Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor J. Cooper with Councillor Graham substituting.

Councillor Khursheed declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 6 – Former Powergen Site, North Hyde Gardens, Hayes and Item 9 – 208 Nestles Avenue, Hayes as the application sites were in his ward. He remained in the room for discussion on these items.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2013 were agreed as an accurate record.

The Chairman advised that he had agreed to take Item 18 – Enforcement Report as an urgent item because of serious over crowding at the property concerned.

The Chairman also advised that Item 10 – 121-123 Grosvenor Crescent, Hillingdon and Item 16 – Enforcement Report had been withdrawn from the Agenda by the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces as further information had been received with regards to these applications which needed to be considered by planning officers.

It was noted that Items 15, 17 and 18 – Enforcement Reports would be considered in Part 2.

Redevelopment of the site to provide an aggregate recycling and processing plant, asphalt plant and storage facility, gully waste recycling plant, aggregate storage facility, and term maintenance depot, with ancillary offices, structures and facilities, car and lorry parking, regrading, and landscaping.

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a S106 Agreement

Redevelopment of the site to provide an aggregate recycling and processing plant, asphalt plant and storage facility, gully waste recycling plant, aggregate storage facility, and term maintenance depot, with ancillary offices, structures and facilities, car and lorry parking, regrading and landscaping.

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting.

A Member asked how the noise of the plant would be mitigated for the nearby canal leisure moorings.

Officers advised that there had been a detailed noise assessment undertaken and that the Council was satisfied that, when the scheme was fully implemented, there would not be an unacceptable level of noise for those using the moorings in question. Officers also advised that these were leisure and not residential moorings.

A Member asked whether, given the 24-hour operation proposed for the site, there would be noise caused to nearby residential properties. He went on to note that this area suffered from some of the worst air-quality levels in the Borough and that this plant would only worsen it further.

Officers advised that the noise assessment for the site had also taken into consideration the impact on residential properties and had accounted for the noise created by the plant itself and the noise caused by vehicular movements. In both cases the noise levels were not deemed to be unacceptable.

Officers noted that the Environmental Protection Unit had undertaken an air-quality assessment in the area and had advised that, subject to appropriate measures being in place, the impact on air quality caused by the plant would not be unacceptable. It was also noted that the site was in a Low Emissions Zone and that all vehicles would be required to use low emission technologies.

A Member asked whether the increase in vehicular movements caused by the operations of the plant would impact traffic and congestion issues in the area.

Officers advised that the nature of the plant’s operations were such that the peaks in traffic would be outside the peak commuter hours of 8-9am and 5-6pm.

A Member suggested that it would be better to have the canal moorings near to the site used for commercial purposes as a means through which to make the operation more environmentally friendly and to reduce its impact on the highway network.

Officers noted that they had been in discussions with British Waterways concerning the use of the canal and the moorings for commercial purposes and they had advised that this would be possible. However, until the site was up-and-running it would not be possible for the operator to secure any contracts or set firm plans for such use. Consequently, this issue would be dealt with in the heads of terms.

A Member asked what s106 agreements were in place concerning addressing any impact on air-quality. He went on to ask what made this application different from the previous asphalt plant planning application that was refused for the same site.

Officers advised that there were no specific  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Erection of a residential development comprising 28 residential units, private and shared amenity space, child playspace, car and cycle parking and associated works.

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a S106 Agreement

Erection of a residential development comprising 28 residential units, private and shared amenity space, child playspace, car and cycle parking and associated works.

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting.

Members noted that there were only 24 car parking spaces for 28 units and asked whether there would be disabled parking spaces and cycle parking.

Officers advised that there would be disabled car parking bays and cycle parking space.

Members discussed the wording of condition 18 and whether it would allow residents of the development to rent their car parking spaces out. It was noted that the condition should include wording along the lines of; "for the sole use (either by a resident of a single unit of the development or their visitors)". The exact wording would be agreed by the Chair and Labour Lead outside of the meeting.

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 officer recommendations, the changes outlined in the addendum sheet and the amendment to Condition 18 as agreed by the Chair and the Labour Lead.

Variation of condition 3 of planning permission ref. 10605/APP/2005/3028 dated 21/12/2005 (Part change of use from selling and displaying motor vehicles, servicing and repairing motor vehicles to a mixed use for selling and display of motors vehicles, servicing and repairing motor vehicles and car valeting) to allow for change of opening hours to 8am-7pm on Mon-Fri, 10am-7pm on Saturday and 10am-5pm on Sunday.

Recommendation : Refusal

Variation of condition 3 of planning permission ref. 10605/APP/2005/3028 dated 21/12/2005 (part change of use from selling and displaying motor vehicles, servicing and repairing motor vehicles to a mixed use for selling and display of motor vehicles, servicing and repairing motor vehicles and car veleting) to allow for change of opening hours to 8am-7pm on Mon-Fri, 10am-7pm on Saturday and 10am-5pm on Sunday.

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting.

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 officer recommendations and the changes outlined in the Addendum sheet.

Single storey detached outbuilding to rear for use as a gym/playroom/store (Part Retrospective) (Resubmission).

Recommendation : Refusal

Single storey detached outbuilding to rear for use as a gym/playroom/store (part Retrospective) (Resubmission).

Officers introduced the report.

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 officer recommendations.

2 x detached outbuildings at Nos. 121 and 123 Grosvenor Crescent for use as a gym/playroom and store respectively.

Recommendation : Refusal

This item had been withdrawn from the Agenda by the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces as further information had been received from the applicant which officers needed to consider.

Demolition of existing garage and store to side and erection of part two storey, part single storey side extension to create a 1 bedroom dwelling and installation of new vehicular crossover.

Recommendation : Refusal

Demolition of existing garage and store to side and erection of part two storey, part single storey side extension to create a 1 bedroom dwelling and installation of new vehicular crossover.

Officers introduced the report.

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 officer recommendations.

Sub-division of unit involving the retention of the retail use to the front (Use Class A1) and the provision of a 1 x 1-bed flat to the rear (Use Class C3), involving new access door and alterations to internal elevations.

Recommendation : Refusal

Sub-division of unit involving the retention of the retail use to the front (Use Class A1) and the provision of a 1x1-bed flat to the rear (Use Class C3), involving new access door and alterations to internal elevations.

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting.

Officer also noted that a letter had been received from the agent of the scheme which had been included in the Addendum. Members were given time to read the letter.  

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 officer recommendations and the changes outlined in the Addendum sheet.

Erection of a detached outbuilding (Part-retrospective planning application).

Recommendation : Approval

Erection of a detached outbuilding (Part-retrospective planning application).

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting.

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 officer recommendations and the changes outlined in the Addendum sheet.

Change of Use from Shops (Use Class A1) to Financial and Professional Services (Use Class A2).

Recommendation : Approval

Change of Use from Shops (Use Class A1) to Financial and Professional Services (Use Class A2).

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting.

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 officer recommendations and the changes outlined in the Addendum sheet.

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).

This item had be withdrawn from the Agenda by the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces.

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 delegate authority to the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces to investigate and enforce on a possible further breach identified in the photographs of the site.

3.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).