Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillors Roy Chamdal and Janet Duncan with Councillors Peter Davis and John Morse substituting.

There were no declarations of interest notified.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 14 May were agreed as a correct record.

There had been no matters notified in advance or urgent.

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

Two storey, detached building with habitable roofspace to include 3 x 1 bed self contained flats and 2 x studio flats with rear vehicular access, associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing bungalow.

Recommendation: Approval

Two storey, detached building with habitable roofspace to include 3 x 1 bed self contained flats and 2 x studio flats with rear vehicular access, associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing bungalow.

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application and advised that the glazed balcony screen impinged on the 45º angle but did not impact on the daylight and sunlight to the adjoining property. Parking had been provided at the rear, which had a right of way over the rear access road.

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

The petitioner made the following points:-

·         Photographs circulated showing the rear access road, which showed the location of the proposed gates and the distances when the garage door was open.

·         Parking was already an issue in this area and the proposal would increase the problem.

·         There were concerns about safety issues in relation to the access to the proposed parking.

·         The rear access to 32A was not considered as part of the application when it was granted permission and members couldn't remember giving permission for the rear parking.

The agent made the following points:-

·         Had been in constant discussion with the planning officer on the proposal and had followed the advice given.

·         The proposal was to provide much needed affordable housing.

·         The application optimised the use of the land and would not harm the character of the street scene.

·         The proposal met the needs of the disabled.

·         Requested that the Committee agree the officer recommendation for approval.

In answer to a question raised about the rooflights in the top flat officers advised Members that generally rooflights were not acceptable, but in this case as they would not provide outlook they were acceptable.

Concerns were raised in relation to the access to the parking at the rear of the site and whether there would sufficient turning circle to access the parking area.

Officers advised members that it was an existing access with a right of way, across it for the property, which needed to be kept clear of obstructions.

The Committee then had a discussion on the impingement on the 45º angle from the screened balcony to the habitable room of No 36 Pole Hill Road.  It was felt that although there was a minor impingement it was not felt sufficient to consider refusal.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote there were 6 in favour and 2 against, therefore, approval was agreed.

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

Removal of existing 14m high telecoms pole and installation of a new 14.7m high telecoms pole and one additional associated equipment cabinet (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance)

Recommendation: Approval

Removal of existing 14m high telecoms pole and installation of a new 14.7m high telecoms pole and one additional associated equipment cabinet (Application under Part 16 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 for determination as to whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application.

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

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

Change of use of car park to hand car wash and car sales (Sui Generis)(Retrospective)

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use of car park to hand car wash and car sales (Sui Generis)(Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application and informed the Committee that the incorrect location plan had been printed in the report.   The previous use of the site was for car sales, so the proposed use was considered acceptable with conditions added for additional planting to be provided.

The recommendation was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote there were 7 in favour and 1 abstention, approval was therefore agreed.

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

Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission 46223/APP/2013/2899 dated 4/12/13 (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) to allow the continued use of the site until January 2016 (S73 Application)

Recommendation: Approval

Variation of Condition 3 of planning permission 46223/APP/2013/2899 dated 4/12/13 (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) to allow the continued use of the site until January 2016 (S73 Application)

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application.

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

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

Variation of condition 5 of planning permission Ref: 751/APP/2014/3294 to allow an increase in the number of vehicle movements from 12 to 22 (Monday to Friday)

Recommendation: Refusal

Variation of condition 5 of planning permission Ref: 751/APP/2014/3294 to allow an increase in the number of vehicle movements from 12 to 22 (Monday to Friday)

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application, which sought a variation to condition 5 to increase the number of vehicle movements from the site.  The Committee was informed that there was only one access route from the site as there was a restriction on the bridge towards Cowley.  All vehicle movements would have to go through Iver Village in the early hours of the morning, which was unacceptable for those residents.

In answer to questions raised about other operators on the site officers advised that some operators required planning permission and others did not.  Restrictions on operators would be imposed as and when sites applied for permission.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote there was 7 in favour and 1 against, refusal was therefore agreed.

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

Retention of ground floor cafe use (Class A3) and proposed change of use/reinstatement of first floor to a two-bedroom residential unit (Class C3)

Recommendation: Approval

Retention of ground floor cafe use (Class A3) and proposed change of use/reinstatement of first floor to a two-bedroom residential unit (Class C3)

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application, which was for re-instatement of the first floor offices to a residential 2 bedroom flat. As the building was listed there was limited works that could be undertaken.

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

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

Internal and external alterations, retention of ground floor cafe use (Class A3) and proposed change of use/reinstatement of first floor to a two-bedroom residential unit (Class C3) (Application for Listed Building Consent)

Recommendation: Approval

Internal and external alterations, retention of ground floor cafe use (Class A3) and proposed change of use/reinstatement of first floor to a two-bedroom residential unit (Class C3) (Application for Listed Building Consent)

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application.

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

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

Erection of second and third floors above existing the building to provide 7 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom flats, including a roof garden, and the extension/over cladding of the lift and stair core areas.

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of second and third floors above existing the building to provide 7 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom flats, including a roof garden, and the extension/over cladding of the lift and stair core areas.

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application. The proposal was seeking an extension to the building to provide 2 additional floors.  A legal agreement was being sought to secure the tenure of the units and preclude future occupants from obtaining car permits for the controlled Parking Zone in the area.  Officers asked members to give delegated authority to the Head of Planning to discuss the appropriate wording for the S106 agreement A) 1 in relation to the restriction on Occupation with Legal officers to restrict the Right to Buy.

The Committee agreed to delegate authority to enable the wording of the A) 1 of the S106 agreement to be amended.

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

Resolved - Resolved - The recommendation was agreed with delegated authority was given to the Head of Planning to amend the wording of S106 A) 1 below, in consultation with Legal.

A) That the Council enter into a Statement of Intent/Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and/or Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) or other appropriate legislation to secure the following:

1. Restriction on occupation: The building should only be occupied by Council Nominated Tenants - to be amended.

2. Restriction on any future resident to obtain on-street car parking permits B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Councils reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 and/or 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 Agreements have not been finalised by 9th July 2015, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

'The scheme, by reason of the absence of a legal agreement to secure the occupation of the housing by Council Nominated Tenants only, and preclude future occupants of all units from obtaining parking permits for the adjacent Controlled Parking Zone, would have an adverse impact on the local highway and traffic conditions, and be prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety. The scheme would thereby fail to comply with policies AM7 and AM14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012). '

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

F)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

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).

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).