Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Wayne Bridges, there was no substitute.

Cllr Judith Cooper declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 12 – 68 The Greenway, Uxbridge, as the application was in her ward. Cllr Cooper remained in the room and took part in the decision of this item.

Cllr Brian Stead declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 7 - Units 1 & 2, 2a Cherry Orchard, West Drayton and Items 14 &16 – Enforcement reports, as the applications were in his ward. Cllr Stead remained in the room and took part in the decision of these items.

Cllr Mo Khursheed declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 13 and 15 – Enforcement reports. Cllr Khursheed remained in the room for item 13, which was in his ward and took part in the decision. He withdrew from the room and did not take part in the decision of item 15,as he had reported the matter.

The minutes of the meetings held on 29 November and 18 December 2012 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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 extension to existing block for use as 5 x additional residential units (Outline planning application for access, appearance, layout and scale with some matters reserved)  Deferred from C&S Committee 17/10/12

Recommendation : Approval

Two storey extension to existing block for use as 5 x additional residential units (Outline planning application for access, appearance, layout and scale with some matters reserved).  Deferred from C&S Committee 17/10/12.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the changes contained in the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting making the following points:-

• The area was residential and had been since 1976
• Noise, dust would completely disrupt the lives of residents
• There were health & Safety concerns for those that lived in the area in relation to the increase in traffic
• Parking was a cause for concern as use of the parking for storage and there was no available parking on adjoining roads.
• Visitor parking was already fully used, so there would be Insufficient parking provision for visitors as only 2 visitor parking spaces would remain
• There would be a loss of privacy for residents
• Use of the Court Yard would be severely limited.

Concerns were raised about the location of the tree and the accessibility of the staircase in adverse weather conditions.

Officers advised that the tree officer had commented on this issue and had considered the proposal to be acceptable.  This was also not a concern of the Planning Inspector when the previous application was not allowed on appeal.  The Inspector considered all the merits of the proposal and the main concern was in relation to the appearance of the staircase.

In relation to the concerns about accessibility of the staircase, the access officer had commented in the report that there was a specific standard that would need to be met to ensure the acceptability of the staircase.

Members felt that the staircase was an incongruous feature and would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Officers were of the view that the design and appearance had been overcome with this application.

The Committee still had concerns about the incongruous nature of the staircase and indicated that the application should be refused for this reason. 

It was also suggested that an informative be added to inform the applicant that the construction of the staircase could have an adverse impact on the tree, which was part of the ambience of the site.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused for the reasons given above and an informative added. On being put to the vote refusal was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

The proposed external staircase by reason of its irregular shape and design would result in an incongruous form of development out of keeping with the existing pattern of development on Bays Farm Court, being contrary to Policies BE12 and BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Saved UDP Policies (November 2012).

The Committee attached an informative to advise the applicant that construction of the staircase could have an adverse impact on the tree close to the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

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. Deferred from C&S Committee 9/1/13

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. Deferred from C&S Committee 9/1/1.

Officers in their introduction of the report drew the Committee’s attention to the addendum sheet and the statement of support provided by the applicant.

The Committee agreed that the amendments in addendum should be re-drafted to remove the words ’Public Holidays’ in brackets.  

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution a representative of the petitioners objecting to the proposal addressed the meeting, making the following points:-

• Regarded the issue of waste condition to be fundamental and should therefore not be left for details of proposals to be included on submitted plans, as residents would not be consulted at this point
• Believed that the units did not form part of any shopping frontage, as the current footprint of the site was not the layout set out in the 2007 Unitary Development Plan (UDP), when the shopping designated boundaries were set up
• The considerable extension of No. 37 Station Road on all elevations had resulted in the perception that units fell with the shopping frontage
• It was unclear where the loading and unloading bays would be
• Units were currently vacant, the current change of use applied to only 2 of the units.  Residents felt that once a precedent had been set an application for the remaining unit would be made.
• Loss of privacy to No 1 & 3 Cherry Orchard as they were directly opposite the application site, which would be even worse in the summer.
• There would be an increase in noise disturbance by the customers that would be using the site
• Residents who worked shifts and children would have their sleeping disturbed
• Cherry Orchard was a dimly lit road with no CCTV.
• The proposal would be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety contrary to AM7 & 14.
• Respectively requested that the application be refused.
• In addition to previous issues raised, the junction would be taken up with parking by those visiting the proposal
• Vehicles often reversed into Station Road, which was a hazard
• Cherry Orchard was a residents’ parking zone and vehicles often parked and waited whilst their passengers visited the local shops.

The agent submitted a statement (attached to the addendum) on behalf of the applicant, as he was unable to attend the meeting. 

Members were advised that the Ward Councillor had been unable to attend the meeting and had sent a letter, which was read out at the meeting and noted.

In answer to the point raised regarding re-extending the Parking Management Zone following a recent consultation in the area, the petitioner responded that at the time of the consultation, residents were satisfied with parking. 

A member raised concern that the plans showing the access extended over the highway and stated that the Committee would not be able to approve the application, if the plans did not accurately reflect what was on the site.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Single storey side/rear extension (Retrospective)

Recommendation : Refusal

Single storey side/rear extension (Retrospective).

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be refused, for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Replacement of the existing felt roof to the canteen and associated repair timber skylights and windows (application for listed building consent).

Recommendation : Approval

Replacement of the existing felt roof to the canteen and associated repair timber skylights and windows (application for listed building consent).

Officers advised the Committee that the recommendation needed to be amended, as the application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State.  The recommendation should therefore read:

‘That the Head of Planning, Environment, Sport and Green Spaces be given delegated authority to approve the application subject to referral to the Secretary of State.

The amended recommendation was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the Head of Planning, Environment, Sport and Green Spaces be given delegated authority to approve the application subject to referral to the Secretary of State.  If the application is approved the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report be attached.

Single storey detached outbuilding to rear garden for use as a play room/store (Resubmission)

Recommendation : Refusal

Single storey detached outbuilding to rear garden for use as a play room/store (Re-submission)

The recommendation for Refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Single storey detached outbuilding for use as a playhouse (Part-Retrospective)

Recommendation : Approval

Single storey detached outbuilding for use as a playhouse (Part-Retrospective).

Officer’s in introducing report referred Members to the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting and the amendment being made to condition 4.

The recommendation for approval with the amendment was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

Conversion of 1 x 6-bed House of Multiple Occupancy (Use Class C4) into 1 x 8-bed House of Multiple Occupancy (Sui Generis).

Recommendation : Approval

Conversion of 1 x 6-bed House of Multiple Occupancy (Use Class C4) into 1 x 8-bed House of Multiple Occupancy (Sui Generis).

Officers introduced the report bringing the Committee’s attention to the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

Concerns were raised in relation to parking, as there were only 6 spaces to be provided for an HMO that was likely to be occupied by10 people in an area that was a controlled parking zone.  

Officers advised that the Council’s car parking standards allowed for one space per two habitable rooms and for eight rooms, it required 4 parking spaces.

It was suggested that a condition be added that no parking permits should be available for residents of the proposed development.

The Committee was advised that such a condition could only be imposed when it met all the requirements of a condition, for example, where the development provided inadequate provision; as this is not the case, such a condition could not be justified.

Officers advised that parking was provided at the front of the property, as the rear was to be used as amenity space. 

It was suggested that condition 3 be amended to add ‘that there was to be no parking at the rear.’  The Committee agreed condition 3 being amended.

Concern was raised at there being no defensible space in front of the windows and suggested that details of the parking area should be provided.  

Officers advised the Committee that they needed to be mindful that this was an existing situation.

It was suggested and agreed that condition 2c be amended for details of the parking layout to be provided and thereafter maintained for the life of the development.

The recommendation with amendments to condition 3 and was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum sheet circulated at the meeting with condition 3, 2c amended, point 2e added and point 4 amended as follows: 

Condition 3

2.c       Car Parking Layout – ‘no parking shall be to the rear of the           building’.

2.e       ‘Details of defensible space’

4.         ‘Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and the facilities/ works maintained for the sole use of the occupiers for the life of the development’.

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).

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).