Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Raju Sansarpuri and from Councillor Keith Burrows with Councillor Darran Davies substituting for the latter.

Councillor Roy Chamdal declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6 (5 The Meads) as he had previously spoken with the applicant. He left the meeting prior to this matter being discussed and did not partake in the voting on this item.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 04 September 2025 be agreed as an accurate record.

None.

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

Erection of a single storey rear extension and double storey side extensions to both sides of property following the demolition of existing garage and removal of two chimney stacks (amended description) 

Recommendation: Approval 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the officer’s report.

Erection of a single storey rear extension and double storey side extensions to both sides of property following the demolition of existing garage and removal of two chimney stacks (amended description)

Councillor Roy Chamdal had expressed a non-pecuniary interest in the application therefore left the room and did not participate in the debate or voting for this item.

Officers introduced the application noting that the site lay within conservation areas and an Article 4 zone, which restricted permitted development rights for small HMOs. Members heard that the design complied with Council policy, being subordinate and well-scaled, and similar extensions existed nearby. A daylight and sunlight report confirmed no significant impact on neighbouring habitable rooms, particularly at No. 7, whose windows faced the proposed development. Planning officers supported the application as it aligned with design and amenity policies, and it was recommended for approval.

A petition had been received in objection to the application. The lead petitioner was present and addressed the Committee Members highlighting the following key points:

·         Residents at number 7 had expressed concerns that the initial plans resembled an HMO-style property, which would not be in keeping with the street’s character.

·         They noted that the applicant was a property developer and believed the design was squeezed between neighbouring homes.

·         The planning report was criticised for focusing solely on number 2 The Meads, which was not a fair or representative comparison due to its unique location and spacious surroundings.

·         It was highlighted that only one of eight properties had double-storey extensions on both sides, making number 2 an outlier.

·         The proposed application site, was located at the bottom of the close with neighbours on both sides, including number 7, which faced it directly at a 90° angle.

·         Concerns were raised about the impact on light and shadowing, with reported losses of 10% in the office and 7% in the bedroom at number 7.

·         The proposal was said to disregard Council policy requiring detached houses to be set back at least one metre.

·         Number 4 was cited as a better example of considerate planning, being set three metres back and fitting the street’s character.

·         Doubts were expressed about the credibility of the daylight and sunlight report, citing inconsistent data and lack of professional accreditation.

·         A request was made for the Council to consider safeguards against future HMO or subletting developments and to review the proposal for partial approval due to its impact on number 7.

·         Visual representations were used to argue that the proposed development would appear as an oversized block squeezed into a small space, disrupting the street scene.

Members sought further clarification from the petitioners regarding shadowing and the impact of the proposal on daylight and sunlight at their property. The petitioner acknowledged that shadowing already occurred due to the existing structure and argued that adding a double-storey extension would worsen it, potentially covering most of their house. While they appreciated the neighbour’s intent to improve their property, they felt the proposed development was unfair and inconsistent with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

This hybrid planning application seeks permission for a four-phased redevelopment to deliver a data centre campus comprising: Full planning permission for a data centre building and associated infrastructure/works (Phase 1); Outline planning permission for an Innovation Hub  and infrastructure/works (Phase 2); Outline planning permission for a data centre  

building and associated infrastructure/works (Phase 3); and Outline planning permission for a data centre building and associated infrastructure/works (Phase 4). All matters are reserved for the Outline phases of development. 

Recommendation: Approval 

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be approved subject to a section 106 legal agreement and the conditions set out if the officer’s report; and

2.    That the drafting of an additional informative to ensure local Wi-Fi connectivity was not compromised be delegated to the Area Planning Service Manager, in consultation with the Chair.  

This hybrid planning application seeks permission for a four-phased redevelopment to deliver a data centre campus comprising: Full planning permission for a data centre building and associated infrastructure/works (Phase 1); Outline planning permission for an Innovation Hub and infrastructure/works (Phase 2);  Outline planning permission for a data centre building and associated infrastructure/works (Phase 3); and Outline planning permission for a data centre building and associated infrastructure/works (Phase 4). All matters are reserved for the Outline phases of development.

Officers introduced the application for redevelopment of Hayes Bridge Retail Park and Heathrow Interchange and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. The application involved the demolition of existing buildings and construction of three data centres and an innovation hub. It was noted that Phase 1 sought full planning permission for the LON 6 data centre, while Phases 2–4 sought outline planning permission for the remaining elements of development. The innovation hub was designed as affordable workspace for SMEs and community use. Officers confirmed that the proposal was an appropriate use for the Strategic Industrial Location, would not overburden the power grid, offered economic benefits and complied with the emerging character of the area. The environmental impacts posed by the development would be mitigated by the planning conditions and obligations recommended. The application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and legal agreements.

Councillors supported the proposal to redevelop unused land and requested that each phase of the multi-phase application be brought back to Committee for approval. Officers confirmed that all reserved matters applications would return to Committee.

The Committee raised questions about securing peppercorn rents for the innovation hub, and officers clarified that this would be enforced through the Section 106 agreement and lease terms.

Councillors queried the relatively low financial contributions compared to a similar data centre in Abbotts Langley; in response, it was noted that the on-site innovation hub offered direct community benefits, making it a preferable alternative.

Concerns about Wi-Fi impact were raised, with suggestions for conditions or informatives to ensure local connectivity was not compromised. Officers noted that digital infrastructure was addressed in the London Plan policy and confirmed ducting for full fibre would be included. The Legal Advisor explained that a planning condition on Wi-Fi would not meet the six-part test but supported the addition of an informative. It was agreed that said informative would be drafted by officers in consultation with the Chair.

The Committee urged timely progress to avoid delays seen in previous approvals. No further queries or concerns were raised.

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

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be approved subject to a section 106 legal agreement and the conditions set out if the officer’s report; and

2.    That the drafting of an additional informative to ensure local Wi-Fi connectivity was not compromised be delegated to the Area Planning Service Manager, in consultation with the Chair.

Change of use from health care use to supported living accommodation (Use Class C2) with ancillary offices and facilities 

Recommendation: Approval 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Change of use from health care use to supported living accommodation (Use Class C2) with ancillary offices and facilities

Officers introduced the application which proposed changing the use of Mead House from a healthcare facility to supported living accommodation (Class C2) for adults with learning disabilities. It was confirmed that the building had previously served as a hostel and had been decommissioned by the NHS in 2023. It was noted that the change of use would not conflict with Green Belt or heritage policies, as the site lay within the Green Belt and near Grade II listed buildings. Members were informed that minimal physical changes were proposed, including a reduction in parking spaces from 32 to 8, with low anticipated vehicle movements. All trees on site, protected by TPOs, were to be retained. Officers noted that the loss of the healthcare use was deemed to be acceptable, as services had been relocated elsewhere in the Borough. The proposal aligned with local and London Plan policies and a Section 106 agreement would secure management and safeguarding arrangements. Officers recommended approval subject to completion of the legal agreement.

Councillors sought assurances that the property, currently classified as C2, could not be converted into a C4 HMO without planning permission. It was confirmed that any change of use would require formal approval and that the C2 classification would be secured through a legal agreement.

Members queried whether the accommodation would be for all ages or specifically for young people, and officers clarified it would be for adults aged 18 and over.

Concerns about parking were addressed by officers, who explained that a travel plan would be required and that the reduced parking provision was appropriate given the expected low demand. The presence of a turning circle for coaches was also noted.

Councillors expressed support for the reuse of the building, noting its previous use as a residential institution and COVID testing site, and welcomed the minimal changes proposed, which satisfied Green Belt policy.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Variation of Conditions 2 (Approved Plans) and 3 (Approved Documents) of planning permission reference 24843/APP/2022/2403, dated 11-06-2024. 

Recommendation: Approval 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Variation of Conditions 2 (Approved Plans) and 3 (Approved Documents) of planning permission reference 24843/APP/2022/2403, dated 11-06-2024

Officers introduced the application for the COMAG site which proposed a Section 73 variation to conditions 2 and 3 of a previously approved planning permission, aiming to update the approved plans and documents. Members heard that the extension was minimal in scale and had no impact on design quality or character. Officers acknowledged the loss of the community hub but felt it was reasonable given the site’s location and nearby existing community spaces. It was confirmed that the affordable housing contribution had been revised following a financial viability review, resulting in an off-site payment of £800,000, deemed the maximum reasonable offer. The application was recommended for approval subject to a deed of variation and review mechanisms.

Councillors welcomed the £800,000 off-site affordable housing contribution and enquired whether the funds were earmarked specifically for genuinely affordable housing. It was confirmed that the cash-in-lieu would be used for developments offering London Affordable Rent (LAR) and could not be diverted elsewhere.

A further question was raised about the construction management plan, specifically regarding wheel washing and operating hours, due to complaints about construction traffic on Tavistock Road. Officers confirmed that a construction management plan condition was already in place and committed to reviewing its details, including wheel washing, in coordination with the Highways team.

Members raised no further concerns or queries but expressed a design to see progress on the development.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Erection of a single storey detached building for use by Acorn Youth Club 

Recommendation: Approval 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Erection of a single storey detached building for use by Acorn Youth Club

Officers introduced the application for a single-storey building on the Acorn Youth Club site which had been referred to the Planning Committee because the London Borough of London owned the freehold. It was confirmed that the proposed building, intended for use by the Acorn Youth Club—a long-standing facility supporting disabled young people since 1993—was designed to sit on existing foundations from a previously approved but unbuilt structure. The building’s height ranged from 2.95 to 3.45 metres, and officers confirmed that it complied with the local plan. With no significant site constraints and minimal impact, the application was recommended for approval.

Members welcomed the application and raised no concerns or queries.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.