Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Nicola Brightman, with Councillor Becky Haggar substituting and from Councillor Jazz Dhillon, with Councillor John Morse substituting.

Apologies for absence were also received from Councillor Janet Duncan.

Councillor Ian Edwards declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8 as he knew one of the petition organisers. Both Councillor Edwards and the petitioner organiser were trustees of an organisation that was irrelevant to the application. Councillor Edwards remained for the discussion of the item.

RESOLVED: That the minutes from the meeting held on 6 November 2019 be agreed as a correct record.

It was noted that agenda item 9 - Hillingdon Manor School, Hillingdon (3043/APP/2019/1788) had been withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

It was also noted that a supplementary agenda B had been published to determine agenda item 17 – Tree Preservation Order No. 778 (TPO 778): 9 Kings Road, West Drayton.

It was confirmed that agenda items 1 – 12 and 17 were marked Part I and would be considered in public, and agenda items 13 – 16 were marked Part II and would be considered in private.

Erection of a three storey, detached building to create 3 x 2-bed and 2 x 1-bed residential units with associated landscaping, cycle and refuse storage.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of a three storey, detached building to create 3 x 2-bed and 2 x 1-bed residential units with associated landscaping, cycle and refuse storage.

Officers introduced the report, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner spoke in objection of the application and supported all of the reasons for refusal in the officer’s report. It was noted that the report indicated that there were 165 petition signatures but the petition had 179 petition signatures. The petitioner asked for all the reasons for refusal, particularly refusal reason 2, to be given due consideration in determining the matter.

Members considered that the refusal reasons in the report were strong and welcomed the officer clarifications on the application. Overall, Members agreed that this was an inconsiderate development for the site.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused subject to the changes in the addendum.

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer and 2 front roof light. Conversion of dwelling into 1 x 1 bed flat and 1 x 3 bed flat including separate amenity space & off street parking.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Part two storey, part single storey side/rear extension and conversion of roof space to habitable use to include a rear dormer and 2 front roof light. Conversion of dwelling into 1 x 1 bed flat and 1 x 3 bed flat including separate amenity space & off street parking.

Officers introduced the report and made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner spoke in objection of the application and referred to documents that had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting. It was submitted that proposed two storey side extension brought the wall of 42 Hughes Road to approximately 8 metres away from the bedroom window of 40 Hughes Road and this infringed the minimum distance between properties, increasing the potential for noise and disturbance. The development would cause an unacceptable loss of light, loss of outlet and loss of privacy to 40 Hughes Road. It was submitted that this was not a suitable type of property to be converted into flats due to its location, the ongoing parking issues and by allowing flats on the site would result in an intensification of dwellings. It was suggested that the proposed development of the garage would not be used for parking and access for residents would become difficult.

The applicant/agent were not in attendance.

Councillor Peter Curling, Ward Councillor for Townfield attended the meeting and spoke in support of the petitioner. Councillor Curling fully supported the petition, noting that the parking on Hughes Road was “tight” and agreed with the refusal reasons. The proposed development was an unneighbourly construction and submitted that this was not a suitable property to be converted into flats.

Prior to Member discussions, the Chairman asked Members to bear in mind that planning permission for the proposed extension had already been granted. Members were asked solely to consider the matter of the conversion of the property into flats.

Members considered that the report was comprehensive and noted the serious parking issues.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

Erection of 5 two storey, 3-bed, attached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing detached house (AMENDED PLANS 18/10/19).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred for a Members site visit.

Erection of 5 two storey, 3-bed, attached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing detached house (AMENDED PLANS 18/10/19).

Officers introduced the report, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

Two petitions were submitted in objection of the application and both petition organisers addressed the Committee. A number of concerns were raised about the application as the site was within an area of special local character and four houses were served by the access road. It was submitted that development in areas of special local character should at least be neutral, if not, enhance its local amenity and be sympathetic to the local features. Concerns were raised about the ecological assessments, the appearance of the intended houses as it was not within keeping of already existing cottages. The proposed development would result in considerable lorry movement on a narrow access road and there would be considerable noise and vibrations as a result of this work. Conditions surveys would need to be taken by all properties affected by the vibrations and the access road was used by residents. The development of five additional properties would present a significant increase to traffic and the development did not take in account the area’s historical, ecological or social context. It was submitted that the current proposal was unsuited for the site and the Committee was asked to either refuse the application or defer it for a Member’s site visit.

In response to Member questions, it was confirmed that the access road was found to be 3.2 metres.

The agent spoke in support of the application and submitted the application was submitted on 5 April 2019 for the demolition of the existing housing construction to build six residences - 4 houses and two bungalows. This would be have been undertaken by rationalising the site and reducing the redundant pond. It was noted that the water tower decommissioned many years ago. The application had gone through several changes to achieve a balanced solution, the final scheme included five houses and the two rear bungalows initially considered had been removed. Retention of the pond of a meaningful size to add a significant water features in addition to providing sustainable water functions and habitants had been included in the application. It was submitted that this would create a perfect environment for ecology to survive. The existing service road would have new surfacing and sound proofing fence to reduce vehicle noise levels with much better access for refuse and emergency vehicles. The development also included inset road lighting for night safety and security. The nearby houses were designed in the context of the existing scale and proportion in line with the conservation officer’s comments. Further, it was submitted that the development would also offer help to buy scheme to enable young families to enjoy the properties.

Councillor Goddard, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North addressed the Committee and submitted that the local residents were shocked at the destruction and ecology of the site. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Construction of two buildings and a cafe in association with the school (Use Class D1) with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Recommendation: Refusal

This item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

This item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

Use of forecourt and office of former petrol station as a hand car wash and valeting business.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Use of forecourt and office of former petrol station as a hand car wash and valeting business.

Officers introduced the report and made a recommendation for refusal.

Members considered there was a potential to cause harm, and as such, the officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

The removal and replacement of 4 existing antennas with 12 antennas located on new support poles to be fixed to the existing pigpen steelwork, the removal and replacement of 4 existing equipment cabinets with 8 new equipment cabinets located on the plant room rooftop and ancillary works (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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

The removal and replacement of 4 existing antennas with 12 antennas located on new support poles to be fixed to the existing pigpen steelwork, the removal and replacement of 4 existing equipment cabinets with 8 new equipment cabinets located on the plant room rooftop and ancillary works (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, provided an overview of the application and made a recommendation for approval.

Members considered that given the location of the cabinets, the risk of harm was minimal.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation.

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to dental manufacture (Use Class B1(c).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.  

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to dental manufacture (Use Class B1(c).

Officers introduced the report, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation.

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

RESOLVED:

1.    That the enforcement action, as recommended in the officer’s report, was agreed; and,

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it 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 1, 2 and 7 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; and,

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it 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 1, 2 and 7 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

RESOLVED:

1.    That the enforcement action, as recommended in the officer’s report, was agreed; and,

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it 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 1, 2 and 7 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; and,

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it 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 1, 2 and 7 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

RESOLVED:

1.    That the enforcement action, as recommended in the officer’s report, was agreed; and,

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it 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 1, 2 and 7 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; and,

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it 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 1, 2 and 7 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

RESOLVED:

1.    That the enforcement action, as recommended in the officer’s report, was agreed; and,

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it 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 1, 2 and 7 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; and,

2.    That the Committee resolved to release their decision, and the reasons for it outlined in the report, into the public domain, solely for the purposes of it 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 1, 2 and 7 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended).

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. 778 (TPO 778):

9 KINGS ROAD, WEST DRAYTON

An urgent decision is required on whether to confirm the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) because the TPO was made on 7th June and is only valid for 6 months until confirmed. A decision is therefore required to be made before 7th December to ensure the continued protection of the common ash tree which is considered to be of high amenity value.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. 778 (TPO 778):9 KINGS ROAD, WEST DRAYTON

Officers introduced the report, provided an overview of the application and made a recommendation for approval.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation.