Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Henry Higgins declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8 as he had not been present when this item had previously been discussed and deferred for a site visit on 9 April 2025. It was agreed that he would leave the room while this item was being discussed and would not vote on this item.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 11 June 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 part single, part two storey rear extension and single storey side extension. Conversion of extended house into 1 x 1-bedroom flat and 1 x 3-bedroom flat with associated parking, landscaping and private amenity space. (revised plans 04.07.24)

Recommendation: Approval

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

Erection of a part single, part two storey rear extension and single storey side extension. Conversion of extended house into 1 x 1-bedroom flat and 1 x 3-bedroom flat with associated parking, landscaping and private amenity space. (revised plans 04.07.24)

Officers presented the application noting that previous planning permission had been granted in February 2024 for identical extensions. It was confirmed that the key difference in the current application involved the conversion of the property into two flats including subdivision of the rear garden, landscaping and associated parking. It was noted that the works already undertaken at the application site were lawful as they related to the previously granted permission. Members heard that the inclusion of Condition 11 would ensure the site could not be converted into an HMO at a later date.

The application was considered acceptable and was recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out in the officer’s report.

The lead petitioner was not in attendance but the agent for the application addressed the Committee Members and thanked officers for their excellent and thorough report. It was noted that the applicant’s intention was for the development to remain as flats – he did not intend to convert it into an HMO in the future.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that the rear garden was for the use of both flats. Occupants of the first floor flat could access the garden via the side access.

Members enquired whether the proposed informative in relation to the development being sited in a critical drainage area could be replaced by an enforceable condition. In response, officers affirmed that an informative was deemed to be appropriate given the substantial rear garden, the scale of the development and the low risk of flooding.  

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

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

Change of use of 2no. outbuildings to granny annexes

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Change of use of 2no. outbuildings to granny annexes

The Chair, Councillor Henry Higgins, left the room during the discussion and voting on this item as he had not been present at the meeting in April 2025 at which this item had previously been discussed. Councillor Adam Bennett assumed the role of Chair in his absence.

Officers introduced the application noting that the matter had previously been considered at Committee on 9 April 2025 but had been deferred for a site visit. It was reported that the site visit had taken place on 2 June 2025 at which time two noticeable issues had been observed. Members heard that, during the site visit, it had been noted that the internal layout and windows to the rear of the outbuildings were not consistent with the plans.

It was noted that the application had previously been recommended for approval subject to the omission of kitchen facilities in both outbuildings. However, it was confirmed that the current plans, which included a kitchen and all other amenities consistent with use as independent living accommodation, were in contravention of the Council’s outbuilding policy. Moreover, Members were informed that a condition of the proposed development was that it would be for the use of family members only. The current tenants had been due to vacate by 25 June but had still been in residence in early July.

For these reasons, the application was now recommended for refusal.

It was noted that a number of similar decisions had been overturned by the Inspectorate on appeal; however, the current application differed in that it featured two annexes to two properties with no clear boundary between them.

Members thanked officers for their thorough report and welcomed the update subsequent to the site visit. It was noted that there had been a long debate about the application when it had been considered by the Committee in April. It was hoped that, should be matter go to appeal, Inspectors would see it for what it was and dismiss it accordingly.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Redevelopment of site to provide new commercial buildings for use within Classes E(g)(iii)/B2/B8 together with associated infrastructure on site, to include landscaping, access, servicing, and parking.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to section 106 legal agreement and conditions as set out in the report.

Redevelopment of site to provide new commercial buildings for use within Classes E(g)(iii)/B2/B8 together with associated infrastructure on site, to include landscaping, access, servicing, and parking.

Officers presented the application noting that the development site lay within Uxbridge Industrial Estate on Potentially Contaminated Land and within an Air Quality Management Area. The proposal was deemed to be acceptable and would be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, The London Plan and the Hillingdon Local Plan. It was therefore recommended for approval.

Members observed that the proposal constituted a sensible development which would be of benefit to the local area. Noting that the proposed development would be sited in a very busy industrial site, Members asked officers to ensure that the Construction Management Plan was closely followed for the benefit of local residents.

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 subject to a section 106 legal agreement and conditions as set out in the report.

Placement of sports/recreation related containers/structures on playing field grounds, and all associated works.

Recommendation:  Approval

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

Placement of sports/recreation related containers/structures on playing field grounds, and all associated works.

Officers presented the application noting that the proposed structures would have no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, neighbouring amenities or the local highways network; it was therefore recommended for approval.

Members enquired whether the colour of the containers could be conditioned to blend better with the landscape. It was agreed that the wording for this condition would be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair.

Members observed that the remote location of the structures could lend itself to antisocial behaviour and enquired whether any security measures were proposed to mitigate this. Officers confirmed that the proposed siting would facilitate access for the students and ensure they did not need to carry equipment too far from the main building. The containers would be locked and there would be a security perimeter fence and dense hedging around the site. It was requested by the Chair that the condition requiring details of colour be upgraded to a condition that covered both colour and maintenance.

Members welcomed the proposal which would enhance facilities for the pupils at the school. No further 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 conditions as set out in the report; and

2.      That the wording of an additional condition in relation to the colour of the containers be delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair.