Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Ward Councillor Devi Radia was in attendance and declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 7 as she was a Governor of Whiteheath Infant School; it was thought the Infant School had been consulted regarding the application. Cllr Radia did not speak on this item but remained in the gallery during the discussion. 

RESOLVED That: the minutes of the meeting dated 16 October 2019 be agreed as an accurate record.

None.

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

Change of use of site to a camping site (Use Class D2), alteration of existing building to provide visitors' centre, erection of seven camping pods, associated landscaping and car parking with 18 spaces.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED That: the application be refused.

Change of use of site to a camping site (Use Class D2), alteration of existing building to provide visitors’ centre, erection of seven camping pods, associated landscaping and car parking with 18 spaces.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum which detailed five additional informatives. The Council had attempted to amend the description of the development but the applicant had not agreed to this. An informative had therefore been added to the addendum (no.5) detailing what the LPA considered to be a more accurate description of the development; this was much broader and made mention of two houses and a biomass boiler on the site. Members were informed that the application site lay within Green Belt land and development of the site would result in an increase of built footprint of approximately 127 sqm. The footprint of the visitors’ centre would be 328 sqm which was considered to be excessive. It was highlighted that the proposed roof form could potentially accommodate the addition of a first floor in the future. Eight reasons for refusal were highlighted in the officer’s report.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application and highlighted residents’ concerns regarding the extremely messy site which was an eyesore. It was believed that no planning permission had been sought for one of the large houses on site, the biomass boiler and the huge pile of wood in situ; this was an additional cause for concern. Residents did not believe that the development would be a genuine camping site. Members were advised that the camping pods had insufficient sleeping areas and no utilities supplying them. Moreover, it appeared that a D2 uncontrolled camping site was being requested which it was feared would potentially resemble a traveller community site. Concerns were raised regarding the resulting noise, waste and loss of rural outlook should the application go ahead.

Members indicated that the proposal was unacceptable for the reasons highlighted. It was noted that non-standard reason for refusal 1 made reference to the impact on the Green Belt. It was agreed that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to amend non-standard reason for refusal 1 to ensure accuracy and clarity.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. It was noted that planning enforcement colleagues would need to ensure thorough consideration of all matters relating to the site.

RESOLVED That:

1)    the application be refused; and

2)    authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to re-word non-standard reason for refusal 1 to ensure accuracy and clarity.

Erection of 4 dwellings with associated parking, new crossover and all external works.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED That: the item be deferred for further re-consultation.

Erection of 4 dwellings with associated parking, new crossover and all external works.

Officers presented the report and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. It was noted that a site visit had taken place on Friday 15 November 2019. Further to the visit, the plan on page 236 of the pack had been superseded and needed to be removed. The tree officer had commented that the planned development would not have a detrimental impact on the street tree. In relation to the electricity sub-station, a route into the sub-station had been secured which would ensure continuity of service. A condition had been added to stipulate that the materials used would match those of the surrounding residential properties and would not comprise render. Members were advised that overlooking to the school playground would be minimal.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. It was stated that the application site had previously formed part of Whiteheath Junior School land.  The petitioner commented that school budgets were tight and the proposed development was short-sighted as, at some point in the future, it was likely that the school would need to be expanded further. Residents were concerned that the addition of four houses on a relatively small piece of land would result in over-development of the site. The Committee was informed that there were currently no terraced houses along Whiteheath Avenue therefore the proposed development would not be in keeping with the existing street scene. Moreover, concern was expressed that the proposed dormer windows would be front-facing; this would not be in keeping with the existing houses.

Additional concerns were expressed regarding potential overlooking to the school playground which was a safeguarding concern –the children’s safety was of paramount importance. Moreover, it was felt that the proposed development would exacerbate traffic stress in the area, particularly at school drop off / pick up times. A petition had previously been submitted expressing concerns regarding road safety; it was a dead-end road and there was little space to turn.

Ward Councillor Devi Radia was in attendance and declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item as she was a Governor of Whiteheath Infant School; it was thought the Infant School had been consulted regarding the application. As a result, Councillor Radia did not speak on this item but remained in the gallery during the discussion. 

Members commented that they were concerned regarding the impact of the proposal on the street scene. It was noted that terraced houses were a-typical and not in keeping with the area. Moreover, concerns were raised that the massing to the front would be out of kilter with the rest of the street. It was felt that the impact to number 1 could be considerable; however, it was unclear what the impact of the large wall would be, particularly in relation to overshadowing and sunlight – this was not detailed in the officer’s report. Additionally, the Committee was concerned that the use of dormers to the front was not in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Reserved matters (landscaping) pursuant to condition 2 of outline planning permission ref: 62360/APP/2017/3000 dated 27-06-19 (Section 73 application to amend condition 3 (approved plans) of planning permission ref. 62360/APP/2015/4277 dated 01-12-2016 for Outline application for the erection of a 298 room hotel (Matters reserved: Landscaping) at Terminal 2 Heathrow Airport. Changes include alterations to footprint, increase in height to include additional storey and roof top boardroom, increase in bedrooms provided from 298 to 360, relocation of elevated pedestrian link from first floor level to second floor level, revised external appearance, revised car parking, drop-off lay-by and internal re-arrangements).

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED That: the application be approved.

Reserved matters (landscaping) pursuant to condition 2 of outline planning permission ref: 62360/APP/2017/3000 dated 27/6/19.

Officers presented the report. Members raised no objections to the proposal .

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

RESOLVED That: the application be approved.

Application for the change of use from B1c and B8, to B1c, B2 and B8 for Units 2-4, including the replacement of external cladding, and internal alterations to the first-floor and alterations to access, car parking layout serving Units 5-7 and landscaping and service yards together with associated works.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED That: the application be approved.

Application for the change of use from B1c and B8 to B1c, B2 and B8 for Units 2-4, including the replacement of external cladding and internal alterations to the first floor and alterations to access, car parking layout serving Units 5-7 and landscaping and service yards together with associated works.

Officers presented the report. It was suggested that this was a positive proposal which would cause no adverse harm to the amenity.

Members requested that fire retardant cladding be used. It was noted that fire regulation requirements only applied to residential developments; however, it was suggested that an informative could be included relating to this.

The Committee expressed concerns regarding the pollution caused by HGVs and it was suggested that substantially more electrical vehicle charging points be included. It was noted that regulations regarding car parking standards applied to residential rather than commercial developments; however the Head of Planning agreed to liaise with Val Beale (the LA’s Environmental Specialist) in relation to this. Delegated authority was granted to the Head of Planning in negotiation with the Chair and the Labour Lead to agree the final wording of Condition 6.

Members requested clarification regarding the use of the term ‘Accessible’ car parking. It was confirmed that this term could be used in lieu of ‘disabled’ or ‘Blue Badge’ parking. It was agreed that the wording of Condition 7 be revised to ensure clarity.

In respect of Members’ concerns regarding noise levels, it was confirmed that the applicant would be bound to comply with the terms of the noise report submitted (Condition 3). 

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed subject to the re-wording of Conditions 6 and 7.

RESOLVED That:

1)    the application be approved;

2)    Delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning in negotiation with the Chair and Labour Lead to re-word Condition 6 (particularly in relation to the electrical vehicle component); and

3)    Delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to re-word Condition 7 (in relation to ‘accessible’ parking) for the purposes of clarity.

Erection of office building (Outline application with all matters reserved).

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED That: the application be approved.

Erection of office building (Outline application with all matters reserved)

Officers presented the report and highlighted the information in the addendum. Members were informed that this was an outline application for the fifth in a series of World Business Centre (WBC) office buildings (Use Class B1) on the southern side of the A4 Bath Road, within the boundary of Heathrow Airport. It was envisaged that this fifth building would be of a similar design to the existing four.

Councillors raised no objections or concerns regarding the proposal.

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

RESOLVED That: the application be approved.

Variation to Conditions 1 and 2 of planning application reference 34151/APP/2017/3332 (Change of use from office (Use Class B1) to 14 residential units (Use Class C3) together with ancillary car parking, cycle storage and waste and recycling storage (Prior Approval)

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED That: the application be approved.

Variation to Conditions 1 and 2 of planning application reference 34151/APP/2017/3332 - Change of use from office (Use Class B1) to 14 residential units (Use Class C3) together with ancillary car parking, cycle storage and waste and recycling storage (Prior Approval).

Officers presented the report and highlighted the addendum.

Members commented that this was a tidying up application and noted that disabled car parking spaces had been retained to the rear. It was noted that Recommendation D had been amended in the addendum to state that ‘If the Legal Agreements have not been finalised by 18 December 2019, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Regeneration and Transportation to refuse the application….’

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

RESOLVED That: the application be approved.

Change of use of 25 existing moorings from leisure to residential use, with associated works

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED That: the application be approved.

Change of use of 25 existing moorings from leisure to residential use, with associated works.

Officers presented the report. Members were advised that the proposed development was considered to be acceptable in principle and with regard to its impact on the character of the area, green belt, amenity, highways, access, security, living conditions, trees and landscaping, waste, flooding, noise, air quality, ecology and contamination. Adequate parking was proposed together with electrical charging points at the site.

Members raised no concerns regarding the application.

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

RESOLVED That: the application be approved.