Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillors Judith Cooper and Mo Khursheed. Councillors David Payne and Beulah East substituted respectively.

Councillor Brian Stead declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 11 – 20 Nicholls Avenue, Hillingdon, as the application was in his ward. Councillor Stead remained in the room and took part in the decision of this item.

Councillor Janet Duncan declared a non-pecuniary interest in items 17 and 18 – 67 Berrydale Road, Hillingdon and Brookside Community Centre, Brookside Road, Hayes, as the applications were in her ward. Councillor Duncan remained in the room for item 17 and took part in the decision of this item but withdrew from the room for item 18, as she had been involved with the Community Centre and therefore did not take part in the decision of this item.

Councillor Beulah East declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 18 - Brookside Community Centre, Brookside Road, Hayes, as the application was in her ward. Councillor East remained in the room and took part in the decision of this item.

The minutes of the meetings held on 5 March 2013 were agreed as an accurate record and signed by the Chairman subject to page 7 paragraph 8, ‘NasNaq’ being amended to read ‘NAT’.

The Chairman announced that the application for Item 12 – 17 and Land Adjacent 17 & forming part of 15 Orchard Waye, Uxbridge, ref:61366/APP/2013/2946 had been withdrawn by the Head of Planning, Sports and Green Spaces.

It was confirmed that all business marked Part 1 would be heard in public and item 22 Mark Part 2 would be considered on private.

Alterations, additions and conversion of existing building to create 41 flats with associated car parking, refuse and recycling facilities, amenity space and landscaping. (Deferred from 13 .03.13)

Recommendation : Approval subject to a S106 Agreement.

Alterations, additions and conversion of existing building to create 41 flats with associated car parking, refuse and recycling facilities, amenity space and landscaping. (Deferred from 13 .03.13)

Officers introduced the report and directed Members to note the changes in the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

During discussion, Members indicated that the site visit had proved very helpful and suggested that the current proposal was offering a more desirable scheme.

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

Resolved

A. That the Council enters into an agreement with the applicant under Section 106of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended):

i. Affordable Housing if the applicant does not substantially commence

development within 18 months from the grant of planning permission then a review mechanism will be implemented to ensure that if on-site affordable housing or a contribution towards off site affordable housing is viable it is secured.

ii. An Education contribution in the sum of £57,639

iii. A Health Facilities contribution in the sum of £14,560.22

iv. A Communities Facilities contribution in the sum of £15,000

v. A Libraries contribution in the sum of £1,545.60

vi. A Construction Training scheme delivered during the construction phase of the development or a financial contribution equal to £2,500 for every £1 million build cost in the sum of £30,866.72).

vii. A Project Management and Monitoring fee equal to 5% of the total cash contributions.

viii. Parking allocation plan.

B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 and 278 Agreements 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) If the Legal Agreement/s have not been finalised before the 07-05-13, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces to refuse planning permission for the following reason: ’The applicant has failed to provide contributions towards the improvement of services and facilities as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development (in respect of education, health facilities, community facilities, public realm, library improvements and construction training). The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy AM2, AM7 and R17 of the adopted Local Plan and the Council’s Planning Obligations SPG.’

E) That subject to the above, the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces under delegated powers, subject to the completion of the legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

F) That if the application is approved, the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report be imposed, the changes in the addendum circulated at the meeting and subject to any changes negotiated by the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces prior to issuing the decision.

Erection of 4 no. industrial, warehouse, officer buildings (Use Classes B1, B2 and B8) with access and servicing arrangement, car parking, landscaping and associated works (Involving demolition of existing buildings).

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a S106 agreement and no direction being received.

Erection of 4 no. industrial, warehouse, officer buildings (Use Classes B1, B2 and B8) with access and servicing arrangement, car parking, landscaping and associated works (Involving demolition of existing buildings).

Officers introduced the report and directed Members to note the changes outlined in the addendum circulated at the meeting. Officers recommended the Committee to attach an additional condition relating to the level of noise permitted on the site.

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

Resolved

That subject to the Mayor not directing the Council under Article 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 to refuse the application, or under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application, delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces to grant planning permission, subject to any relevant amendments agreed by the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces

and also those requested by the Greater London Authority and 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:

1. 10 Year Green Travel Plan and a Delivery and Servicing Plan.

2. Construction Training: A financial contribution or delivery on site of a

construction training scheme (to address training during the construction phase of the development).

3. Employment Training: An on site employment training initiative to address employment training needs made necessary as a result of the development.

4. Project Management and Monitoring Fee: in line with the SPD a contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contributions will be sought to enable the management and monitoring of the resulting agreement.

b) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 Agreement 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.

d) That if any of the heads of terms set out above have not been agreed and the S106 legal agreement has not been finalised by the 09th May 2013, or any other period deemed appropriate by the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces then delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning, Sport and Green Spaces to refuse the application for the following reason:

'The development has failed to secure obligations relating to sustainable

transport, construction and employment training. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to policies LE7, OE1, AM2 and AM7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Saved UDP Policies (November 2012), the Council's Planning Obligations SPD and Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (Nov 2012) and

Policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Amendments to landscaping and parking provision and erection of fencing.

Recommendation : Approval

Amendments to landscaping and parking provision and erection of fencing.

The Chairman announced that officers would present this item 8, together with items 9 and 10 with the decisions being made separately.

In introducing the report, officers introduced the report and directed members to the changes in the addendum. Members were advised that all the residential units on the site were existing, and this application was not proposing any new residential units.

Officers stated that all parking spaces would be allocated.

The Chairman commented that the blocks appeared to have satellite dishes, which was noted, would be covered under separate legislation. 

Officers advised that new permitted developments, which provided very stringent rules and regulations, were being examined. Members were informed that the approved elevations had been closely looked at and did not have satellite dishes and if any had been proposed, they would be highly visible.

In response to a query as to where the responsibility would lay with regard to the proposed fence, officers advised that landscaping conditions had been imposed and these would normally be dealt with by the owner and controlled by conditions.

The Chairman added that in this case, these were privately owned houses. Officers responded that conditions would be attached to the land.

A Member noted that the requirement for cycle storage had been removed and asked officers whether they could suggest a way of securing cycle storage for the flats. Officers advised that these were existing blocks of flats with no changes, and consideration had to be given to the application that was before the Committee. As the proposals were all in the block of flats, there was no where inside the block for cycle storage and therefore, given the type of application, officers could not impose a condition in this respect.

A Member asked whether this issue could be addressed by an informative.

The Legal Advisor added that a condition requiring cycle storage could not be imposed on this site, as it would be unrelated to the proposed application.

In response to a query raised regarding the allocation of parking, officers advised that an allocation plan had been provided and showed annotation for each parking space and numbers relating to units, with letters indicating the road. Officers were satisfied with the plan, and if the Committee was minded, Members could impose a condition to address their concerns.

The Committee indicated that a scheduled relating to parking should be tightened up to ensure clarity, as the proposed development was so close to the town centre. Members therefore, requested officers to provide the wording for such a condition in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

The recommendation for approval together with the condition relating to parking was moved, seconded, and on being put to the vote, was agreed.

Resolved - That the application be approved as per officer recommendations, the changes outlined in the addendum sheet and the amendments to the wording of condition 3 as follows:

'No development shall take  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Application for proposed external alterations to 4 x flat blocks and the erection of 4 x bin stores, after demolition of existing bin stores.

Recommendation : Approval

Application for proposed external alterations to 4 x flat blocks and the erection of 4 x bin stores, after demolition of existing bin stores.

In introducing the report, officers introduced the report and directed members to the changes in the addendum. Members were advised that all the residential units on the site were existing, and this application was not proposing any new residential units.

Officers stated that all parking spaces would be allocated.

The Chairman commented that the blocks appeared to have satellite dishes, which was noted, would be covered under separate legislation. 

Officers advised that new permitted developments, which provided very stringent rules and regulations, were being examined. Members were informed that the approved elevations had been closely looked at and did not have satellite dishes and if any had been proposed, they would be highly visible.

In response to a query as to where the responsibility would lay with regard to the proposed fence, officers advised that landscaping conditions had been imposed and these would normally be dealt with by the owner and controlled by conditions.

The Chairman added that in this case, these were privately owned houses. Officers responded that conditions would be attached to the land.

A Member noted that the requirement for cycle storage had been removed and asked officers whether they could suggest a way of securing cycle storage for the flats. Officers advised that these were existing blocks of flats with no changes, and consideration had to be given to the application that was before the Committee. As the proposals were all in the block of flats, there was no where inside the block for cycle storage and therefore, given the type of application, officers could not impose a condition in this respect.

A Member asked whether this issue could be addressed by an informative.

The Legal Advisor added that a condition requiring cycle storage could not be imposed on this site, as it would be unrelated to the proposed application.

In response to a query raised regarding the allocation of parking, officers advised that an allocation plan had been provided and showed annotation for each parking space and numbers relating to units, with letters indicating the road. Officers were satisfied with the plan, and if the Committee was minded, Members could impose a condition to address their concerns.

The Committee indicated that a scheduled relating to parking should be tightened up to ensure clarity, as the proposed development was so close to the town centre. Members therefore, requested officers to provide the wording for such a condition in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

The recommendation for approval together with the condition relating to parking was moved, seconded, and on being put to the vote, was agreed.

Resolved - That the application be approved as per officer recommendations, the changes outlined in the addendum sheet and the amendments to the wording of condition 3 as follows:

'No development shall take place until a car parking allocation scheme has been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Application for external alterations to the elevations of Nos.1 - 15 Martin Close (Odd) and Nos.37 - 51 Valley Road (Odds), including amendments to associated parking and landscaping and erection of bin stores.

Recommendation : Approval

Application for external alterations to the elevations of Nos.1 - 15 Martin Close (Odd) and Nos.37 - 51 Valley Road (Odds), including amendments to associated parking and landscaping and erection of bin stores.

In introducing the report, officers introduced the report and directed members to the changes in the addendum. Members were advised that all the residential units on the site were existing, and this application was not proposing any new residential units.

Officers stated that all parking spaces would be allocated.

The Chairman commented that the blocks appeared to have satellite dishes, which was noted, would be covered under separate legislation. 

Officers advised that new permitted developments, which provided very stringent rules and regulations, were being examined. Members were informed that the approved elevations had been closely looked at and did not have satellite dishes and if any had been proposed, they would be highly visible.

In response to a query as to where the responsibility would lay with regard to the proposed fence, officers advised that landscaping conditions had been imposed and these would normally be dealt with by the owner and controlled by conditions.

The Chairman added that in this case, these were privately owned houses. Officers responded that conditions would be attached to the land.

A Member noted that the requirement for cycle storage had been removed and asked officers whether they could suggest a way of securing cycle storage for the flats. Officers advised that these were existing blocks of flats with no changes, and consideration had to be given to the application that was before the Committee. As the proposals were all in the block of flats, there was no where inside the block for cycle storage and therefore, given the type of application, officers could not impose a condition in this respect.

A Member asked whether this issue could be addressed by an informative.

The Legal Advisor added that a condition requiring cycle storage could not be imposed on this site, as it would be unrelated to the proposed application.

In response to a query raised regarding the allocation of parking, officers advised that an allocation plan had been provided and showed annotation for each parking space and numbers relating to units, with letters indicating the road. Officers were satisfied with the plan, and if the Committee was minded, Members could impose a condition to address their concerns.

The Committee indicated that a scheduled relating to parking should be tightened up to ensure clarity, as the proposed development was so close to the town centre. Members therefore, requested officers to provide the wording for such a condition in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

The recommendation for approval together with the condition relating to parking was moved, seconded, and on being put to the vote, was agreed.

Resolved - That the application be approved as per officer recommendations, the changes outlined in the addendum sheet and the amendments to the wording of condition 3 as follows:

'No development shall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Change of use from Use Class C3 (Residential) to Use Class D1 (Non-residential institutions) for use as day care nursery, single storey side/rear extension and alterations to elevations.

Recommendation : Refusal

Change of use from Use Class C3 (Residential) to Use Class D1 (Non-residential institutions) for use as day care nursery, single storey side/rear extension and alterations to elevations.

Officers introduced the report and directed the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners in objection to the application addressed the meeting.

• The proposed development did not include the precise number of children and the exact use.
• Approximately 80% of households had dropped-kerb parking and therefore, parking would be limited.
• The proposed parking provision was inadequate.
• The proposed development would result in significant increase in noise, which would be detrimental to No. 18.
• All the houses in Nicholls Avenue had a covenant, which stated that the properties should not be used for any other use, other than as private property.
• The number of pupils at the nearby school had been increased to 200 pupils.

Neither the agent nor the applicant was in attendance at this meeting.

In response to a query raised about the use of the dining room and bedroom being retained as a residential unit, officers advised that the applicant had confirmed that the kitchen and bedrooms would not be used as part of the site as a day nursery.

At the request of a Ward Councillor who was unable to attend the meeting, a statement was read by officers at the meeting raising the following points:

• Supported the petitioners’ petition against the proposed development.
• Concerned that the proposal sought to replace an existing residential home with a private nursery, which would reduce the level of housing stock.
• The proposed development would have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties, due to a significant increase in activity resulting in greater noise, vehicles, parking and disturbance.
• The proposed development was almost opposite Hillingdon Primary School, where there were already issues of parking at certain times in the day.
• Even with the extension, the proposed number of 39 to possibly 60 children for the proposed nursery appeared to be excessive for a relatively small sized property.
• No additional provisions had been made for parking or drop off areas, other than the parking spaces for existing bungalow.
• Urged the Committee to refuse the application as per officer recommendation.

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

Resolved - That the application be refused as per officer recommendation and the changes outlined in the addendum sheet.

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.

Recommendation : Refusal

Change of use from Use Class C3 (Residential) to Use Class D1 (Non-residential institutions) for use as day care nursery, single storey side/rear extension and alterations to elevations.

This item had been withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Sports and Green Spaces.

Full demolition of Jubilee House and partial demolition of The Pressing Plant within the Old Vinyl Factory Site, Blyth Road (Application for Conservation Area Consent).

Recommendation : Approval

Full demolition of Jubilee House and partial demolition of The Pressing Plant within the Old Vinyl Factory Site, Blyth Road (Application for Conservation Area Consent).

Officers introduced the report.

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 and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Provision of a vehicular access route and erection of a refuse store to the rear of the Gatefold Site; full demolition of Jubilee House and partial demolition of The Pressing Plant within the Old Vinyl Factory Site, Blyth Road.

Recommendation : Approval

Provision of a vehicular access route and erection of a refuse store to the rear of the Gatefold Site; full demolition of Jubilee House and partial demolition of The Pressing Plant within the Old Vinyl Factory Site, Blyth Road.

Officers introduced the report.

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 and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Change of use of the ground floor and part first floor from Use Class B1 (Offices) to dual Use Classes A1 (Retail) and A2 (Financial and Professional Services).

Recommendation : Refusal

Change of use of the ground floor and part first floor from Use Class B1 (Offices) to dual Use Classes A1 (Retail) and A2 (Financial and Professional Services).

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

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution a representative of the petitioners spoke in support of the application and made the following points:

• The proposed development was for the change of use of the ground floor of the building.
• The existing office building within the site had been on the market since July 2009 to find a suitable occupier.
• The applicant had been the owner of two businesses over the past 10 years and had brought businesses to the Marlborough Parade since 2009.
• The proposed development would provide further local job opportunities.
• The proposed dual use would bring back the existing office building into use, given the current economic environment.
• Proposed planning conditions which would seek to address issues raised and progress the planning application.
• The Planning Consultant had advised that a Swept Paths analysis had taken the lamp column and guard rail into account.
• With regard to the issue of refuse, planning conditions would be accepted, which future occupiers would be expected to also accept.
• Refuse from neighbouring properties were collected weekly and future occupiers would be expected to follow the same arrangements.
• Time limited parking would ensure reasonable car parking spaces and would also increase car parking.
• Time restricted car parking could be operated in the road servicing the back of the proposal.
• Strongly believed that imposing of planning conditions would enable issues of concerns to be overcome.

A Member asked whether other businesses were of a retail nature and how they were currently serviced.

Officers advised that there was no service road area at present and properties were serviced by the main road. The existing shop was small, whereas the service unit of the proposed development would not be adequate.

In answer to a question regarding the new legislation relating to change of use from office to residential, officers advised that the Local Authority had put forward a number of proposals and it was not yet known what exact conditions or stipulations would be attached, as the legislation had not yet been formally adopted.

The Chairman encouraged the applicant to work more closely with officers on the proposed development to try and deal with issues before the application was reported to a Planning Committee. 

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 and the changes outlined in the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

4 x 2-storey, 3-bed, semi-detached houses with habitable roofspace and 3 x two storey, 3-bed, detached houses with habitable roofspace with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing B1 office building.

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a S106 Agreement.

4 x 2-storey, 3-bed, semi-detached houses with habitable roofspace and 3 x two storey, 3-bed, detached houses with habitable roofspace with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing B1 office building.

Officers introduced the report and directed Members to note the changes in the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting. The Committee was informed that condition may not be appropriate to address the issue relating to the window. Officers suggested that with regard to Unit 6, wording for additional condition would be proposed if Members were minded to proceed with the application, or alternatively, the Committee could defer the application for officers to find a more appropriate condition to improve the proposal.

Members indicated that obscure windows in habitable rooms would be unacceptable, as habitable rooms must have clear glass windows.

It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred, and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be deferred for the resolution of a solution to address the issue of overlooking from unit 6 without requiring obscure glazing to a habitable room.

Single storey side extension (Part retrospective).

Recommendation : Approval

Single storey side extension (Part retrospective).

Officers introduced the report and directed Members to note the changes outlined in the addendum circulated at the meeting.

Members expressed concerns that the restricted Planning Development Rights (PD) had been ignored with regard to this proposal and expressed concerns that the amenity space had been severely eroded. In addition, the Committee was concerned that the proposal would set a precedent for other properties in the locality.

Officers advised that the internal and external garden space both fell below the space allowed.

The Committed noted that the quality of the drawings were wholly inappropriate and attached an additional informative advising the applicant of this.

It was moved and seconded that the application be refused and on being put to the vote, was agreed, with the wording being drafted by officers in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

Resolved – That the application be refused for the following reason and subject to the addendum circulated at the meeting and additional informative:

‘The proposed development fails to maintain an adequate amount of private usable external amenity space for the occupiers of the property, resulting in overdevelopment of the site and poor quality living environment, detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers. The development is therefore contrary to Policy BE23 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) of the Hillingdon Design & Accessibility Statement (HDAS): Residential Extensions’. 

Additional informative:

‘You are advised that the poor quality of the plans did not assist in accurately depicting the proposal, you are encouraged to ensure clear and accurate plans support any proposals to assist in their assessment’.

Single storey outbuilding for use as a store and pram shelter and installation of brick wall and gates to south west elevation involving removal of existing chain-link fence.

Recommendation : Approval

Single storey outbuilding for use as a store and pram shelter and installation of brick wall and gates to south west elevation involving removal of existing chain-link fence.

Councillor Janet Duncan left the room for the duration of this item.

Officers introduced the report.

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 and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Retention of play equipment and erection of temporary new detached timber building (to rear of the Grange building) for use to provide classrooms and toilets.

Recommendation : Approval

Retention of play equipment and erection of temporary new detached timber building (to rear of the Grange building) for use to provide classrooms and toilets.

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

The Chairman announced that officers would present this item 19, together with items 20 with the decisions being made separately.

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

• The proposal lent itself very well to the primary school for children with autism.
• Due to the specific needs of the children, the school was always running out of space.
• The school was currently trailing a new curriculum consisting of creative learning journeys.

In response to a question about the length of the temporary permission sought, the petitioner responded that the proposed development would be a temporary structure for 3 years and would reapply if need be after that period.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to theconditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and thechanges in the Addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

Application to vary condition 17 to planning permission Ref 866/APP/2009/1884 ("Change of use from Class B1 to Class D1 for use as a specialist educational day centre, including re-siting of existing garden sheds and new fencing to rear" approved 20 November 2009) to provide an alternative flood protection strategy that does not involve the previously agreed site flood escape route.

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a S106 Agreement

Application to vary condition 17 to planning permission Ref 866/APP/2009/1884 ("Change of use from Class B1 to Class D1 for use as a specialist educational day centre, including re-siting of existing garden sheds and new fencing to rear" approved 20 November 2009) to provide an alternative flood protection strategy that does not involve the previously agreed site flood escape route.

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

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

• The proposal lent itself very well to the primary school for children with autism.
• Due to the specific needs of the children, the school was always running out of space.
• The school was currently trailing a new curriculum consisting of creative learning journeys.

In response to a question about the length of the temporary permission sought, the petitioner responded that the proposed development would be a temporary structure for 3 years and would reapply if need be after that period.

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

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to theconditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.

Resolved – That the S106 Quarterly Monitoring Report for the period up to 31 December 2012 be noted.

The recommendations as set out in the officer 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).