Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Janet Duncan, with Cllr. John Oswell substituting.

Cllr John Morgan declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 8 as he was a member of 'Ruislip Woods Management Advisory Group'. Cllr. Morgan remained in the room and voted on the item.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2015 were agreed as a correct record.

The Chairman advised that he had agreed a request to consider an additional item that had not been on the originally published agenda. This related to Pronto Industrial Estate and 585 - 591 Uxbridge Road, Hayes.

The reason for urgency of the item was as follows:

The  process allowed for under Section 106ba of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) only provides a period of 28 days for the Local Planning Authority to make a determination unless otherwise agreed with the applicant. In this instance an extension of time was agreed with the applicant subject to the application being included on the agenda of this meeting for determination.

It was confirmed that all items on the agenda were Part I and would be heard in public.

The continuation of existing recycling operations at land to the North and South of New Years Green Lane for an organic composting facility operation to handle a maximum throughput of up to 75,000 tonnes per annum of organic waste for a temporary period of five years.

Recommendation: Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

The continuation of existing recycling operations at land to the North and South of New Years Green Lane for an organic composting facility operation to handle a maximum throughput of up to 75,000 tonnes per annum of organic waste for a temporary period of five years.

Officers introduced the report, noting that there was no addendum for the item. The application had previously been considered by the North Planning Committee on 8 May 2013. Members had resolved to grant planning permission, subject to referral to the Secretary of State and referral back to the Mayor, in addition to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement.

The application had now been referred to the Major Applications Planning Committee for final determination. It was noted that the application had been updated to reflect changes in policy context since initial submission.

The application complied with adopted policy and was, therefore, recommended for approval by the Committee.

Members noted that there had been no significant objections to the application when it had first been heard by Committee two years ago and that there were now no objections to the application, or to the proposed S106 agreement.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved as per the officers' recommendation.

Erection of 249 dwellings comprising 3 studio apartments, 92 one-bed apartments, 130 two-bed apartments and 24 three-bed apartments together with associated parking and landscaping, and all details required by Conditions 2 and 3 relating to the reserved matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping.

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of 249 dwellings comprising 3 studio apartments, 92 x 1bed apartments, 130 x 2 bed apartments and 24 x 3 bed apartments, together with associated parking and landscaping and all details required by Conditions 2 and 3 relating to the reserved matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping.

Officers introduced the report and referred Members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated. It was noted that the application was a reserved matters permission for a further residential phase of an existing application. Permission was sought for 249 dwellings, in accordance with previously granted outline consent.

It was noted that there was some discrepancy between the plans and the officer report in terms of the number of parking spaces proposed.This was because of the significant number of plans associated with the application. The figures given in the officer report were correct.

In addition to the amendment to condition 2 and deletion of amendment 3 set out in the addendum, officer's in their verbal update suggested that a condition be added in relation to maintenance and availability of an electronic gate. These were agreed.

The overall development would provide a significant number of residential units, in accordance with the outline consent. Therefore, the application was recommended for approval.

Members questioned whether the application ensured that all properties had sufficient privacy in relation to the direction that the windows of their habitable rooms faced. Officers demonstrated how the front windows of the houses on one side of the road were angled in order to alleviate any privacy concerns. The Committee reflected that the application would provide much needed housing.

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

RESOLVED - That the application be approved as per the officers' recommendation,subject to: 

- The replacement of condition 2 and deletion of condition 3 as set out on the tabled Addendum Sheet.  

- Inclusion of an additional condition to secure appropriate ongoing maintenance and availability of the electric entrance gate (inclusive of a release mechanism in event of failure).

Demolition of the existing boat house building and erection of a new boat house building with associated external works.

Recommendation: Approval

Demolition of the existing boat house building and erection of a new boat house building with associated external Works.

Officers introduced the report. The application was for full planning permission for the demolition of an existing boat house building and the erection of a new boat house building associated with the running of Ruislip Lido. It was noted that the footprint of the proposed building and its elevations were similar to the existing structure.

Members were referred to the addendum for the item. This provided an additional consultation response received from a local resident and a comment from Ruislip Resident's Association. The latter requested that the existing cupola feature be replicated on the new roof. Officer's advised that replication of the cupola feature was not included in the submitted plans and that here was no justification on planning grounds to delay approval of the application because of this. It was proposed that, subject to the agreement of the Committee, an informative would be added to the decision notice requesting the use of appropriate roof cladding.

The proposal was considered to comply with relevant Council and London Plan policies and with the objectives within the National Planning Policy Framework and was, therefore, recommended for approval.

Members expressed concerns about the effect of the fence at the site on the neighbouring area. Following discussion, it was agreed that this would be referred to ward Councillors and to the Green Spaces team for further consideration. This would be separate from the planning application.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, as per the officer's recommendations, subject to: 

- The addition of an informative to the wording of condition 5 (materials) to highlight the Committee's desire to see the use of Cedar Cladding similar to that used on the adjacent Woodland centre. 

- The addition of an informative highlighting the desire of the local community to see the existing cupola feature replicated on the roof of the new boathouse. The committee would therefore like to highlight their encouragement for the applicant to investigate whether alternative proposals, or amendments to the existing proposal, might enable the retention of this feature.

Further to the granted permission 4404/APP/2014/2506, the applicant seeks, under Section 106ba of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, to remove the off-site affordable housing contributions from the approved development.

Further to the granted permission 4404/APP/2014/2506, the applicant seeks, under Section 106ba of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act, to remove the off-site affordable housing contributions from the approved development.

Officers introduced the report and referred Members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated. A previous planning application for the development had been approved in June 2015. This had specified, via a Section 106 agreement, that the applicant must provide an off-site affordable housing contribution of £120,000. The applicant was seeking removal of this requirement as they argued that it made the development scheme unviable.

The Economic Viability Assessment that had been submitted as part of the Section 106 agreement was not considered to have fully demonstrated that the inclusion of the affordable housing requirement made the development unviable. It was, therefore, recommended that the application to remove the off-site affordable housing contribution requirement be refused.

The Legal Advisor confirmed that an independent assessment had not been undertaken in relation to the application currently under consideration, but that an assessment had been made by the Council's Commercial Property Service.     

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

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