Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Peter Curling and Councillor Henry Higgins with Councillors Manjit Khatra and Alan Chapman acting as substitutes.

Councillor Janet Duncan declared a pecuniary interest in Item 6 as she was a Governor of Frays Academy Trust and Laurel Lane School was part of the Trust. She had also worked with residents who had objections to the proposal to help them express these in planning terms.

None.

None.

All items were considered in Part 1.

New 2 storey Junior School (5 forms of entry) including new vehicular and pedestrian accesses, alterations to an existing footpath, creation of pick-up/drop-off area, associated car parking, landscaping, playground, provision of a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) and ancillary development.

Recommendation : Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

New 2 storey Junior School (5 forms of entry) including new vehicular and pedestrian accesses, alterations to an existing footpath, creation of pick-up/drop-off area, associated car parking, landscaping, playground, provision of a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) and ancillary development.

Officers introduced the report, highlighting the changes set out in the addendum.

The Committee were informed that planning permission was being sought for the erection of a new school and that in summary, the benefits of providing the school in the proposed location outweighed the harm which would arise from the development.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, the representative of the petition in objection to the application was invited to address the meeting.

The petitioner made the following points:

• The proposal involved the loss of green space and trees.
• The existing and committed schools expansions were sufficient to meet the needs.
• Existing schools elsewhere could be extended to meet the educational needs.
• The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character of the surrounding area.
• The construction works would cause noise and pollution.
• The proposal would significantly affect traffic and vehicular movements.
• The proposal did not incorporate adequate parking provision.
• The redesign of access and egress points would pose a danger to highway, pedestrian and cyclists safety.
• The proposal would have a significant impact on local residents.
• Setting the school back into the existing site would be the best solution.
•  The proposed site, was the wrong location for the school.

The applicant did not attend the meeting.

Ward Councillors addressed the meeting and the following points were raised:

·         The proposed location was wrong and the school should be built at the Laurel Lane School site.

·         The proposal would create a massive amount of congestion on local roads.

·         The proposal would create parking problems.

·         Traffic alleviation measures would not be available at the proposed site.

·         School Governors were wrongly advised that the school was on Green Belt land.

·         If the proposal was started, there would be no way of stopping it.

·         There would be a massive impact to local residents and on neighbouring properties.

·         The decision should be deferred for a site visit.

·         Councillors remained to be convinced that the proposal could not be relocated to the Laurel Lane School playing fields.

In the course of discussions, the Committee asked about the arrangements in place for the footpath and the changes to the right of way mentioned in the report. In response, Officers explained that the legal procedure to divert a footpath was a lengthy one and officers had already begun this process.

In relation to the location the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA), the Committee expressed concern about its hours of use to ensure that it did not have detrimental impact on local residents. In response, Officers explained that a standard condition could be used which had been applied to other MUGA sites in the Borough.

With regards to highways issues, the Committee expressed concern about traffic congestion and what remedial action might be taken. Officers explained that to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

Section 73 Amendment Application to vary the internal layout of the Community Centre, to retain pillars and subdivide the approved open plan layout (varying condition 11 of permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 which approved the re-development of the former RAF Eastcote site).

Recommendation: Refusal

Section 73 Amendment Application to vary the internal layout of the Community Centre, to retain pillars and subdivide the approved open plan layout (varying condition 11 of permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 which approved the re-development of the former RAF Eastcote site).

Officers introduced the report, highlighting the changes set out in the addendum.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, the representative of the petition in objection to the application and applicant / agent were invited to address the meeting. Neither party attended the meeting.

A Ward Councillor made the following points:

·         The residents of Pembroke Park Estate were informed that the building would be constructed as a Community Centre for all tenants. It now appeared that the Developer had changed its position as it had reapplied for new planning permission to convert the building into numerous office spaces.

·         The new proposals would not benefit local residents or the community.

·         The main aim of local residents was to use the anticipated Community Centre to engage local residents and thereby reduce instances of anti-social behaviour.

·         Other functions for the Community facility might include: after school sessions, bingo and games afternoons for the elderly as well as services for young parents and babies.

The Committee noted that in this instance, the Developer had chosen to amend the plans and the internal layout of the building was no longer suitable for use as a Community Centre. Members were mindful that the original intention had been to allow the building to be used for the benefit of the whole community and if the current proposal were approved a valuable community asset would be denied to local residents.

It was moved, seconded and agreed that the application be Refused.

Resolved -

That the application be Refused.

Erection of extensions at roof level, erection of external bridge links on the rear elevation and internal works associated with the change of use of part of enterprise house to create 96 residential units (class C3) and associated car parking, retention of approximately 4,500 sqm (GIA) of employment use (Use classes B1 (a-c) and B2 with ancillary cafe) at ground and first floor levels and cafe.

Recommendation : Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

Erection of extensions at roof level, erection of external bridge links on the rear elevation and internal works associated with the change of use of part of enterprise house to create 96 residential units (class C3) and associated car parking, retention of approximately 4,500 sqm (GIA) of employment use (Use classes B1 (a-c) and B2 with ancillary cafe) at ground and first floor levels and cafe.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the changes set out in the addendum.

Officers explained that the application site was a distinctive six storey, Grade II listed industrial building within the Thorn EMI conservation area. It was noted that the building was in a poor state of repair and as a result had been included on English Heritage's, Heritage at risk register. The Committee noted that the site was located opposite the Vinyl Factory site which was deemed to be the flagship regeneration scheme in Hayes.

Officers explained that the proposal was for the restoration, refurbishment, conversion and extension of Enterprise House to provide a mixed use scheme, and although the residential scheme was not ideal in terms of offering an open character, the commercial uses of the building on the ground and first floors would be more open.

Officers explained that key issues for consideration included the principle of the development (including the benefits of bringing the heritage asset back into use) and the living conditions for future occupiers.

Although no petition had been received, the concerns of a Ward Councillor who could not attend were summarised at the meeting and the following points were raised:

·         As the proposal did not incorporate sufficient amenity space or open space close to the site the application should be refused.

The Committee raised concerns about air quality, noise insulation and the health impact these factors would have on future occupiers. In response, Officers explained that the Environmental Protection Unit had looked at various detailed reports and subject to these conditions were satisfied that these grounds for objection could be overcome.

In relation to amenity space, Officers confirmed that the provision of an internal childrens play area within the cafe area had been secured by condition and the development was immediately opposite a number of publicly accessible childrens play areas which would provided within The Old Vinyl Factory redevelopment opposite. As such, it was the Officer view that the development would provide adequate provision of on site play space for young children.

With regards to highways matters, Officers explained that the Council’s Highways Engineer had not raised any objections to the proposals and they complied with relevant planning policy.

Discussing the application, the Committee appreciated that its decision was a delicate balancing act between conservation, redevelopment and the need to provide new housing. On balance, the Committee agreed that bringing a building of architectural merit back into use, along with the provision of additional housing and business space would benefit local residents.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote agreed by 6 votes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

Erection of extensions at roof level, erection of external bridge links on the rear elevation and internal works associated with the change of use of part of enterprise house to create 96 residential units (class C3) and associated car parking, retention of approximately 4,500 sqm (GIA) of employment use (Class B1 and B8) at ground and first floor levels and cafe. (Application for Listed Building Consent).

Recommendation : Approval

Erection of extensions at roof level, erection of external bridge links on the rear elevation and internal works associated with the change of use of part of enterprise house to create 96 residential units (class C3) and associated car parking, retention of approximately 4,500 sqm (GIA) of employment use (Class B1 and B8) at ground and first floor levels and cafe. (Application for Listed Building Consent).

The Officer presentation for the previous item covered both planning applications for Enterprise House. Having previously agreed to approve the outline planning application, it was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote agreed that the application be approved.

Resolved -

That the application be Approved.

Demolition of existing public house and erection of 38 flats and 237sqm of retail floorspace with parking, landscaping and amenity space.

Recommendation : Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

Demolition of existing public house and erection of 38 flats and 237sqm of retail floorspace with parking, landscaping and amenity space.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the changes set out in the addendum.

Officers explained that the proposed redevelopment of the site for a residential led mixed use was acceptable in principle.  Furthermore, Officers considered that the design of the proposal was acceptable both in respect of its character and appearance within the street scene and its relationship with nearby listed structures.

The Committee was informed that the Council's Highways Engineer considered the scheme was acceptable in terms of highways impacts, and that subject to a condition requiring the installation of a small number of car parking stackers, the parking layout and level of parking provision was acceptable. The Committee noted that the scheme had not provided parking provision for motor cycles and requested Officers to include this through the inclusion of an additional condition.

In response to a Committee question concerning the residential units, Officers confirmed that the development provided adequate internal floorspace and external amenity space for future occupiers.

The Committee raised privacy concerns in relation to the window in Unit 5 and requested Officers to investigate alternative glazing options and for these options to be circulated to the Chairman and Labour Lead for agreement outside the meeting.

In the course of discussions, the Committee agreed that the proposal would maintain appropriate relationships with surrounding buildings, provide appropriate levels of inclusive design and also maintain an active ground floor frontage to Station Road, the main town centre frontage.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote agreed that the application be approved as set out in the Officer report, addendum and amendments listed below:

Additional informative: You are advised that doors which open outwards over footpaths or the highway should be avoided.

Add Standard Parking Allocation Condition.

Amend condition... to add in 2 motorcycle spaces.

Include need for details of barriers/setback on rooftop amenity sapces and add reference to Policy BE24 into condition 5.

Alternative option for window treatment for unit 5 to be sought by head of planning and 2 options to be sent to the Chair and Labour Lead for agreement and condition 9 amended as necessary.