Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Judith Cooper. Councillor Eddie Lavery attended in her place.

Councillor Mike Bull declared a prejudicial interest in item 6 – Former National Air Traffic Services (NATS) Headquarters, Porters Way, West Drayton by virtue of having been involved as a Ward Councillor of the application site. Councillor Bull withdrew from the room and did not take part in the decision of the application.

Councillor Paul Buttivant declared a prejudicial interest in item 11, Enforcement Report, a Part 2 item. Councillor Buttivant withdrew from the room and did not take part in the decision of the item.

The minutes of the meeting held on13 & 20 April and 13 May 2010 Were agreed as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

There had been no items notified as urgent.

It was confirmed that items would be considered in Part 1 and Part 2.

Proposed mixed-use redevelopment comprising 773 dwellings

(12 studios, 152 one-bedroom flats, 316 two-bedroom flats, 21

two-bedroom houses, 23 three-bedroom flats, 181 three-bedroom

houses, 59 four-bedroom houses and 9 five-bedroom

houses); Class D1 Primary Healthcare facility and community

facility (max. 1,085m2); Class C2 Nursing Home (max.

3,630m2); Classes A1-A3 Shop units (max. 185m2); Class B1

Business units including site management office (max.

185m2); Energy Centre (max. 200m2) with combined heat and

power unit; foul water pumping station; associated access

roads from Porters Way and Rutters Close (pedestrian and

cycle access only); 1,085 car parking spaces; cycle parking;

public open space areas; cycleways and footpaths; and

landscaping works (Outline application to consider access,

layout and scale whilst appearance and landscaping are

reserved)

5107/APP/2009/2348

In introducing the report, officers brought the Committee’s attention to changes and amendments set out in the Addendum sheet. In respect of amendments to condition 24, a further amendment was made to include ‘…secure covered cycle storage…’ In point (vii) of the Heads of Terms, the word ‘study’ was replaced with ‘scheme’.  

In accordance with the Constitution, John McDonnell MP spoke in support of, and on behalf of the petitioners. He thanked officers for their comprehensive report and raised the following points and suggestions:

• That the petitioners’ objections were not against the scheme itself, but rather the consultation process
• That Rutters Close was a small community which was relatively secure with no through traffic
• That the petitioners’ main concern was related to the proposed cycle path spur through the development on to Rutters Close, which they felt  would undermine the concept of the close
• That the proposed cycle path through the development on to Rutters Close may lead to security issues
• Suggested further consultation and the provision of more details
• Suggested that the Committee consider this part of the application in respect of the proposed cycle path spur through the development on to Rutters Close, at a latter date.

The agent of the application site addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

• The Council’s consultation leaflet had outlined the associated pedestrian and cycle access roads from Potters Way and Rutters Close
• The final version of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on the site was approved by Cabinet in September 2009 and adopted
• Point 3.46 in the SPD stated that pedestrian and cycle routes that provided direct access from the former NATS site in West Drayton Station should be provided to link Porters Way and Rutters Close
•  During various discussions of the applications there was an indication that pedestrian and cycle provision was required to meet sustainability requirements
• Many houses would benefit from the short cut via the green route and sustainable benefits would be achieved  by providing this link
• Should the Committee reject the proposed cycle path spur through the development on to Rutters Close, this would not make any material difference to the development, but residents living in the Eastern site would lose the benefit of being able to use the short cut to  ...  view the full agenda text for item 6.

FORMER NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES (NATS)

HEADQUARTERS, PORTERS WAY, WEST DRAYTON

Proposed mixed-use redevelopment comprising 773 dwellings

(12 studios, 152 one-bedroom flats, 316 two-bedroom flats, 21

two-bedroom houses, 23 three-bedroom flats, 181 threebedroom

houses, 59 four-bedroom houses and 9 five-bedroom

houses); Class D1 Primary Healthcare facility and community

facility (max. 1,085m2); Class C2 Nursing Home (max.

3,630m2); Classes A1-A3 Shop units (max. 185m2); Class B1

Business units including site management office (max.

185m2); Energy Centre (max. 200m2) with combined heat and

power unit; foul water pumping station; associated access

roads from Porters Way and Rutters Close (pedestrian and

cycle access only); 1,085 car parking spaces; cycle parking;

public open space areas; cycleways and footpaths; and

landscaping works (Outline application to consider access,

layout and scale whilst appearance and landscaping are

reserved)

5107/APP/2009/2348

In introducing the report, officers brought the Committee’s attention to changes and amendments set out in the Addendum sheet. In respect of amendments to condition 24, a further amendment was made to include ‘…secure covered cycle storage…’ In point (vii) of the Heads of Terms, the word ‘study’ was replaced with ‘scheme’.  

In accordance with the Constitution, John McDonnell MP spoke in support of, and on behalf of the petitioners. He thanked officers for their comprehensive report and raised the following points and suggestions:

• That the petitioners’ objections were not against the scheme itself, but rather the consultation process
• That Rutters Close was a small community which was relatively secure with no through traffic
• That the petitioners’ main concern was related to the proposed cycle path spur through the development on to Rutters Close, which they felt  would undermine the concept of the close
• That the proposed cycle path through the development on to Rutters Close may lead to security issues
• Suggested further consultation and the provision of more details
• Suggested that the Committee consider this part of the application in respect of the proposed cycle path spur through the development on to Rutters Close, at a latter date

The agent of the application site addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

• The Council’s consultation leaflet had outlined the associated pedestrian and cycle access roads from Potters Way and Rutters Close
• The final version of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on the site was approved by Cabinet in September 2009 and adopted
• Point 3.46 in the SPD stated that pedestrian and cycle routes that provided direct access from the former NATS site in West Drayton Station should be provided to link Porters Way and Rutters Close
•  During various discussions of the applications there was an indication that pedestrian and cycle provision was required to meet sustainability requirements
• Many houses would benefit from the short cut via the green route and sustainable benefits would be achieved  by providing this link
• Should the Committee reject the proposed cycle path spur through the development on to Rutters Close, this would not make any material difference to the development, but residents living in the Eastern site would lose  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Erection of an Energy Centre comprising two buildings (Energy Centre Building and Operations Building) and associated infrastructure (Consultation under Schedule 2, Part 18 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995).

66849/APP/2010/479

Officers drew the Committee’s attention to the Addendum Sheet to note that comments had been received from the Environment Agency and that informative 6 in the officer’s report should now be deleted, as it no longer applied.

The Committee attached two additional conditions in respect of SUDS and Graywater drainage.

The recommendation for no objection subject to the Consultation and Informatives was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That no objection has been raised subject to the consultations and informatives set out in the officer’s report and the Addendum Sheet and the following additional considerations:

SUDS:

No development shall take place on site until details of the incorporation of sustainable urban drainage have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall thereafter be installed on site and thereafter permanently retained and maintained.

Reason - To ensure that surface water run off is handled as close to its source as possible in compliance with policy 4A.14 of the London Plan (February 2008) /if appropriate/ and to ensure the development does not increase the risk of flooding contrary to Policy OE8 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007), polices 4A.12 and 4A.13 of the London Plan (February 2008) and PPS25.

Grey Water Recycling:

Prior to commencement of development details showing how grey water recycling facilities will be built into the design of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved grey water recycling facilities shall be maintained and retained for the lifetime of the building.

Reason - In order to provide a sustainable form of development and promote water conservation in compliance with policies 4A.9, 4A.11 and 4A.14 of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

P5 CAR PARK SEALAND ROAD HEATHROW AIRPORT

Erection of an Energy Centre comprising two buildings (Energy Centre

Building and Operations Building) and associated infrastructure (Consultation under Schedule 2, Part 18 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995).

66849/APP/2010/479

Officers drew the Committee’s attention to the Addendum Sheet to note that comments had been received from the Environment Agency and that informative 6 in the officer’s report should now be deleted as it no longer applied.

The Committee attached two additional conditions in respect of SUDS and Graywater drainage.

The recommendation for no objection subject to the Consultation and Informatives was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That no objection has been raised subject to the consultations and informatives set out in the officer’s report and the Addendum Sheet and the following additional conditions:

SUDS – WORDING TO BE PROVIDED

Reason - WORDING TO BE PROVIDED

Graywater drainage - WORDING TO BE PROVIDED

Reason - WORDING TO BE PROVIDED

Application for a new planning permission to replace extant planning permission ref. 59189/APP/2005/3476 (Erection of a four storey building for a mixed use development comprising retail units (C1) at ground floor and 54 residential units on the upper floors (C3) with basement parking, involving demolition of existing buildings)in order to extend the time limit for implementation of the planning permission for a further 3 years from the date of approval

59189/APP/2010/403

In introducing the report, officers highlighted to the Committee that the difference of 20 metres between the elevations were considered to be appropriate at the time the HADAS was adopted.  Members were advised to note that the changes that had been highlighted were those that were specific to the conditions that were part of this scheme, as set out in the Addendum Sheet.

In response to a query about the submitted plans, officers advised that there were uncertainties in respect of the proposed parking encroaching into the public highway. Therefore, officers would need to seek clarification over this matter and report the outcome back to a future Committee meeting.

In view of the issue highlighted, it was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for clarification on the encroachment of the proposed parking into the public highway. On being put to the vote, the application was deferred.

Resolved – That the application be deferred for clarification on the issue of encroachment of the proposed parking into the public highway, and the outcome to be report to a future Committee meeting.

LAND AT 92 - 104 HIGH STREET YIEWSLEY

Application for a new planning permission to replace extant planning

permission ref. 59189/APP/2005/3476 (Erection of a four storey building for a mixed use development comprising retail units (C1) at ground floor and 54 residential units on the upper floors (C3) with basement parking, involving demolition of existing buildings)in order to extend the time limit for implementation of the planning permission for a further 3 years from the date of approval

59189/APP/2010/403

In introducing the report, officers highlighted to the Committee that the difference of 20 metres between the elevations were considered to be appropriate at the time the HADAS was adopted.  Members were advised to note that the changes that had been highlighted were those that were specific to the conditions that were part of this scheme, as set out in the Addendum Sheet.

In answer to a query as to why condition1 could not be changed to 2 years, officer’s advised that following demolition, a large hole had remained in the centre of the development area.

The Legal Advisor, commented that Statutory Instrument introduced in 2009 was to encourage developers to use their time. Reduction of this time might be considered to be disproportionate.

In response to a query about the submitted plans, officers advised that there were uncertainties in respect of the proposed parking encroaching into the public highway. Officers would need to seek clarification over this matter and report back the outcome back to a future Committee meeting.

In view of this development, it was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for clarification on the encroachment of the proposed parking into the public highway. On being put to the vote, the application was deferred.

Resolved – That the application be deferred for clarification on the issue of encroachment of the proposed parking into the public highway, and the outcome to be report to a future Committee meeting.

Single storey outbulding to rear for use as store/ playroom/gym

(Retrospective application)

16785/APP/2009/2719

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.

18 HAMILTON ROAD HAYES

Single storey outbulding to rear for use as store/ playroom/gym

(Retrospective application)

16785/APP/2009/2719

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

Resolved – That the application for be Refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Change of use of ground and first floor from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services)

36976/APP/2010/353

In introducing the report, officers advised that Policy S11 established threshold uses of 70% and the proposed development would exceed this to 75%.  It was explained that the harm associated with the loss of A1 use, the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) targeted the policy toward retaining A1 uses to ensure the viability of the town was maintained.  It was noted that the Uxbridge town centre was relatively vibrant.

The Chairman commented that there was a difference between 24 metres and 12 metres and considered that this would have a material impact on the viability and functioning of the town centre and that the drawings submitted were out of date.

Officers advised that the town centre information had been provided at the time of the submission of the planning application and that the town centre retail study had been prepared prior to the submission of the application. It demonstrated that the town centre was vibrant and officers were of the opinion that the scheme would not materially harm the town centre’s continued vibrancy.

A Member added that this development would enable people to access the bank even after the Pavilion was closed in the evenings, and that the amount of the variety of units within the Chimes should ease any concerns about viability of the town centre.

Members were advised that PPS 4 (last year) Paragraph 10 – set out the government objectives for setting a prosperous economy and that this application met those objectives, as it was very different to the model banking, as it was offering greater competition to outside of normal hours to an existing vibrant town centre.

The Committee amended condition 3 to ensure that, should the applicant cease trading, the use would be converted back to A1 use.

The recommendation for approval subject to condition 3 being amended 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, amendments to condition 3 and in the Addendum sheet.

50 HIGH STREET UXBRIDGE

Change of use of ground and first floor from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services)

36976/APP/2010/353

In introducing the report, officers advised that Policy S11 established threshold uses of 70% and the proposed development would exceed this

to 75%.  It was explained that the exceeded threshold was balanced on the basis that the 2 proposed units would be stand-alone with separate entrances. In respect of the harm associated with the loss of A1 use, it was noted that the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) targeted the policy toward retaining A1 uses to ensure the viability of the town was maintained but that Uxbridge town centre was a relatively vibrant.

The Chairman commented that there was a difference between 24 metres and 12 metres and considered that this would have a material impact on the viability and functioning of the town centre and that the drawings submitted were out of date.

Officers advised that the information had been provided at the time of the planning of the town centre when the report was originally prepared, and this demonstrated that the town centre had continued to be vibrant.

A Member added that this development would enable people to access the bank even after the Pavilion was closed in the evenings, and that the amount of the variety of units within the Chimes should ease any concerns about viability of the town centre.

Members were advised that PPS 4 (last year) Para 10 – (check with Nigel) set out the government objectives for setting a prosperous economy and that this application met those objectives as it was very different to the model banking, as it was offering greater competition to outside of normal hours to an existing vibrant town centre.

The Committee amended condition 3 to ensure that, should the applicant cease trading, the use would be converted back to A1 use.

The recommendation for approval subject to condition 3 being amended 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, amendments to condition 3 and in the Addendum sheet.

Resolved - That decision on the enforcement report be deferred for clarification.

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

Resolved – That decision on the report be deferred for further clarification.

Resolved

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

1.                  That the Committee resolved to release their decision and the reasons for it outlined in this report be released into the public domain, solely for the purpose of issuing the formal enforcement notice to the individual concerned.

ENFORCEMENT REPORT

Resolved

1.                  That enforcement action 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 be released into the public domain, solely for the purpose of issuing the formal enforcement notice to the individual concerned.