Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Manjot Khatra with Cllr Peter Money substituting. 

Councillors Brian Stead, Janet Duncan and Jazz Dhillon declared non pecuniary interests in Item 8 - 209 Pield Heath Road, Hillingdon and left the meeting whilst the item was discussed.

Councillor Janet Duncan also declared a non pecuniary interest in Item 9 - 1 Fir Tree Avenue, Hillingdon and left the meeting whilst the item was discussed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 January 2015 were agreed as a correct record.

The Chairman notified the meeting that he had accepted an urgent item which was contained within agenda B.

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

Two storey side extension and part two storey part single storey rear extension, involving the demolition of existing single storey side extension

Deferred from Central and South Committee on 4^th November 2014

Recommendation: Approval

Two storey side extension and part two storey part single storey rear extension, involving the demolition of existing single storey side extension.

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

The application site was located within a residential area of Hayes largely comprising two storey semi-detached dwellings and a semi-detached dwelling located at the east end of the cul-de-sac at Milton Close, Hayes.  Members noted that the property included a hard surfaced parking area to the front and side, with a detached outbuilding/garage and a grassed garden area to the rear.  Members were made aware that the application did not trigger the need for an additional parking space.

Members also noted a previous planning application for similar extensions and also the change of use of the property to a HMO, reference 16558/APP/2013/601, which was withdrawn on 2 May 2013. The current application did not propose a change of use to HMO and the property was in use as a single family dwelling house.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners and the agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

·         Residents of Milton Close, Hayes objected to the proposals.

·         The plans were misleading.

·         Access to No 12 Milton Close would be denied.

·         The driveway was not a shared between the two properties.

·         There was insufficient parking available to residents.

·         There had been no mention of 'light blocking' or 'water drainage' contained in the officers report.

·         No 12 Milton Close did have a habitable room and the light to this room would be blocked if the proposals were approved.

·         Previous history needed to be considered.

·         Cycle and bin storage were not shown on the plans.

·         Hillingdon residents should come first.

The agent made the following points:-

·         The HMO planning application had been withdrawn.

·         The owner of the property had not been aware that the property had been used unlawfully.

·         The owner had evicted the tenants who were misusing the property.

·         A working family now occupied the property.

·         The applicant did not want a HMO now or in the future.

·         Issues had been resolved to the satisfaction of the planning department.

·         Applicant plans to move in with their family.

A local Ward Councillor made the following points:-

·         Supported petitioners objecting to the proposals.

·         Would be difficult for a family to operate 1 car.

·         There was confusion regarding the number of parking spaces for the proposal.

·         There was nowhere to park on Milton Close apart from off street.

·         There was a habitable room at No 12 Milton Close which would be affected if the plans were approved.

Members asked for clarification regarding the previous application for a HMO.  The legal advisor present informed Members that the application before Members was not for a HMO and that there were separate rules regarding the number of people living in a property.  Condition 6 of the officers' report was highlighted as it restricted the owner of the property using the dwelling as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension

Recommendation: Refusal

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application sought planning permission for the removal of the existing garage and rear extension and the construction of a two-storey side extension and a part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension.  Members noted that the extensions would internally add a living room and kitchen on the ground floor with 2 further bedrooms and a shower room on the first floor.

Officers highlighted that objections had been received which were detailed on page 20 of the agenda.  Members noted that application did not comply with the Council's policy or standards.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners and the agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

·         Was representing local residents objecting to the proposals.

·         There would be a 80% increase on the footprint of the property.

·         The impact of the proposed development would result in the loss of daylight for neighbouring properties.

·         The extension was not set back and was 1ft away from the boundary of the property.

·         Plans indicated that the property could potentially be used as a House in Multiple Occupation.

·         The shopping parade had severe parking issues which would be exasperated.

·         There would be loss of a garage parking space.

·         There were no site notices regarding the application.

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

Resolved - That the application was refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

To retain first floor side extension and make alteration to roof form

Recommendation: Refusal

To retain first floor side extension and make alteration to roof form.

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

The application site comprised a two storey semi-detached dwelling with its frontage to Pield Heath Road and its western boundary along Peel Way.  Officers explained that the application had been submitted to regularise the construction of the first floor side and rear extensions.     Members noted that whilst permission was granted for a first floor side and rear extension, the plans approved were submitted prior to the hip to gable and dormer construction on the roof.  Members noted that the sequence of construction on the site, the permitted development roof alterations (6382/APP/2012/1901) was completed prior to the commencement of the first floor extensions. As a result, the first floor extensions had not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans both in relation to the size of the extension, and how this correlated with the gable roof. 

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners and the agent addressed the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:-

·         The application had given permission for a side extension.

·         Mr Wright, an architect had designed two similar applications which had been approved.

·         Permitted development had taken place before the planning scheme.

·         2 Carfax Road, Hayes had a development which was approved.

·         The Council had one rule for one, another for another.

·         Both developments were different to what was built.

·         Both were on corner plots.

·         Local residents supported the application.

·         There were mixed decisions for different areas of the Borough.

·         The property was not causing a problem to the neighbourhood.

·         Emails from a Council officer stated that permitted development would need to be undertaken first.

The agent made the following points:-

·         Had provided advice for applicants due to a previous application he had dealt with at 2 Carfax Road, Hayes.

·         The application at 2 Carfax Road, Hayes was near enough identical.

·         Works at Shaftesbury Way were carried out in reverse order.

·         The property was not alien to its surroundings.

·         A flat roof and dormers were approved at 158 Swakeleys Road, Ickenham.

·         Did not want another appeal.

Officers clarified issues raised by petitioners.  Members noted that the plans approved were different to what was built.  The circumstances raised by petitioners relating to 2 Carfax Road, Hayes were different, as prior approval was involved. 

Members noted that each site should be based on its own merit and that the sequencing issues with different applications could not be compared.  Officers explained that the comments made by a planning officer in an email were not relevant as the circumstances were not known.  Members noted that the emails sent by planning officers also had a disclaimer.

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

Resolved - That the application was refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

Single storey side/rear extension and extension to roof to create additional habitable roofspace involving demolition of existing side extension (Retrospective)

Deferred from Central and South Committee on 7^th January 2015

Recommendation: Refusal

Single storey side/rear extension and extension to roof to create additional habitable roofspace involving demolition of existing side extension (Retrospective).

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

The application was deferred from the 7 January 2015 Central and South Area Committee for a site visit, and for various measurements to be checked on site.  The site visit took place on 29 January 2015.  Members noted that the amenity space had been checked and was found to be compliant, and no objection was raised in this regard. The report and recommendation had been updated to accurately reflect the checked dimensions.   

The Chairman highlighted that as petitioners had already spoke at a previous meeting that they had no speaking rights.  Members discussed the site visit and agreed that the applicant could address some issues by liaising with the planning department.

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

Resolved - That the application was refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

Change of Use from retail (Use Class A1) to use as a shisha lounge and social club (Sui Generis) involving formation of an outdoor seating area and outdoor folding canopy (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

Change of Use from retail (Use Class A1) to use as a shisha lounge and social club (Sui Generis) involving formation of an outdoor seating area and outdoor folding canopy (Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

Retrospective planning consent was sought for the change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to use as a shisha lounge and social club (Sui Generis) involving formation of an outdoor seating area and outdoor folding marquee/canopy.

The change of use of the site had resulted in the loss of a retail unit which was unacceptable in principle. It was also considered that the canopy to the rear of the site had led to an over intensive use of the site resulting in harm to the amenity of the nearby residents through increased noise and disturbance and increased odour. It was also considered that the marquee was harmful to the visual amenity of the site and the surrounding area.

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

Resolved - That the application was refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

Re-cladding of the existing Wilfred Brown building, alterations to north elevation involving re-building of security annex, installation of canopy over existing courtyard to rear and associated works

Recommendation: Approval

Re-cladding of the existing Wilfred Brown building, alterations to north elevation involving re-building of security annex, installation of canopy over existing courtyard to rear and associated works

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application sought planning permission for the re-cladding of the existing Wilfred Brown building, alterations to north elevation involving re-building of security annex, installation of canopy over existing courtyard to rear and associated works. The existing three storey university administration building was located within the major Developed site of Brunel University and the Metropolitan Green Belt as identified within the Hillingdon Local Plan.

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

Resolved - That the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

Change of use of ground floor from sandwich bar (Use Class A1) to Hot Food Take Away (Use Class A5), to include installation of extractor duct to rear, involving demolition of existing rear store

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use of ground floor from sandwich bar (Use Class A1) to Hot Food Take Away (Use Class A5), to include installation of extractor duct to rear, involving demolition of existing rear store.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application sought planning permission for the change of use of the ground floor from sandwich bar (Use Class A1) to Hot Food Take Away (Use Class A5).  It was considered the proposal for the use would be acceptable in principle, as it would bring a vacant unit back into use within Hayes End; the use was compatible with the main retail functions within the Parade and would attract a significant increase in footfall and vitality to this frontage.

Officers requested that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to merge conditions 7 and 8, to include a food hygiene informative and for an additional condition preventing a delivery service, as there was no parking provision for delivery vehicles.  Members also noted that a delivery service had not been agreed as there was no parking provision for deliveries to take place.

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

Resolved - That the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

Demolition of existing garage/utility to side and erection of two storey side extension, part two storey, part single storey rear extension and porch to front

Recommendation: Refusal

Demolition of existing garage/utility to side and erection of two storey side extension, part two storey, part single storey rear extension and porch to front.

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application site was located on the corner of Baxter Close.  The street scene was residential in character and comprising predominantly two storey semi-detached and detached houses of similar design. 

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

Resolved - That the application was refused for the reasons set out in the officer's report.

Change of Use from retail (Use Class A1) to a taxi control office (Sui Generis)

Recommendation: Refusal

Change of Use from retail (Use Class A1) to a taxi control office (Sui Generis).

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application site was located in a small parade comprising of a car showroom, hot food take-way, a retail unit and an office located on the northern side of Uxbridge Road.  Permission was sought for the change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to a taxi control office (Sui Generis).  The change of use of the site by reason of the loss of a retail unit within this parade would erode the retail function and attractiveness of the area, harming the vitality and viability of the parade to the detriment of the local community.

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

Resolved - That the application was refused for the reason set out in the officer's report.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to estate agents (Use Class A2)  (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to estate agents (Use Class A2)  (Retrospective).

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

Planning permission was sought for the change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to estate agents (Use Class A2) of a ground floor shop unit. It was considered that the proposed change of use would not harm the vitality and attractiveness of the Hayes Town Centre as it would not result in a concentration of non-retail uses within this part of the secondary frontage.

Members noted the proposal was for a change of use only, and that there would be no impact on the visual amenities of the property and street scene. Given the type of use proposed, it was considered that the amenities of nearby residential occupiers would not be unduly impacted.

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

Resolved - That the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

Change of use to Storage and Distribution (Use Class B8) and 4 single storey outbuildings for use as office, restroom, toilets and workshop (Part Retrospective).

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use to Storage and Distribution (Use Class B8) and 4 single storey outbuildings for use as office, restroom, toilets and workshop (Part Retrospective).

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

Retrospective planning permission was sought for the change of use of the site to storage and distribution (Use Class B8) and the erection of four ancillary buildings.  The works represented a redevelopment of part of the industrial area located within a designated Industrial and Business Area.  Members noted that the principle of the development was supported. It was considered that the development would not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the site or the general street scene.

Careful consideration had been given to the principal issue of traffic generation on the public highway and it was considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the existing highway given the level of vehicular movements expected. Conditions were recommended to control the vehicle movements, hours of operation and delivery and given such controls, the development would not be detrimental to the character or amenities of surrounding properties.

Members noted that the buildings would not result in any undue loss of light, outlook or privacy to the adjoining commercial units or residential properties.

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

Resolved - That the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission 751/APP/2013/266

Recommendation: Approval

Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission 751/APP/2013/266

Officers introduced the report and outlined details of the application.

The application sought the removal of condition 2 of planning permission

751/APP/2013/266.  The applicant requested the removal of this condition as it restricted the use of the building and yard to the adjacent site and its operator.  Members noted that whilst this was acceptable at the time of approval, the neighbouring operator, for whom the consent was originally granted, had greatly reduced their activity from the site and the building therefore stood empty.

Members noted that to allow a new user to occupy, the building would require the removal of this condition. The proposed occupier complied with all other requirements of the original consent.

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

Resolved - That the application was approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report.

Resolved -

1. That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report was 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.

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).

Resolved -

1. That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report was 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.

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).

Resolved -

1. That the enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report was 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.

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).