Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Major Applications Planning Committee
Tuesday, 13th October, 2020 6.00 pm

Venue: VIRTUAL - Live on the Council's YouTube channel: Hillingdon London. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  01895 250636 or email (recommended):  democratic@hillingdon.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

66.

Apologies for Absence

Decision:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sansarpuri and Haggar. Councillors Birah and Haggar were present as their respective substitutes.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Sansarpuri and Haggar. Councillors Birah and Haggar were present as their respective substitutes.

67.

Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

Decision:

Councillor Tuckwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 8, Bourne Court, as he had previously held discussions with petitioners, as well and local residents regarding the site.

 

Councillor Tuckwell advised he would turn off his camera and mute his microphone when the item was considered, and would therefore take no part in the discussion or vote for the item.

Minutes:

Councillor Tuckwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 8, Bourne Court, as he had previously held discussions with petitioners, as well and local residents regarding the site.

 

Councillor Tuckwell advised he would turn off his camera and mute his microphone when the item was considered, and would therefore take no part in the discussion or vote for the item.

68.

To sign and receive the minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 124 KB

Decision:

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2020 be approved as a correct record.

Minutes:

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2020 be approved as a correct record.

69.

Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent

Decision:

It was confirmed that items 6 & 7 had been withdrawn prior to the meeting.

Minutes:

It was confirmed that items 6 & 7 had been withdrawn prior to the meeting.

70.

To confirm that the items marked in Part 1 will be considered inpublic and those items marked in Part 2 will be heard in private

Decision:

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in public.

Minutes:

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in public.

71.

St John's School - 10795/APP/2020/1218 pdf icon PDF 205 KB

Details pursuant to Condition 15 (Community Use Agreement) of planning consent; 10795/APP/2018/149 dated 04-03-2019 (Demolition of the existing sports hall and construction of a replacement sports hall to provide indoor PE and sports facilities)

 

Recommendations: Approval

Decision:

The item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

Minutes:

The item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

72.

St John's School - 10795/APP/2020/1520 pdf icon PDF 206 KB

Details pursuant to condition 17 (CPMS) of planning consent; 10795/APP/2018/149 dated 04-03-2019 (Demolition of the existing sports hall and construction of a replacement sports hall to provide indoor PE and sports facilities)

 

Recommendations: Approval

Decision:

The item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

Minutes:

The item was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

73.

Bourne Court - 11891/APP/2020/20 pdf icon PDF 436 KB

Outline planning application for the redevelopment of the site to provide 96 residential units in a single block, including access, car and cycle parking, refuse storage and amenity space, with landscape matters reserved.

 

Recommendations:  Approve + Sec 106

Decision:

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and addendum, highlighting that the application would provide 100% affordable housing. The addendum was confirmed to set out minor amendments to planning conditions. As the applications sought only 9 additional units over the previously approved scheme, with affordable housing, the application was deemed acceptable, and was therefore recommended for approval.

 

By way of written submission, petitioners objecting to the application made a number of points, including:

 

·         The latest proposed planning application aimed to infill the Blocks A and B to form one block,  increasing the number of units from 87 to 98, and reducing the number of parking spaces from 96 spaces to 64 spaces. By infilling the block, residents would face one solid wall of apartments, with no relief. 

·         The proposal would remove the open aspect of the previous plan, which was valued highly, but would also sacrifice 23 car parking spaces.

·         Apart from the two blocks of flats adjoining Bourne Court, all surrounding streets on the application side of the railway comprised houses and bungalows.  The proposed block of 98 units would change the nature of the area and street scene.

·         Parking spaces in South Ruislip were severely restricted, necessitating a residents-only parking scheme operating in most streets surrounding the site from 9-5, weekdays.  The previous application for 87 units, with 87 parking spaces, was originally deferred for further consideration, and it was considered that a 'parking allocation planning' condition was essential, and the officers report recommended a near 1:1 parking ratio to limit impact on existing residents.

·         The latest application ignored these recommendations, offering just 64 parking spaces for 87 apartments.  The addition of 2 car club spaces (only one on site) would do little to mitigate the envisaged prospective competition for parking spaces. 

·         It was understood that Clearview Homes wish to achieve the maximum density by increasing the number of units on-site. This was borne out by the progression of previous applications:

o   49 units Jan 2014

o   69 units Nov 2016

o   107 units Sept 2018  (turned down)

o   87 units June 2019

o   98 units  in 1 block 2020

·         Residents felt that the increase was unreasonable and would result in an overcrowded site with insufficient parking spaces.

·         Many local residents had expressed concern at the prospect of 100% social housing if this meant a large proportion would be rented properties.  It was hoped that the Council would support maintaining a good mix of home owners and a smaller number of rental properties to maintain the current nature of the area. 

·         The pedestrian footpath which ran from behind the substation, to the rear of Canfield Drive and out to Station Approach, no longer existed.   This had been blocked and absorbed by the new Acol Crescent site.  Consequently, there would be no pedestrian exit from this corner of the site. 

 

By way of written submission, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant made a number of points, including:

 

·         The principle of residential development on this site had already been established.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

74.

Tavistock Works - 35810/APP/2020/187 pdf icon PDF 398 KB

Redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of the existing building (Use Class B1a) and the erection of a 8-storey building and a basement to provide residential units (Use Class C3) and associated works.

 

The plans show:  Redevelopment of the site to provide 34 residential units (11 x 1-bed, 19 x 2-bed and 4 x 3-bed), 34 cycle parking spaces, 28 car parking spaces and 588 sq.m of private and communal amenity spaces with associated landscaping and works.

 

Recommendations: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED: 

 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to amend reason for refusal no. 2 to include reasons of noise and disturbance, together with the addition of Noise Policy EM8.

 

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that while officers had worked pro-actively with the applicant through negotiations to address issues wherever possible, both at preapplication and application stage, the scheme failed to comply with the Development Plan for the reasons identified in this report. On this basis, it was recommended that the application be refused.

 

By way of written submission, supported by a brief slide presentation and animated video, a petitioner objecting to the application made a number of points:

 

·         The density of the planned building was not in accordance with Local Plan Policy DMHB17 and London Plan density guidelines. For flatted schemes, the acceptable density range was 150 to 250 u/ha. The current proposal, at 485 units/ha far exceeded the acceptable range detailed.

·         The proposal had not considered any of the adjacent buildings and it proposed an 8 story wall that would be erected in front of Padcroft residents’ windows.

·         Policy 5.38 stated that a minimum of 21 metres separation distance between windows of habitable rooms was required. Hillingdon’s ‘Residential Layouts’ Design Guidance advised a minimum distance of 15 metres between main windows of habitable rooms and a flank wall of a new development. The Tavistock Works proposal did not respect these guidelines in any measure. The wall of the proposed building was located only 1.1 m away from master bedroom windows in Fitzroy Court, which as 92% lower than Council guidelines. In addition, residents of Yardley Court would be impacted by direct overlooking from the proposed balcony and habitable room windows located only 13 m away from their living rooms. This was 40% below the Council guidelines.

·         Should this planning application be approved, an unreasonable level of overlooking would exist between residents habitable rooms and the building erected, resulting in a complete loss of privacy, increased sense of enclosure, complete loss of outlook and adversely impacting residents ability to enjoy sunlight and daylight.

·         Policy 5.41 explained that the Council aimed to minimise the impact of the loss of daylight and sunlight and unacceptable overshadowing caused by new development on habitable rooms. According to the Daylight & Sunlight Amenity Study, 40% of Fitzroy Court habitable room windows tested would not meet VSC targets if the proposed building was developed. In addition, 11 of Fitzroy Court bedrooms would not meet BRE criteria for the daylight distribution. For example, bedrooms on the first floor of Fitzroy Court would suffer 93% loss of VSC, 100% loss of sunlight and 90.5% loss of daylight.

·         The current proposal would have detrimental impact upon shared residential amenities as the building would severely overshadow residential gardens.

·         Within Fitzroy Court, 14 bedrooms would suffer severe loss of outlook from their bedroom windows. All bedrooms facing Tavistock Road would now be viewing an 8 story blank wall within the distance of 1.2- 9m. This would severely impact residents and children of residents’ mental health.

·         There were concerns about the proximity of the proposed building in relation to resident balconies and windows, which would only 1.2m-4m away from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

75.

Land at Bulls Bridge Industrial Estate, North Hyde Gardens - 75111/APP/2020/1955 pdf icon PDF 582 KB

Site clearance and preparation, including the demolition of remaining buildings, and the redevelopment of the site to provide: a new data centre (Use Class B8), two MV Energy Centres (including stand-by generation plant and gas storage), a HV Sub-Station, a visitor reception centre, plant, the creation of a new footpath and cycleway link to the canal towpath, works to the highway, car parking, cycle parking, associated infrastructure, enclosures and necessary physical security systems, hard and soft landscaping (including works to the River Crane) and ancillary uses, as well as associated external works.

 

Recommendations: Approval

Decision:

 

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the application, and highlighted the extant permission on site, together with the positive impact the building would have on the economy of Hayes. The building was confirmed to be sited away from any residential properties thereby avoiding any potential adverse impact on residents. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

 

Members were supportive of the application, and particularly the positive impact it would have on the regeneration of the area. The officer’s recommendation was therefore moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

76.

Allport House - 46104/APP/2020/789 pdf icon PDF 309 KB

Erection of a roof extension to provide 9 (5 x 3-bed, 3 x 2-bed and 1 x 4-bed) self-contained residential units with car parking, refuse store, amenity space and associated works

 

Recommendations:  Approve + Sec 106

Decision:

RESOLVED: 

 

1.    That the application be approved, and

2.    That a condition to prevent overheating be added.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report, and highlighted that while the Committee would normally only consider developments of 10 units or more, the development had the ability to support more than the proposed 9 units, which were themselves oversized. The application was therefore presented for consideration by the Committee.

 

Officers confirmed that an in-lieu affordable housing contribution of £116,000 had been agreed with the applicant, alongside a review mechanism for potential future affordable housing.

 

The application was deemed acceptable, and was therefore recommended for approval.

 

Members were supportive of the application, but asked that a condition to prevent overheating be added. The officer’s recommendation, together with this condition, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.*

 

*Nb. Councillor Birah did not take part in the vote on this item due to loss of connection.

 

RESOLVED: 

 

1.    That the application be approved, and

2.    That a condition to prevent overheating be added.

77.

Trade City - 3114/APP/2020/303 pdf icon PDF 273 KB

Application for planning permission to operate the site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

Recommendations: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED: 

 

1.    That the application be approved;

2.    That a condition on vehicle idling be added; and

3.    That an informative be added to seek the use of vehicles meeting the Euro 6 emissions standard as part of the low emission strategy.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the application, and reminded the Committee that the application had been presented to the Major Applications Planning Committee on 15 September 2020, where it was given a resolution to grant planning permission subject to the inclusion of a condition prohibiting vehicles over 7.5tonnes from entering or exiting the development between 9pm and 7am on any day. However, it was confirmed that the condition had not been agreed with the applicant, as the applicant felt that 24 hour operation of the site was crucial to their business.

 

The report detailed the results of independent CCTV surveys conducted at the site’s access point, which showed a large number of vehicle movements overnight. It was therefore considered that the proposed development  would not add additional harm over current operations at the site. The application was therefore recommended for approval, without a condition relating to use of vehicles overnight.

 

Members referenced a condition regarding idling vehicles that had been suggested at the September meeting, which appeared to be missing from the current report. Officers advised that this was an oversight, and the condition would be included, if the application was approved. It was also suggested that an informative be included relating to use of vehicles adhering to Euro 6 emissions standards, as part of the low emissions strategy.

 

Some Members opposed the application, citing concerns that the number of large vehicles frequenting the site would have a serious adverse impact on residents living within Cowley Mill Road and other nearby areas, due to issues of noise and disturbance. It was also suggested that the figures cited within the CCTV survey could significantly increased once the proposed development was in operation.

 

Other Members were supportive of the application, citing the precedent of the Royal Mail Depot, currently in operation. The officer’s recommendation to approve, subject the condition on idling vehicles and informative on the Euro 6 emissions standards being added, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed by a vote of five to two, with one abstention.

 

RESOLVED: 

 

1.    That the application be approved;

2.    That a condition on vehicle idling be added; and

3.    That an informative be added to seek the use of vehicles meeting the Euro 6 emissions standard as part of the low emission strategy.