introduced the application, which sought to change the use of the unit into a test centre for the theory element of the driving test.

Members supported the application, which had no detrimental impacts and filled a vacant unit. The Committee hoped that the change in use may also bring more people to the area, which may help neighbouring retail units.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

The installation of a 20m monopole, 12 antenna apertures, equipment cabinets, the removal of the existing 13.7m monopole, three antennas, redundant equipment cabinets and development ancillary thereto.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

The installation of a 20m monopole, 12 antenna apertures, nine equipment cabinets and development ancillary thereto, and the removal of the existing 13.7m monopole, three antennas and redundant equipment cabinets.

Officers introduced the application, and noted that the monopole was being re-siting closer to trees, and no information regarding the impact of the monopole on the trees had been received from the applicant.

The Committee moved, seconded and, upon being put to a vote, unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the enforcement action, as recommended in the officer’s report, was agreed; and,

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it issuing the formal breach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

This item is declared as exempt from publication as it involves the disclosure of information in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraphs 1,2 & 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), in that the report contains information relating to any individual, information likely to reveal the identity of an individual and information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the enforcement action, as recommended in the officer’s report, was agreed; and,

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it issuing the formal breach of condition notice to the individual concerned.

This item is declared as exempt from publication as it involves the disclosure of information in accordance with Section 100(A) and paragraphs 1, 2 & 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12 (A) to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended), in that the report contains information relating to any individual, information likely to reveal the identity of an individual and information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime and that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

The Chairman confirmed that, subject to Council agreeing changes to the Committee membership in January, this would be his last meeting as Chairman of the Central & South Planning Committee. Councillor Edwards thanked all the Members and Officers for making his time on the Committee so enjoyable, and for all their support during his time as Chairman.

The Committee thanked the Chairman and wished him good luck for the future, and the Labour Group noted that he was a very fair Chairman who had helped the Committee engage in positive discussions throughout his Chairmanship.

Officers also thanked the Chairman for his hard work, and wished him the best in his new role.