Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mo Khursheed. The Chairman passed on regards on behalf of the Committee to Cllr Khursheed and wished him a speedy recovery.

Councillor Brian Stead declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 9 as it was in his ward and remained in the room to discuss and vote on the item.

Councillor Judith Cooper declared a pecuniary interest in Item 13 and left the room whilst the item was discussed.

Councillor Neil Fyfe declared a pecuniary interest in Item 15 and left the room whilst the item was discussed.

Councillor Wayne Bridges declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 19 as it was in his ward and remained in the room to discuss and vote on the item.

Councillor Janet Duncan declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 22 as it was in his ward and remained in the room to discuss and vote on the item.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 July 2012 were agreed as a correct record.

There were no matters notified in advance or urgent.

It was confirmed that all items marked Part 1 would be considered in public and all items marked Part 2 would be heard in private.

Two storey detached building comprising of 2 x 2-bed self contained flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation : Refusal

Two storey detached building comprising of 2 x 2-bed self contained flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum. The site and quite a planning history which was discussed by the planning officer. There were concerns regarding overlooking and outlook.

The applicant had recently sent in amended plans although these did not resolve the issues that the planning officers had. The applicant had asked the Committee to consider the drawings as per the agenda.

Members asked that the applicant addressed the overlooking and outlook issues as suggested by officers.

The loss of car parking was discussed and added to the reasons for refusal as per the addendum.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. The lead petitioner spoke on behalf of the petition:

-          It was noted that there were 2 car park spaces in the area which was not built yet.

-          The waste bins were not in place.

-          The 4 disabled car parks would be taken out and therefore not available.

-          The area was already overdeveloped.

-          Traffic would increase as a result of the development – this had already been put forward to the local authority and Police.

-          The Police had told people not to park on the corner in case of an accident. That the local authority was not listening to residents concerns.

-          Certain conditions had not been met.

-          The site was cramped.

-          The planning application should not be agreed.

-          The highways comments in the report were inaccurate. That the officer could not be aware of resident’s complaints as the highways officer thought there was no problem with the application.

Members stated that refusal reason 3 supersedes the highways comments in the report and there was enforcement action already underway on the site with regard to the petitioners concerns.

Officers clarified to Members the issue with regard to disabled parking was already being discussed by the department was a separate enforcement issue. It was not on land that was being considered with this application put before Committee.

The applicant was present and addressed Committee:

-          The applicant stated that whilst the Committee were determining the plans before them, his agent had an email exchange with planning officers which asked officers to consider new plans at the Committee meeting.

The Head of Planning Services confirmed that the applicant’s agent at 17.09hours confirmed that they would like the Committee to go ahead with plans as per the agenda papers. The developer disagreed with this information. The Chairman highlighted that he had been kept fully informed of all developments with regard to this application and a decision would be made on the plans Committee had before them.

Members discussed the wording of condition 2 and the Chairman agreed this could be discussed outside of the meeting after obtaining legal opinion.

Members felt the report presented  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

3 x two storey, 3-bed terrace dwellings with habitable roofspace including associated parking and amenity space, installation of 3 x vehicular crossovers to front involving demolition of existing detached bungalow.

Recommendation : Refusal

3 x two storey, 3-bed terrace dwellings with habitable roofspace including associated parking and amenity space, installation of 3 x vehicular crossovers to front involving demolition of existing detached bungalow.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum. It was noted there was a further issue to consider with regard to car parking. There were concerns with the space for car parking, and also the light into living space whilst there was a car parked.

The proposal was substantial in comparison to the existing property and in comparison to neighbouring properties.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. The lead petitioner spoke on behalf of the petition:

-          The lead petitioner lived at number 16 and her property was 80cm from the side of her house.

-          She felt that the work carried out may affect her house.

-          The petitioner felt that the officer report and recommendation for refusal covered her and the petitioners concerns.

The Chairman explained to the petitioner that the Party Wall Act stated the applicant would have to provide, at their expense, to look into any affect to the neighbouring properties. And to pay for any damages that may arise as a result of any development.

The agent was present and spoke on behalf of the applicant:

-          The applicant was happy to comply with any proposals the Committee had.

-          Off-street parking was provided as parking on the road was limited.

-          If there was space for an additional parking space then the applicant could shift the whole development back.

-          The applicant was happy to reduce the size of the side of the application to address the concerns stated.

The Chairman stated that the Committee had to consider the drawings that were before them at the meeting.

Cllr Richard Mills was not present and had asked the following statement to be read out in his absence:

As a Ward Councillor I would like to speak in support of those local residents who have presented a petition against the proposed development of 14 Moorfield Road, Cowley.

The application looks to demolish what is currently a detached bungalow, and develop three, 3 bedroom properties.  Instantly this would appear to be an overdevelopment of the site, however there are a few points I would like to make that should be considered when making your decision on this application:

• This application would lead to a cramped development that is in contrast to the existing street scene and would contrast and be harmful to the existing character of the surrounding area.
• Given the nature of these proposed properties the car park provision of 1 off street space per dwelling is much lower than what is required; particularly as Moorfield Road already experiences heavy on street parking.
• The application extends beyond the rear of the adjacent property at number 12 at both ground and first floor level,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

Comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a part 11, part 9, part 5 and part 4 storey building comprising 120 residential units, office floorspace, 97 car parking spaces and hard and soft landscaping.

Recommendation : Approval subject to a Section 106 Agreement and subject to no direction from the Mayor of London to refuse.

Comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a part 11, part 9, part 5 and part 4 storey building comprising 120 residential units, office floorspace, 97 car parking spaces and hard and soft landscaping.

Officers gave a comprehensive account of the report and explained the changes as per the addendum.

It was noted that the development was a comprehensive redevelopment. It was substantially different the previous application which was refused. The site was designated as an industrial area; the Council in this case understood the surplus of industrial land site. Study identified that this land could be released. The GLA have looked at the site and had confirmed there were no objections.

The amount of light, sunlight, wind was all within standards. It was noted that for a building this complex that over-shadowing diagrams could not be 100% accurate. A condition had been imposed with regard to detailing information on the car stackers.

Members had noted the amount of work that had been put into this development. It was stated that it was vital that in Hayes Town Centre there was a prominent Police Unit. This was something that was under review in another site due to financial cuts. Members asked, that if possible, in the future consideration be given to a police unit in the area. It was noted that the area was retained for a B1 unit.

Members agreed to expand recommendation 2.A.v. to include ‘such works are to include enhancements to footpath’.

Members agreed to amend recommendation 2.A.ix from 2 years to ‘3years’.

Members agreed to amend condition 7.3.a to include ‘and their long term maintenance’.

Members agreed an amendment to the addendum, standard condition RES22 (Parking allocation) to include: ’90 residential and 7 commercial’.

It was noted that informative 14 contained some grammatical errors that the Head of Planning Services was granted delegated authority to amend.

The applicant was willing to consider food waste options and work with the Council. This would be included as an informative.

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 the agenda, the changes set out in the addendum; and amendments to standard condition RES22, recommendation 2.A.v, 2.A.ix, condition 7.3.a.

Change of use to a House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4).(Part Retrospective)

Recommendation : Refusal

Change of use to a House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4).(Part Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report and answered Members questions. The scheme was largely acceptable but there was an objection in relation to car parking. The internal garage would need to be made in accordance to modern day standards.  It was noted this was an area of high car usage.

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 the agenda.

Part two storey, part single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, front entrance with canopy and alterations to existing garage roof at side.

Recommendation : Approval

Part  two  storey,  part  single  storey  rear  extension,  single  storey  side extension, front entrance with canopy and alterations to existing garage roof at side.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes made as per the addendum. The application was a re-submission to overcome reasons for refusal.

Members discussed the application and noted the applicant was to provide plans for 2 vehicles before the development commenced.

Members noted the officer’s comments regarding the standard informative about party walls.

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 the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.

Alterations and additions to the existing building to create a single storey shrine in front of the existing building, the construction of a single storey side and rear extension to the existing building with associated alterations to the external finish of the whole of the existing building, alterations to the car parking and access arrangements and involving the removal of the existing temporary building.

Recommendation : Approval

Alterations and additions to the existing building to create a single storey shrine in front of the existing building, the construction of a single storey side and rear extension to the existing building with associated alterations to the external finish of the whole of the existing building, alterations to the car parking and access arrangements and involving the removal of the existing temporary building.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes made as per the addendum. The application was in order to overcome enforcement issues. The building was used as a religious building. It was noted the enforcement notice went to appeal and the inspector found that the car parking space was not an issue.

Member discussed the number of visitors that were like to attend and the number of people the building could hold.

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 the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.

Erection of a four storey building comprising of a retail unit on the ground floor and 14 flats on the first, second & third floors with basement car parking and roof garden, involving demolition of existing buildings (Outline Application).

Recommendation : Approval subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

Erection of a four storey building comprising of a retail unit on the ground floor and 14 flats on the first, second & third floors with basement car parking and roof garden, involving demolition of existing buildings (Outline Application).

Officers introduced the report and Members noted the changes as per the addendum. It was noted that planning permission had expired and the scheme was identical. Members discussed the car lift proposed.

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 the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.

Listed building consent for alterations, repair works (including to roof), rendering of gables, internal decoration and refurbishment and associated works to Barra Hall.

Recommendation : No objections raised and referral to Secretary of State.

Listed  building  consent  for  alterations,  repair  works  (including  to  roof), rendering  of  gables,  internal  decoration  and  refurbishment  and  associated works to Barra Hall.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes made as per the addendum.

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 the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was 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).

Councillor Neil Fyfe declared a pecuniary interest and left the room for the duration of this item.

The recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was 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 recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was 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 recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was 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 recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was 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 recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was 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 recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was 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 recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was 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 recommendation set out in the officer’s report was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was 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).