Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED: That Councillor Henry Higgins was elected as Chairman of the Hillingdon Planning Committee for the remainder of the 2023/24 municipal year.

RESOLVED: That Councillor Adam Bennett was elected as Vice-Chairman of the Hillingdon Planning Committee for the remainder of the 2023/24 municipal year.

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Roy Chamdal declared a non-pecuniary interest with regard to item 10 in that he knew the developer. Councillor Chamdal recused himself from the room for the duration of item 10 and did not take part in the vote.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Major Applications Planning Committee dated 14 September 2023 be approved as a correct record.

The Democratic Services Officer noted that an amendment was required to the minutes of the 05 October 2023 Borough Planning Committee meeting. Within minute number 40 (28 Jacks Lane) the petitioner mentioned a proposed 6-bed house, this should have read as a proposed 5-bed house. The Committee agreed that this should be amended in the minutes.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Borough Planning Committee dated 05 October 2023 be approved as a correct record subject to the agreed amendment.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Major Applications Planning Committee dated 11 October 2023 be approved as a correct record.

There were none.

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

Alterations to the existing house including the conversion of garage to habitable use and raising of garage roof height and erection of an attached 3-bedroom dwelling on land adjacent.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Alterations to the existing house including the conversion of garage to habitable use and raising of garage roof height and erection of an attached 3-bedroom dwelling on land adjacent.

Before the commencement of this item, Councillor Roy Chamdal recused himself from the room.

Officers introduced the application and delivered a detailed presentation summarising the proposed development. Officers highlighted that the application was recommended for approval.

A petition had been received objecting to the proposals. The lead petitioner had prepared a statement which was read out for the benefit of the Committee, key points raised in the statement included:

·         The proposals would create a terrace of three houses instead of the existing one semi-detached structure on what was a quiet residential street.

·         The design of the proposed new building was inconsistent with the street scene. The fact that a similar development had been approved in Salt Hill Close was deemed irrelevant as petitioners felt the street scene in Beacon Close was fundamentally different to that of Salt Hill Close.

·         The PTAL rating of the site was low and therefore the absence of viable public transport would maximise future residents’ reliance upon the use of private vehicles adding to the traffic volumes on Beacon Close.

·         The site was immediately adjacent to the junction with Harefield Road; any increase in kerbside parking would therefore heighten the potential for road traffic accidents on the junction.

·         It was stated that the applicant had already removed and pruned landscaping on the site which rendered officers proposed condition 14 unnecessary.

·         The extent of the new development would leave minimal external garden amenity space for 2F and the new house.

·         Noise, disruption and traffic arising from construction of the development would cause considerable nuisance to neighbouring properties in Harefield Road and Beacon Close.

The agent for the application had also submitted a statement which was read out for the benefit of the Committee. Key points raised in the statement included:

·         On road safety issues, it was stated that the development had been discussed with the local highways authority who had confirmed that the distance between the new parking space and the junction was sufficient to avoid any safety issues.

·         On restricted parking space size, it was stated that the parameters of the space were in keeping with highways standards.

·         On the creation of terraced housing, it was noted that the design had been modified as requested so that the front projection matched the adjacent dwellings of 2E and 2F. The creation of a three dwelling terrace would now be in keeping with the existing terrace at 15 to 2D Beacon Close.

·         On matters raised by the petitioner on the inconsistency of designs with neighbouring houses, it was stated that the new dwelling would have facing brick, white cladding, concrete roof tiles and white upvc windows and doors which would match the adjacent property.

A written statement had been prepared by Councillor Keith Burrows, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge. The statement was read out to the Committee, key points raised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Installation of four new microwave transmission dishes on braced support poles fixed to the face of the building and one new 150mm wide cable tray, alongside the removal of three existing microwave transmission dishes on freestanding support frames.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Installation of four new microwave transmission dishes on braced support poles fixed to the face of the building and one new 150mm wide cable tray, alongside the removal of three existing microwave transmission dishes on freestanding support frames.

Councillor Roy Chamdal returned to the room at the commencement of this item.

Officers introduced the item and delivered a detailed presentation summarising the application. It was noted that resident concerns had been raised regarding possible adverse health impacts arising from the development; it was confirmed that an International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) declaration certificate had been submitted in support of the application to ensure that it would be built and operated in a way that had no adverse Health impacts. Members attention was drawn to the addendum where it was also noted that a request had been made from a resident to consult the Office of Communications (Ofcom) on the validity of the declaration certificate however, it was highlighted that Ofcom were not a statutory consultee and were not involved in the determination of planning applications or assessing ICNIRP certificates. Officers deemed the development not to have any adverse health or visual impact, the application was recommended for approval subject to proposed conditions.

A petition had been received objecting to the application, the lead petitioner was present and addressed the Committee. Key points raised in their address included:

·         Residents felt that the existing arrangement of telecommunications equipment on the roof top of Point West were unsightly, and they did not want any additional equipment installed.

·         Concerns were raised regarding the safety of the proposals specifically highlighting the health impacts that the development would have on residents living in, and in close proximity to Point West, including as a result of close contact with electromagnetic frequencies.

·         Further health concerns were raised with regard to microwave hearing and queries were made regarding evidence of microwave auditory limit testing at ground level. Exclusion zone diagrams for the combined radiation emitting equipment at the site had not been provided.

·         Further issues regarding potential health impacts to nearby residents were raised as a concern, including nausea and sleep abnormalities as a result of the telecommunications equipment to be installed on the rooftop. It was stated that the extent of the impact on people’s health could not be fully assessed with the level of information provided with the application.

A statement had been received from the agent for the application which was read out for the Committee. Key points raised in the statement included:

·         Point West was a high-rise building, 31.7m tall, which already hosted a significant number of telecommunications installations, including existing transmission dishes belonging to the applicant. The building was note located in a conservation area nor was it of historic interest.

·         It was highlighted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) considered the reuse of existing sites to be the best option when considering locations for telecommunications installations.

·         The planning officer’s report confirmed that the proposal would support the aims and objectives  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Retention and demolition of existing buildings, construction of new buildings, all within Use Class B8 with ancillary uses, alongside hardstanding, widening of the vehicular access off Breakspear Road South, associated car and cycle parking, enhanced landscaping and ancillary works.

Recommendations: Approval + Section 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Retention and demolition of existing buildings, construction of new buildings, all within Use Class B8 with ancillary uses, alongside hardstanding, widening of the vehicular access off Breakspear Road South, associated car and cycle parking, enhanced landscaping and ancillary works.

Officers introduced the application and delivered a comprehensive presentation summarising the proposals. It was noted that, should the application not be determined by the Greater London Authority therefore obliging Hillingdon as the Local Planning Authority determining the application, that the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement.

The committee commended the incredibly thorough officer report. Members discussed the merits of the application which, although it was on green belt land, would reduce the footprint and volume of the buildings on site. The Committee discussed landscaping, particularly screening of the site during autumn and winter when landscaping and trees would be less effective at screening. The Committee highlighted that the Urban Design Officer had recommended a reduction of the storage heights on site to three metres to avoid storage areas being seen from the surrounding countryside during winter months; however it was noted that officers had conducted lengthy negotiations with the applicant and it was deemed that the proposed heights were the minimum heights that would make the operation viable, officers noted that there was a significant level of existing screening through landscaping and although there would be seasonal variation to this, it was deemed to consist a considerable level of screening.

Officers also confirmed that HS2 Ltd had been consulted on the proposals and no objections had been raised. Additionally, it was confirmed that any waste concerns would be covered by condition 30, the Delivery, Servicing and Waste Management Plan.

Members were supportive of the air quality contribution highlighted in the report and sought to ensure that lighting levels were appropriate on site so as not to disrupt wildlife and that lighting levels were minimised when the site is not in use. Further to this, the Committee sought to add an informative ensuring that HGVs leaving the site did not go through Harefield Village and instead headed towards the A40.

The officer’s recommendation, inclusive of the amendments discussed, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be approved as per the officer’s recommendation;

2)    That a lighting condition be added ensuring that levels were mitigated to minimise disruption to wildlife; and,

3)    That an informative be added notifying site operators that HGVs leaving the site were not to proceed through Harefield Village.

An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) and 3 (General Compliance with Supporting Documentation) of planning permission reference 72470/APP/2016/4648, dated 02-10-2019, for the demolition of 3 dwellinghouses and redevelopment of the site to provide residential accommodation within 2 new buildings with associated access, parking, landscaping and amenity space. The amendment sought is to increase the number of dwellings by two, amendments to the vehicle and cycle parking provision.

Recommendations: Approval + Section 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Condition 2 (Approved Drawings) and 3 (General Compliance with Supporting Documentation) of planning permission reference 72470/APP/2016/4648, dated 02-10-2019, for the demolition of 3 dwellinghouses and redevelopment of the site to provide residential accommodation within 2 new buildings with associated access, parking, landscaping and amenity space. The amendment sought is to increase the number of dwellings by two, amendments to the vehicle and cycle parking provision.

Officers introduced the application and delivered a detailed presentation summarising the application. Members attention was drawn to the addendum which proposed an amendment to condition 12 to secure a policy compliant level of accessible units. The application was recommended for approval subject to the proposed conditions.

Members noted the PTAL rating of three for the site and sought clarification on the provision of car parking spaces for the development. Officers confirmed that the primary planning permission for this development would have been approved under the Local Plan parking standards which would have sought for a maximum parking allowance of one space per unit, however, officers now referred to the London Plan standards which were significantly less than the Local Plan standards. TfL had commented that the new application effectively generated a new planning permission, therefore they would like to see a further decrease in the number of parking spaces; officers had deemed this an unreasonable burden to place on the developer as the number of parking spaces had already previously been approved.

The Committee highlighted that although there was a lack of garden amenity space on site, there were parks and green spaces very nearby. Officers recommendations, inclusive of the amendment to condition 12 highlighted in the addendum, were moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per the officer’s recommendations.