Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Henry Higgins, Councillor Adam Bennett (with Councillor Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana substituting), Councillor Darran Davies (with Councillor Philip Corthorne substituting) and from Councillor Jas Dhot (with Councillor Raju Sansarpuri substituting).

Councillor Philip Corthorne advised the Committee that he had been contacted by the Ickenham Residents’ Association and by the Ruislip Residents’ Association in relation to agenda item 6 and by Northwood Hills Residents’ Association in relation to item 10; however, he remained impartial and his decisions regarding these two items would not be influenced by the contact. The Legal Advisor confirmed that there were no interests to declare in this case.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 9 November 2022 be agreed as an accurate record.

None.

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

HS2 request for approval of Bringing into Use, under condition imposed by Schedule 17 of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017, relating to a temporary railway siding (1.057 kilometres in length) covering an area of 0.75 hectares, commencing  approximately 70m west of the bridge carrying B466 High Road over the Chiltern main line, terminating on the bridge carrying Breakspear Road over the Chiltern main line including, a bridge over the River Pinn.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the additional information in the addendum.

HS2 request for approval of Bringing Into Use, under condition imposed by Schedule 17 of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017, relating to a temporary railway siding (1.057 kilometres in length) covering an area of 0.75 hectares, commencing approximately 70m west of the bridge carrying B466 High Road over the Chiltern main line, terminating on the bridge carrying Breakspear Road over the Chiltern main line including a bridge over the River Pinn.

Ian Thynne, Planning Specialist Team Manager, introduced the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. It was confirmed that the application related to the bringing into use of the siding rather than its construction. The location of the siding had already been approved by Parliament hence the focus was on the mitigation of works to reduce the impact on the agreed location.

Members heard that there would be one train service per day from Mondays to Fridays - the train would arrive at West Ruislip Station at 23:53 hours and depart at 06:45. It was acknowledged that these were unsociable hours therefore it was important to manage the noise impact. Officers had attempted to negotiate an alternative train path, but this had not been possible. The Committee was informed that it was not possible to secure any additional measures through Schedule 17; however, Schedule 61 allowed for measures to manage the noise of the railway. It was recommended that the application be approved with the addition of conditions to enable the Council to manage noise. Members were advised that fortnightly meetings were held with HS2 to discuss such matters.

The Legal Advisor reminded the Committee that the legal implications were set out in the report - options were restricted by the legislation but it was important to manage noise levels by means of conditions.

In response to Members’ requests for clarification, it was confirmed that there was no requirement for a public consultation. The normal procedure was to inform residents that an application had been received via social media etc – these processes would be reviewed in the future. Members heard that HS2 had attempted to engage with residents, but it was recognised that there was room for improvement. The Council had a number of fixed noise monitors in the area adjacent to residents’ properties and would act on any concerns or complaints raised. It was confirmed that, under Schedule 61, complaints were dealt with within 24 hours. 

No further concerns were raised by Councillors. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote approved unanimously.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the additional information in the addendum

Demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 2,116 sqm of flexible Class E(g)(iii), B2 and B8 use floorspace, along with associated access, servicing areas, car parking and soft landscaping (amended plans received 02.09.22)

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved and that delegated authority be granted to officers to draft a new condition restricting refuse collection to any of the units to 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday only, to update Condition 4 to include the provision of mature tree planting and green wall on the southern elevation of the buildings; to add a new acoustic fence condition along the western and southern boundary and to amend the timings in Condition 28 to 08:00 – 20:00 hours on Monday – Friday, 08:00 – 18:00 hours on Saturday and 10:00 – 14:00 hours on Sundays.

Demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 2,116 sqm of flexible Class E(g)(iii), B2 and B8 use floorspace, along with associated access, servicing areas, car parking and soft landscaping (amended plans received 02.09.22).

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was confirmed that the application had been presented to the Major Applications Planning Committee on 09.11.22 and had been approved at that meeting. On 10.11.22, additional information had been submitted via a Ward Councillor which provided evidence of a historic restrictive condition relating to the permitted hours for loading and unloading within the access road which abutted the eastern and southern boundary and served the units within this location. The application would now be reconsidered afresh, with a focus on the additional new information.

It was confirmed that the use of the site was not under debate and the vegetation surrounding the application site was noted. Members were informed that Condition 4 would be updated to include green wall planting – this had not been included in the report. A new Condition was proposed restricting refuse collection to the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday only. The Committee was informed that a small section of the site currently had restrictions on loading and unloading hours – the remainder of the site could operate 24 hours a day. Condition 28 set out in the report would restrict loading and unloading of goods to 07:00 – 22:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 – 18:00 on Saturdays and 08:00 – 13:00 on Sundays. It was also noted that the proposed service road would be further away from residential properties. The application was recommended for approval. 

A petition in objection to the application had been received – a petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·       The site was not a 24-hour site as suggested at the November meeting;

·       It was important that the residential amenity of neighbouring properties was safeguarded – this should be the default position of officers;

·       The proposal was to increase operating hours by +5 hours Monday to Friday and on Saturdays and Sunday;

·       Approval would demonstrate bias towards the developer and would overlook the needs of residents. It would lead to an increase in complaints despite the service road being further away;

·       Residents were willing to compromise and proposed a restriction on delivery and service hours for the whole site of +2 hours Monday to Friday (08:00-20:00), +5 hours on Saturdays (08:00-18:00), closed on Sundays and zero hours of operation during public holidays.

In response to questions from Members, the petitioner confirmed that the red area was not the only area subjected to goods’ vehicle movements but this was the residential area. It was confirmed that, in reality, the site was not operational 24 hours a day – the only unit which currently operated 24/7 was the veterinary practice whereby a vet was available by phone 24/7 but worked from home.

The agent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 174.

Repurposing pre-existing store room, contained within the block of flats 1-40 Constabulary Close, to create a one-person studio flat (Retrospective).

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved and that delegated authority be granted to officers to draft a new condition allowing for 2 cycle spaces, draft an additional condition in relation to an approved fire strategy for this unit and how it complies with the fire strategy for the whole development, notify the Council Tax Enforcement team that the unit has been lived in since 2019 and notify planning enforcement of a breach in relation to cycle spaces.

Repurposing pre-existing store room, contained within the block of flats 1-40 Constabulary Close, to create a one-person studio flat (Retrospective).

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was noted that the proposed development was considered to be acceptable. A Section 106 legal agreement was proposed to secure a £40,000 contribution towards off-site affordable housing. The application was recommended for approval.

A petition in objection had been submitted and the Lead Petitioner addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·       The Lead Petitioner was a leaseholder of a flat at the site and was a Director of the Freehold Management Company;

·       The applicant had applied to change a storeroom to a flat; however, in reality, the site in question was already in use as a studio room;

·       Residents had been in receipt of mail intended for the occupants of the studio room and had experienced threatening behaviour from the occupants;

·       The applicant had now admitted the storeroom had been in use as a studio flat since 2018;

·       The flat did not appear to have its own electricity or water meter;

·       It appeared the secret flat had been planned when the building had originally been constructed; 

·       Deceptive development was a material planning consideration which was not addressed in the officer’s report;

·       The 38 bicycle parking spaces mentioned did not exist and the studio flat would not have access to a space as claimed;

·       Private transport was a key consideration in the Borough due to the poor levels of public transport;

·       The studio’s lease would allow for structural changes which were not permitted to other leaseholders;

·       There were serious outstanding breaches of planning control by the developer relating to energy efficiency and energy assessments.

Members noted that they could only consider planning considerations in relation to the application. In response to their questions, the Lead Petitioner confirmed that the information in the report regarding parking space provision was incorrect – bicycle parking spaces did not exist. It was confirmed that the bin store had never been in use as such and had always been used as a flat.

The applicant addressed the Committee informing Members that an internal bin store had been considered unhygienic hence the area had been used for sample kitchens and sample flooring so leaseholders could choose what they wanted.

Ward Councillor Scott Farley was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of petitioners expressing his concern regarding the retrospective nature of the application and stating that it was unclear what had been happening at the site. He expressed further concern regarding fire safety and access to other properties at the application site.

A written submission in support of petitioners had been received from Ward Councillor Jan Sweeting and was read out to the Committee. Councillor Sweeting expressed concern regarding the retrospective application and noted that it appeared the necessary legal permissions for use as a studio flat had not previously been obtained. It was also probable Council Tax had not been paid to date.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 175.

Formal Description: Demolition of three dwellings and one Bed and Breakfast, and the subsequent erection of a care home.

Detailed Description: Demolition of three dwellings (Nos. 14 and 16 Pield Heath Road and 2 Pield Heath Avenue) and one Bed and Breakfast (No. 18 Pield Heath Road), and the subsequent erection of a part two, part three storey (plus basement) 60-bed care home, with 14 car parking spaces, landscaping and external amenity space.

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Demolition of three dwellings (Nos. 14 and 16 Pield Heath Road and 2 Pield Heath Avenue) and one Bed and Breakfast (No. 18 Pield Heath Road) and the subsequent erection of a part two, part three storey (plus basement) 60-bed care home, with 14 car parking spaces, landscaping and external amenity space.

Officers introduced the application noting that it had been brought before the Committee before but had been deferred for a site visit. It was confirmed that the site visit had taken place on 25 November 2022 and amended plans had been received which had sought to reduce the bulk and height of the proposed building at its northern and south-eastern ends. It was confirmed that both the trees at the site would be retained and a Condition had been added in relation to this. The application was recommended for approval.

Members welcomed the fact that the applicant had made significant amendments to improve relationships on both extremities and the addition of Conditions in relation to the protection of trees and parking management.

In response to requests for clarification from the Committee, it was confirmed that there was a GLA set target for care provision but there was also a local need for elderly care homes in the Borough. A health contribution had been secured to provide additional NHS facilities to cover the additional health requirements of the development. Members heard that social care partners had not been consulted on this application.

Members raised no further concerns. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Partial demolition, refurbishment and extension of the existing Cottage Hospital to provide a state of the art health centre and the comprehensive redevelopment of the remaining Site to provide residential (Use Class C3) accommodation and ancillary works including car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works (Phased Development).

Recommendation:  Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Partial demolition, refurbishment and extension of the existing Cottage Hospital to provide a state of the art health centre and the comprehensive redevelopment of the remaining site to provide residential (Use Class C3) accommodation and ancillary works including car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works (Phased Development).

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was confirmed that a letter had been received stating that the NHS was committed to the development of a new health centre on the site. The application had been approved at the Major Applications Planning Committee in January 2022 and it had been requested that any changes to the legal agreement be brought back to the Committee for consideration. The only change Members were being asked to consider was a minor change to the energy strategy to enhance the level of on-site carbon reduction the scheme could achieve. The application was recommended for approval.

The Legal Advisor addressed the Committee noting that the only change for consideration was in relation to the energy strategy.

Members felt this was a positive outcome and raised no concerns. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Installation of plant and equipment to unit DC6 including external plant equipment, external louvres and associated security fencing and landscaping, to facilitate use of the building as a data centre.

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Installation of plant and equipment to unit DC6 including external plant equipment, external louvres and associated security fencing and landscaping, to facilitate use of the building as a data centre.

Officers introduced the application which was recommended for approval.

Members noted that data centres consumed a lot of energy and enquired whether this would be an issue in the future. It was confirmed that an infrastructure assessment had been provided. Providers had been consulted and no issues had been raised.

The Committee raised no further concerns. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.