Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Edwards and Tuckwell. Councillors Chapman and Haggar were present as their substitutes.

Councillor Melvin declared a pecuniary interest in respect of item 9: Northwood Recreation Ground, in that she was a member of the club.

Councillor Melvin declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 10: Northwood College, due to prior involvement.

Councillor Melvin left the room when the above items were determined.

Councillor Melvin declared a pecuniary interest in respect of item 9: Northwood Recreation Ground, in that she was a member of the club.

Councillor Melvin declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 10: Northwood College, due to prior involvement.

Councillor Melvin left the room when the above items were determined.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 9 May and 15 May 2019 be approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meetings held on 9 May and 15 May 2019 be approved as a correct record.

The Chairman advised that an urgent item had been added as Agenda B.

The Chairman advised that an urgent item had been added as Agenda B.

It was confirmed that all items were marked as Part I and would therefore be considered in public.

It was confirmed that all items were marked as Part I and would therefore be considered in public.

Alterations and conversion of the Manor Lodge into 2 No. 4-bedroom houses; conversion of the Stable Building into 6 No. 1-bedroom and 2 No. 2-bedroom cottages; conversion of the Office Barn into 1 No. studio flat, 1 No. 1- bedroom flat,  2 No. 2-bedroom houses and 1 No. 3-bedroom house; retention of the Granary Building and conversion to garden store; upgrade of boundary treatments; reinstatement of yard pond, together with associated parking and landscaping. (Application for Listed Building Consent).

Recommendations: Approval

Applications ref. 27256/APP/2017/3723 & 27256/APP/2017/3721 were considered together.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That application ref. 27256/APP/2017/3723 be approved; and

2.    That application ref. 27256/APP/2017/37231 be approved, subject to conditions.

Alterations and conversion of the Manor Lodge into 2 No. 4-bedroom houses; conversion of the Stable Building into 6 No. 1-bedroom and 2 No. 2-bedroom cottages; conversion of the Office Barn into 1 No. studio flat, 1 No. 1- bedroom flat, 2 No. 2-bedroom houses and 1 No. 3-bedroom house; retention of the Granary Building and conversion to garden store; upgrade of boundary treatments; reinstatement of yard pond, together with associated parking and landscaping. (Application for Listed Building Consent).

Agenda items 6 & 7 were considered together.

Officers introduced the reports and addendum, and advised of the site layout and listed buildings on the site, together with the proposed alterations and retentions. Officers highlighted that reports of anti-social behaviour and issues with refuse were being addressed by the creation of a dedicated bin store area. Vehicle access to the site would remain as existing, with access directly into the Great Barn’s car park space, which was to be retained. The applications had been through extensive consultation and a number of objections had been received, including from local residents and the English Heritage Trust, and these objections had been addressed as set out in the report. The officer recommended that the applications be approved.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Points highlighted included:

·         The petitioner was attending the meeting in his capacity as Chairman of the Friends of the Great Barn.

·         The Great Barn was afforded the highest level of protection by national policy. Historic England stated that all buildings and other structures that pre-dated 1948 that were within the curtilage of a listed building were to be treated as part of that listed building.

·         The buildings proposed to be altered as part of the application were within the curtilage of the Great Barn, and should be considered as Grade I buildings.

·         The loss of office space was referred to within the report. The new draft London Plan stated that change of use from non-residential to residential should only be permitted if a satisfactory residential environment could be achieved, met demand, and was consistent with other objectives, including the contribution of the existing use of those objects. This site did not fall into these categories.

·         The site was used for community events, and often attended by coach parties. Coaches parked behind the Barn, without issue.

·         When the decision on the proposed 3^rd runway at Heathrow was finalised, there was no reason why the existing buildings could not be used as offices. The buildings were currently being used as offices.

·         The applications were contrary to the heritage objectives of the Local Plan in protecting conservation.

·         No evidence had been submitted that demonstrated more appropriate community or employment uses had been considered before proceeding with a residential scheme, and options were many, including a community hall, library, or post office etc. These uses would be subject to lottery funding and grants, which would further help to regenerate this area of Harmondsworth.

·         The report stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Alterations and conversion of the Manor Lodge into 2 No. 4-bedroom houses; conversion of the Stable Building into 6 No. 1-bedroom and 2 No. 2-bedroom cottages; conversion of the Office Barn into 1 No. studio flat, 1 No. 1- bedroom flat,  2 No. 2-bedroom houses and 1 No. 3-bedroom house; retention of the Granary Building and conversion to garden store; upgrade of boundary treatments; reinstatement of yard pond, together with associated parking and landscaping.

Recommendations: Approve + Sec106

The item was considered with agenda item 6.

Alterations and conversion of the Manor Lodge into 2 No. 4-bedroom houses; conversion of the Stable Building into 6 No. 1-bedroom and 2 No. 2-bedroom cottages; conversion of the Office Barn into 1 No. studio flat, 1 No. 1- bedroom flat, 2 No. 2-bedroom houses and 1 No. 3-bedroom house; retention of the Granary Building and conversion to garden store; upgrade of boundary treatments; reinstatement of yard pond, together with associated parking and landscaping.

The item was considered with agenda item 6.

Redevelopment of the site to provide three buildings ranging from 2 to 10 storeys in height delivering 331 residential units and 710 sq.m of ground floor commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 or D2), including the provision of private and communal amenity areas, child play space, car parking, secure cycle parking, refuse storage areas and other associated development (AMENDED MAY 2019).

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to conditions.

Redevelopment of the site to provide three buildings ranging from 2 to 10 storeys in height delivering 331 residential units and 710 sq.m of ground floor commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 or D2), including the provision of private and communal amenity areas, child play space, car parking, secure cycle parking, refuse storage areas and other associated development (AMENDED MAY 2019).

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the application had been deferred from a previous Committee meeting to allow for a site visit which had taken place on Friday 14 June 2019. The amendments to the scheme following the last meeting were summarised within the report and addendum. The addendum set out amendments to the Heads of Terms, including 35% of affordable housing and the prohibition of parking permits for future owners/occupiers (excluding blue badges).

By way of a verbal update, the officer proposed that condition 4 be amended to mandate a brick construction material.

Issues of overlooking had been resolved via the re-siting of a staircase and the setting of homes further away from nearby residential properties, together with the installation of a non-synthetic exclusion zone. Concerns over size and bulk had also been addressed following a reduction in the size of the development. A framework delivery and service management plan had been provided, which focussed on ensuring that refuse arrangements met requirements. Management of the commercial property was deemed satisfactory. In addition, the applicant was proposing to install higher acoustic fencing.

In response to questions raised at the site visit, the officer confirmed that the building line was coming forward slightly, into line with the industrial building line and the demise of no. 37’s site boundary.  The separation distance to 19 Chalfont Road was confirmed as 27 metres, and distances to other properties on Chalfont road had been improved.

The scheme sought to focus the majority of site A’s height away from existing developments, with the expectation that site B would be released from commercial use for residential use, for delivery of a more cohesive development between the two sites.

For these reasons, the application was recommended for approval.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Points raised included:

·         The development would result in increased pedestrians and vehicles, which would have a detrimental impact on air quality for residents, in what was already an air quality focussed area.

·         The size and scale of the proposal was not in keeping with the context and character of the local area. The proposed scheme was greater than the Council’s recommendation of 110 units per hectare.

·         Hayes needed low-density family housing. The scheme would not meet this demand. Hillingdon was ahead of its housing targets, so this scheme was not needed.

·         The proposal made insufficient provision for parking, adding to pressure on local roads.

·         Traffic would increase congestion in the area. There was no impact assessment included within the officer’s report.

·         The development was subject to the common risks of fire associated with high-rise buildings.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Proposed side extension and installation of ramp

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Proposed side extension and installation of ramp

Members considered the application, which was recommended for approval.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

The erection of a 4-storey block to accommodate a new science and sixth form centre, and the re-surfacing of the play space fronting Vincent House to facilitate car parking with associated works

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

The erection of a 4-storey block to accommodate a new science and sixth form centre, and the re-surfacing of the play space fronting Vincent House to facilitate car parking with associated works

Officers introduced the report and addendum, highlighting that the application had been deferred from a previous Committee meeting to allow for a site visit, which took place on Friday 14 June 2019. Officers confirmed that revisions relating to the scheme’s design had been submitted by the applicant, and included change of materials, roof design, and the link to the nearby locally listed building.

In addition, the applicant had circulated details of the community benefits that they felt would result from the development. However, some of the purported benefits were policy requirements, for example employment generation.

It was confirmed that, in line with NPPF guidance, the Committee must determine whether the application would promote sufficient public benefits to outweigh any potential harm to the area. It was felt that the potential public benefits did not outweigh the harm caused by the development, which included concerns over size, scale, bulk, height, design, proximity to listed buildings and impact on traffic and highways. For these reasons, the application was recommended for refusal.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in support of the application. Points raised included:

·         At the site visit, comparison was made to the emerging TfL scheme at Northwood Station. To confirm, the school’s scheme was discrete in size and scope, and had support from residents, the residents association, Councillors and the local MP. The TfL scheme was located in a prominent location, whereas the proposed science building within a school site setting on a secondary road.

·         The need for the new building was immediate, and without the building all science facilities would need to be removed from the campus.

·         Following meetings with Council planning officers, a number of amendments had been made to the design of the scheme, in order to make the project more palatable to Members.

·         Regarding the height and mass of the science building, the road was on a gradient, and so the ground floor would actually sit below the level of the road. The height of the building was similar to that of the adjacent building and the recessed top floor could not be seen from the road.

·         The building was not out of keeping with the local area.

·         The building was needed to promote science within the school and address the gender imbalance that existed within stem related fields.

·         The building could not be any smaller, as the current design showed science classes to be 10sqm smaller than recommended by the DfE.

·         The glazed link to the adjacent listed building, this was required for access to toilets.

·         A site feasibility study showed that the only suitable position for the science building was in the proposed location.

·         Planning officers had confirmed that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the conservation area. Regarding the NPPF test regarding public benefits, these benefits were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Change of use of redundant equestrian (former agricultural) buildings to B1 (light industrial) and B8 (storage) use with parking for up to 32 vehicles and associated landscaping (Retrospective application).

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Change of use of redundant equestrian (former agricultural) buildings to B1 (light industrial) and B8 (storage) use with parking for up to 32 vehicles and associated landscaping (Retrospective application).

Officers introduced the report and addendum. It was confirmed that the site had been in operation for some time, and conditions were proposed to ensure that use of the site would not be intensified. The scheme met the NPPF test for re-using buildings within a Green Belt, and the proposal would also include a formalised parking arrangement to address previously haphazard parking. The application was therefore recommended for approval.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Modification of the s.106 obligation planning application reference 585/APP/2009/2752 Redevelopment of Former RAF Uxbridge to include the following amendments:(a) Definitions in Clause 1 (Interpretation) - Affordable Housing Provider and Registered Social Landlord (b) Effect of the Agreement - Clause 2.4.1; and (c)The mortgagee in possession clause -The Affordable Housing Schedule (Schedule 4 Paragraph 12.1  and 12.2) as previously varied.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Modification of the s.106 obligation planning application reference

585/APP/2009/2752 Redevelopment of Former RAF Uxbridge to include the following amendments:(a) Definitions in Clause 1 (Interpretation) – Affordable Housing Provider and Registered Social Landlord (b) Effect of the Agreement - Clause 2.4.1; and (c)The mortgagee in possession clause -The Affordable Housing Schedule (Schedule 4 Paragraph 12.1 and 12.2) as previously varied.

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the application was a clerical change to the S106 agreement, and was therefore recommended for approval.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Demolition of existing building and redevelopment to provide a building up to

10 storeys, with 868 sq.m of commercial or community space (Use Class B1

or D1) at ground floor level and 81 (44 x 1-bed, 28 x 2-bed and 9 x 3-bed)

residential units to the upper floors, with associated landscaping, access, car

parking and cycle parking.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Demolition of existing building and redevelopment to provide a building up to 10 storeys, with 868 sq.m of commercial or community space (Use Class B1 or D1) at ground floor level and 81 (44 x 1-bed, 28 x 2-bed and 9 x 3-bed) residential units to the upper floors, with associated landscaping, access, car parking and cycle parking.

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the site was directly adjacent to the Nestle site. The proposed scheme was felt to be overdevelopment of the site and would compromise surrounding sites, and so was recommended for refusal.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.