Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

None.

The minutes of the meetings held on 16 October 2013 were agreed as a correct record.

None.

All items were considered in Part I, with the exception of items 15, 16, 17 and 18 which were considered in Part II.

Erection of 1 x detached single storey building for the use of general industrial to include mezzanine floor level and associated parking (Part retrospective).

Recommendation - Approval

Erection of 1 x detached single storey building for the use of general industrial to include mezzanine floor level and associated parking (Part retrospective).

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

Members noted that page 31 of the officers’ report indicated that there was room for improvement to provide additional landscaping.  Officers asked the Committee if they were happy for officers to reword the condition relating to landscaping.  Members agreed and suggested that the applicant should work with the Colne Valley Park to improve landscaping on the boundary.

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

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report and changes as per the addendum.

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension involving demolition of existing single storey side/rear elements.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture.

Variation of condition 4 (hours of use) of planning permission granted 10 October 2010 (Ref 11498/APP/2012/953) (for change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Use Class A5).

Recommendation – Approval

Variation of condition 4 (hours of use) of planning permission granted 10 October 2010 (Ref 11498/APP/2012/953) (for change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to hot food takeaway (Use Class A5).

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

Members suggested that an additional informative should be added as a precaution to include cooking smells; as concern was previously raised by residents in the local area.

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

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report and changes as per the addendum.

Two storey, 3-bed, attached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space to include alterations to the existing crossover to front and enlargement of existing rear crossover involving demolition of existing single storey side element to No.16.

Recommendation - That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to grant planning permission.

Two storey, 3-bed, attached dwelling with associated parking and amenity space to include alterations to the existing crossover to front and enlargement of existing rear crossover involving demolition of existing single storey side element to No.16.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

Members discussed the application and asked officers to reword condition 10 to include existing car parking as well as proposed. Members also requested that an informative be added to include the wording ‘non obstruction to car parking prior to occupation’ with the wording delegated to the Head of Planning, Culture and Green Spaces to finalise. 

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

Resolved – That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to grant planning permission, subject to the following:

A. That the Council enters into an agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and/or Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and/ or other appropriate legislation to secure:

i) A contribution of £15,443 for capacity enhancements in local schools;

B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the legal Agreement(s) and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval.

D) That if any of the heads of terms set out above have not been agreed and the legal agreement has not been finalised within 6 months of the date of this Committee resolution, or any other period deemed appropriate by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture, then the application be refused for the following reason:

'The development is likely to give rise to a significant number of children of school age that would require additional educational provisions, due to the shortfall of places in schools serving the area. Given that a legal agreement or unilateral undertaking has not been offered and the applicants are not willing to enter into or provide any such agreement, to address this issue, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy R17 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) and the Council's Planning Obligations, Supplementary Planning Document (July 2008).'

E) That subject to the above, the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture under delegated powers, subject to the completion of the legal agreement with the applicant.

F) That conditions be imposed subject to any changes negotiated by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture prior to issuing the decision.

Sub-division of ground floor and change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to a mixed use comprising retail (Use Class A1) and beauty salon (Sui Generis) and installation of new shop front (Retrospective).

Recommendation - Approval

Sub-division of ground floor and change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to a mixed use comprising retail (Use Class A1) and beauty salon (Sui Generis) and installation of new shop front (Retrospective).

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

Members questioned whether there were restrictions to the hours of use as the hours of opening were longer than advertised.  Officers informed the Committee that they could not control the hours of use because it had not previously been conditioned.  Members also agreed it would not be reasonable to add a condition relating to noise due to the nature of the business.

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

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report and changes as per the addendum.

2 x two storey, 3-bedroom, semi-detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, alterations to front garden of No.17, installation of vehicular crossovers involving demolition of 4 x existing garages.

Deferred from C & S Meeting 13^th June 2013

Recommendation – Approval

2 x two storey, 3-bedroom, semi-detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, alterations to front garden of No.17, installation of vehicular crossovers involving demolition of 4 x existing garages.

This item was previously deferred from a meeting held on 17 June 2013 for further information.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

Members questioned whether the parking layouts would be retained for the duration of the development.  Officers informed the Committee that the parking arrangements would be retained as per condition 2.

Officers informed the Committee that the garden fence was now proposed to be between the party walls, this was previously requested by Members.  Members requested that a standard party wall condition be added for fullness.  Members noted that a change had been made to the plans on page 212 and 213 of the officers’ report and were happy with the amendments made.

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

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report and changes as per the addendum.

Installation of palisade/mesh wire fence to replace existing fence involving repositioning of main vehicle gates and new pedestrian gate.

Recommendation – Approval

Installation of palisade/mesh wire fence to replace existing fence involving repositioning of main vehicle gates and new pedestrian gate.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

Officers informed Members that the application formed part of the Green Belt as the reason why the item was being brought before the Committee to decide.

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 officers’ report.

Use of part of the site fronting Sipson Road, for a period of 18 months, as a construction compound and training facility in conjunction with the rebuilding of the structural supports for the A4 Hammersmith Flyover.

Recommendation - Approval

Use of part of the site fronting Sipson Road, for a period of 18 months, as a construction compound and training facility in conjunction with the rebuilding of the structural supports for the A4 Hammersmith Flyover.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

Officers informed Members that the application formed part of the Green Belt which was the reason the item was presented to Committee for a decision.  The application was seeking temporary planning permission for a period of 18 months, for a construction compound and training facility in conjunction with the rebuilding of the structural supports for the A4 Hammersmith flyover.

Members requested that boundary treatments were added to the conditions.  Members were also concerned that the Heathrow Villages would be impacted by additional traffic.  Officers informed Members that the easiest route to the site was via the M4.

Members agreed that reason 3 for approval should be amended to say ‘completed’ rather than ‘carried’ out.

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

Resolved: That the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report and changes as per the addendum.

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a two storey detached building containing 1 x 1-bed self contained flat and 2 x studio flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation - Refusal

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a two storey detached building containing 1 x 1-bed self contained flat and 2 x studio flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.  A petition in support of the application had been received.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in support of the proposals was invited to address the meeting. The lead petitioner, who was also the agent, spoke on behalf of the petitioners and raised the following points:

• The application was an acceptable residential development.
• The proposals complemented the surrounding areas.
• The flats complied with the London Plan.
• The proposed landscaping would be an improvement to what was existing.
• There were no letters of objection received against the application.
• There was direct access to the amenity space.
• There would be no loss of privacy.
• Car park spaces near the ground floor windows would be allocated to residents who resided in that property.
• There was a fine line between what is proposed and what is acceptable.
• There was no impact on existing residents.

Members discussed the item and questioned whether the flats on Long Lane would overlook any habitable rooms.  Officers informed the Committee that there was no direct overlooking.  Members questioned the distance between the proposed application and No. 370 Long Lane and suggested that it was under the 15 metres stated in the officers’ report. 

The Chairman suggested that Members undertake a site visit prior to making a decision.  The Chairman also explained to the agent/lead petitioner that he would need to submit another petition should he want to gain speaking rights at a subsequent Committee.

Resolved – Deferred for a site visit.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The recommendation contained in the officer’s 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 resolve 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).

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

Members questioned the aerial photographs presented to the Committee which showed other suspected illegal outbuildings in the local area.  Members also requested that officers photograph separate living spaces contained within one residential property to add weight to any enforcement action that needed to be taken.     

The recommendation contained in the officer’s 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 resolve 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).

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The recommendation contained in the officer’s 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 resolve 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).

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

Members sought clarification on whether the additional buildings within the red line were subject to enforcement action.

The Legal Advisor informed the Committee that it would be appropriate to defer the item for this to be investigated.

Resolved –  This item was deferred.