Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Henry Higgins with Councillor Philip Corthorne substituting. Apologies were also received from Councillor Ekta Gohil with Councillor Kishan Bhatt substituting.

Councillor Philip Corthorne declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 10 as he had discussions with officers regarding the application prior to the meeting. He  left the room for this item.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 09 March 2023 be agreed as an accurate record.

It was noted prior to item 1 that item 8 had been withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting.

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

Retrospective application for the proposed use of Storing/Displaying/Selling of Cars/Light Goods Vehicles within land off of Unit 1 and Unit 2, Hayes End Road, Hayes.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Retrospective application for the proposed use of Storing/ Displaying/ Selling of Cars/ Light Goods Vehicles within land off of Unit 1 and Unit 2, Hayes End Road, Hayes.

Officers introduced the application.

The lead petitioner attended and addressed the Committee. The petitioner noted that proposals included “storing/ displaying/ selling of cars/ Light Goods Vehicles within land off of Unit 1 and Unit 2, Hayes End Road” and was a retrospective application. It was suggested that the application had been submitted under false pretences as the stated start date was 07 March 2022, whilst there was evidence that problems had been experienced since 29 August 2020. The petitioner noted two to three years of evidence, and that residents suffered on a day-to-day basis.

The proposal would increase usage of Units 1 and 2, and there was a potential fire hazard, and lorries often parked in the main road due to over-capacity on-site. Vehicles often parked on Hayes End Road, although it was acknowledged that some vehicles may belong to other units. Furthermore, delivery vehicles often parked for 60-90 minutes at a time. The resulting noise and air pollution was negatively affecting residents, including children, and the overspill of parking generated a bottleneck. Reference was made of over 100 vehicles at the back of the site at any one time. Despite double yellow lines, there remained issues for emergency services, and one occasion on 23 July 2022 where an ambulance was stuck for seven minutes was noted.

Reference was made to the Mayor of London’s London Plan Policy 7.18 – Protecting Open Space and Addressing Deficiency. There was already steady flow of traffic at peak times such as 08:00-09:00 and 17:20-18:00, excluding large delivery lorries from Hayes End. If approved, this would rubber-stamp what is already happening.

Members noted that this was not a wide road, but noted that from the images in the presentation, the exact number of vehicles was difficult to determine. It was noted that parking enforcement often led to subsequent retrospective applications, and the petitioner confirmed that this was the case. It was further clarified that vehicles from the site had parked in front of emergency gates/ broken the padlocks on these gates and used the area as a thoroughfare.

Members noted the nearby nursery, which the petitioner confirmed was directly opposite the site. The petitioner noted that parking in front of the private nursery entrance often led to conflicts with residents, and it was noted that several vehicles were parked on the double yellow lines on the previous day alone.

The applicant attended with a representative and disagreed with the points raised by the petitioner. It was highlighted that the issues with breaking padlocks was due to other businesses on Newport Road and not relevant to the current application. A nearby shisha lounge was noted as a possible cause of some of the parking issues. The applicant and their representative noted that the entrance and exit to their site was on Hayes End Road, not on Newport  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

Retrospective Application for the use of the ground floor as a banqueting suite, with associated ancillary facilities at basement level for private civil ceremonies, weddings and parties (Sui Generis).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Retrospective Application for the use of the ground floor as a banqueting suite, with associated ancillary facilities at basement level for private civil ceremonies, weddings and parties (Sui Generis).

Officers introduced the application.

The lead petitioner attended and addressed the Committee, noting that 113 petitioners strongly opposed this application. The petitioner noted that the Council’s website stated that to apply to host weddings/ civil ceremonies, applicants had to be the proprietor or a trustee of the premises. The applicant, as tenant, was neither. The site currently held planning permission for class A3 restaurant or café use only and the petitioner referenced a pending investigation (ENF83719) relating to unauthorised usage. The venue’s website had already been advertising its permitted use for weddings/ civil ceremonies. This noted their disregard for their current permitted use. The volume of traffic on St Andrews Road was referenced, and that this was a small private road which was the only vehicular entrance/ exit point to the site. This could cause potential issues for emergency vehicle access.

A number of further points of objection were noted including double parking and illegal parking on yellow lines and pavements; noise pollution as everts were held seven days a week; music played beyond permitted hours; the right to a private/ family life due to hired security guards loitering in the area; safety, due to the site’s use of fireworks coinciding with its location within the Northolt flight path; deliveries and waste collections being made outside of permitted hours; and the effects that each of these had on children’s welfare. The application was unsuitable for its location within the area of a quiet, residential road, and was not in line with the Council’s strategy (updated in November 2022) of putting residents first; and to safeguard the neighbourhood and the wellbeing of residents. Therefore, the application should be refused.

Photos and a video had been submitted by the petitioner which were shown to the Committee.

Members thanked the petitioner for their petition and sought come cultural context. Members asked if there were mainly Asian weddings taking place at the venue, which the petitioner confirmed was the case. This had a negative impact on traffic as large numbers of vehicles all arrived and exited at the same time, often late at night. It was noted that vehicles entered via Vine Lane. It was noted that Wren Avenue had pedestrian access on only one side, while cars park on both sides of the road.

Members clarified that there was only one road for vehicular access to the site (Wren Avenue), and Vine Lane was also affected. Members noted that this was a retrospective application, and the petitioner noted that issues had been ongoing since 2019.

A written representation from the applicant was read out, making the following points:

• The pre-existing use of the ground floor of the property had planning permission for use as a restaurant as part of the hybrid consent for the wider St Andrews Park Site.
• The subject of the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 117.

Erection of first floor side and part rear extensions, replacement of pitched roof over retained part single storey rear extension with a flat roof, part demolition and conversion of existing garage to habitable accommodation, extension and conversion of roof space to habitable accommodation including 2no rear dormers and the formation of a crown roof, new front porch and exterior alterations.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 4 x self-contained units including 1 x studio unit, 2 x 1-bed units and 1 x 3-bed unit with associated landscaping, parking, refuse and recycling.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda prior to the meeting, to be deferred to a later meeting.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 4 x self-contained units including 1 x studio unit, 2 x 1-bed units and 1 x 3-bed unit with associated landscaping, parking, refuse and recycling.

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred pending a site visit.

Erection of new 3-bedroom bungalow with dormers and roof lights serving accommodation in the roof on land to the front of existing dwelling; garden and bike stores in garden.

Officers introduced the application.

Officers highlighted an addendum, which noted that one additional letter of objection had been received objecting on the grounds of loss of privacy.

A representative of the petitioner addended and addressed the Committee. The representative noted that there were concerns with this re-application, and that there had been limited resident engagement. It was raised that none of the neighbours had received letters about the application, and only a chance meeting outside the development notified residents about the application. Officers clarified that while letters had been sent out in the usual manner, once officers had been notified that residents had not received these, letters were re-sent. The 45-degree line was infringed for No. 16 Iver Lane. Parking manoeuvrers were not sufficiently demonstrated, especially for the disabled parking bay, which was close to the footpath. Some of the obscured glazed windows on the side elevations were non-opening at 1.8M above ground level, which was a concern. It had been noted that the site was not within 20 meters of a river – it was clarified that this was not correct as the River Pinn with within 12 meters, and no flood risks assessment had taken place. There was a concern over increased noise levels, and a semi-detached house would be more suitable than the current application.

Members questioned if the petitioner could look out of the window, and it was clarified that the window in question was an obscured glazed window, which allowed some daylight but there was no outlook.

A statement from Councillor Burrows as Ward Councillor was read out. Councillor Burrows fully supported the residents of Iver Lane in their objection to the application, as the bulk and design, although changed, did not change anything from the previous objections and refusal by this Committee. The bulk size would not improve the quality of the public realm or respect the current local character of this are and the current dwellings. There would still be issues for Number 16 Iver Lane. It must also be remembered that this area was in the Colne Valley Archaeological priority area and the Cowley Lock conservation area to the south and this application would still impact upon them. This area was already pressured for space and this development would only add to this. Councillor Burrows’ statement urged the Committee to side with the residents and refuse this new application and not accept the approval being put forward.

Councillor Burrows’ statement also drew attention to a typo in the report, which referred to:

"Completion of a legal agreement to ensure that future residents of the three units not being provided with on-site parking cannot apply for a permit to join any parking management scheme".

Officers clarified that this should have read:

“Completion of a legal agreement to ensure that future residents of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

Demolition of existing house and garage and construction of a block of seven purpose-built apartments.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Demolition of existing house and garage and construction of a block of seven purpose-built apartments.

As Councillor Corthorne had declared an interest in this item, he left the room for this item.

Officers introduced the application and noted the recommendation of refusal for the six reasons state in the report. It was also highlighted that there was an addendum on this item.

A statement from Councillor Smallwood as Ruislip Ward Councillor was read out. Through the statement, Councillor Smallwood noted that they were concerned about the privacy of surrounding neighbours as the reports outlines that the plans would be ‘dominating’ and therefore not acceptable to those who lived nearby. The Committee should also note that Kingsend had already seen a large amount of flatted development over the last decade and was already over the 10% threshold laid out in the Hillingdon Local Plan. This was an even more solid ground for refusal. (An addendum on this item clarified that the interpretation of planning policy was nuanced. In the interests of consistency of approach in this specific location, the 14.9% of flatted developments within Kingsend stated within the resident’s representation was agreed. Notwithstanding the calculation, the recommendation remained unchanged. The percentages clearly exceed the 10 percent threshold specified in Policy DMH 4. Accordingly, the first reason for refusal remains unchanged as set out in the Committee Report.) The application failed to provide a relevant heritage assessment and its very scale would impact the conservation area both visually and through the loss mature of tress. This application had attracted 62 responses from residents in Ruislip overwhelmingly opposing. It was also opposed by the local resident association and Ruislip Village Conservation panel.

Members thanked officers for the thorough report. And noted the number of refusal reasons; the intrusion of privacy of neighbours; and that this application represents over-development.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of a single storey extension to the rear and side and erection of porch.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Erection of a single storey extension to the rear and side and erection of porch.

It was noted that this was an application by a sitting Councillor.

Officers presented the application. It was highlighted that there was an addendum on this item.

Members noted that this was a straightforward application.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.