Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Lavery, in whose absence Vice-Chairman Cllr Edwards chaired the meeting, and from Cllrs Morgan and Oswell, substituted by Cllrs Ahmad-Wallana and Nelson respectively.

None.

None.

All items of the meeting were considered in public.

Redevelopment of the site to provide a new three storey building containing 26 flats (Class C3) with associated parking, balconies, landscaping and rear communal amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval

This item was approved, subject to satisfactory information on drainage and flooding management being provided to the Chairman of the Committee and Labour Lead.

Officers introduced the application and, noting the addendum, provided an overview of the development. It was noted that, in the view of officers, the reasons for the previous refusal had been overcome. Officers additionally clarified that the development featured no basement.

Petitioners, speaking in objection, raised the following points:

·         Though the omission of the roof garden was welcome, the proposal remained a massive overdevelopment which would not harmonise with the area. It would dominate the area, and therefore previous reasons for refusal remained.

·         The scale of the development, with 120 units per hectare, contravened the Hillingdon Local Plan.

·         The number of parking spaces was insufficient to accommodate visitors, and access to the car park at the rear would be unpleasant for neighbours, and the proposed light, wooden fencing was insufficient. As the car park was not secure, this would lead to problems for neighbouring houses.

·         Officers had given insufficient attention to traffic, especially given the new school development, and Members should note the cumulative effect of new development and not consider this application in isolation.

·         The crossing into the car park would be dangerous.

·         The building would lead to loss of light for neighbours

·         In a leafy, suburban area the development was not appropriate.

In response to a Member question, petitioners claimed that the loss of light was not minimal, as officers had stated, as the building height was only being reduced by 1 metre.

In response, the agent for the applicant raised the following points:

·         Regarding height, scale and bulk, the proposed 4^th floor had been removed, which was actually a 3.4 metre reduction. The roof was pitched to match neighbouring properties, and was not overbearing.

·         The proposed development had been reduced by 4 units, and the roof terrace removed.

·         The car park had been redesigned to permit a 3 metre planting area between cars and Sutton Court properties.

·         The scheme met tests for preserving daylight and not overshadowing. It preserved the residential amenity for neighbours.

·         The development had 60% more amenity space than guidelines.

·         The Highways Officer had raised no concerns regarding parking or impact on the highway.

·         In conclusion, the application fully overcame the previous reasons fro refusal.

A Member of the Committee asked for clarification of any reduction in sunlight to nearby properties, to which the agent drew attention to a slide showing that the proposed development was within the 25 degree angle for properties to the north, and explained that the ridge height was lower than the current pub.

A Ward Councillor, speaking in objection, addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         Though the designs represented an improvement on previous plans, it was in essence the same scheme, still excessive in scale, bulk, massing, and detrimental to the surrounding area.

·         Local properties were mostly Victorian terraces, and the development would not harmonise with the local area.

·         The proposed parking was within guidelines, but the notion that the overspill would be acceptable was questionable.

·         Even with minor greening, the parking was still concentrated near  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Variation of condition 2 of planning permission reference 24373/APP/2014/1946 dated 13/3/2015 (redevelopment of the GAA Sports Grounds), to allow a reduction in the overall length of the main stand from 136.8m to 101.4m; a reduction in the overall covered area from 54.6m to 39m; removal of proposed terrace on the north boundary; construction of 2 step viewing area to replace the north terrace; construction of 2 step viewing area to east and west of the  main stand (Section 73  application).

Recommendation: Approval + Sec 106

This item was approved.

Officers introduced the report, noting that this was a reduction on a previously approved scheme.

A motion for approval was moved, seconded and, upon being put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

Change of use of an existing storage depot (Class B8 Storage and Distribution) into a waste transfer station (Sui Generis Waste Handling).

Recommendation: Approval

This item was approved.

Officers introduced the report, and noted the addendum. It was noted that the facility was only for the transfer of waste, not processing, and an odour management scheme was conditioned.

A Member of the Committee noted that the facility was already operation, and as Ward Councillor they had not received any complaints from residents.

A motion for approval was moved, seconded and, upon being put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

Change of use of Unit 4 to Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHP) recycling facility and associated alterations to the external elevations, addition of an exhaust stack, storage tanks and substation.

Recommendation: Refusal

This item was refused.

Officers introduced the report, and noted the addendum as well as the fact that several Members had visited the site.

Petitioners speaking in support of the application raised the following points:

·         They were disappointed with the officer recommendation for refusal, and believed that all previous refusal reasons had been met. In addition, they had only found the officer response to the application through the report, and noted that the Air Quality Officer and Environmental Health had not rejected the scheme, but asked for further information.

·         The odour management system proposed would cost £750,000, and should not be refused on the basis of what might happen. A potential impact was not reason to assume a direct impact on residents.

·         No objections had been received from other authorities, just the officers of the Council.

Members noted that this was the first facility of its kind in the UK, and that the industry did address a societal problem.

A member of the Committee stated that the scheme did have merit, but a test facility in close proximity to a school in a built-up area was problematic. Several Members agreed that the location was inappropriate, and even a small margin of error would lead to an impact on residents. The Chairman noted that a 2% assumed failure rate, as per Defra guidance, was equivalent to 1 week, during which time the nearby school could be shut.

A motion for refusal was moved, seconded and, upon being put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.