Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Keith Burrows with Councillor Philip Corthorne substituting.

Apologies were also received from Councillor Elizabeth Garelick with Councillor Raju Sansarpuri substituting.

None.

RESOLVED: That the minutes from the meeting on 08 May 2024 and 09 May 2024 be approved.

None.

It was confirmed that all items would be heard in Part I.

Demolition of the existing house and the erection of a two-storey block of flats, with habitable rooms in the roof space, consisting of 5 proposed flats (4 x two-bed and 1 x 3-bed units) and associated parking.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Demolition of the existing house and the erection of a two-storey block of flats, with habitable rooms in the roof space, consisting of 5 proposed flats (4 x two-bed and 1 x 3-bed units) and associated parking.

Item 6 was taken after item 7.

Officers introduced the application.

The application had been submitted in response to a previous refusal for a similar development which comprised of a larger scale building and six flats. This application was refused on the grounds that the impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene was unacceptable; the over-dominance of hard surfacing and lack of soft landscaping; lack of usable amenity space which led to a poor standard of living accommodation; lack of evidence to demonstrate compliance with the highest accessible standards; and also the impact that development would have on the visual amenities of the neighbouring property number 277. The refusal of this application was also subject to an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed by the inspector. The current application reduced the scale and bulk, which subsequently reduced the number of units proposed from an initial seven to five. The distance between the elevation facing Warren Road and the boundary had been increased from 2.5 to 3.5 metres. The proposed dwelling had been reorientated to have the principal elevation facing Swakeleys Road.

The applicant and agent addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·       The agent thanked the Committee for the opportunity to address them

·       The design had been developed with lengthy negotiations with the Planning Department to fine tune the design and to overcome the previous reasons for refusal

·       The agent commended the planning officer on their report

·       The applicant had lived in the house for over 20 years

·       The reason for redevelopment was that the applicant lived alone and the house had fallen slightly into disrepair due to high costs and bills

·       The agent highlighted page 31 of the report which noted that the Local Plan advised that the conversion of single dwellings into more dwellings, or the redevelopment of dwellings into new blocks of flats to enable more efficient use of the site to be achieved was very pertinent. This was because there was a large house occupied by a single person

·       The applicant also commended the planning officer for their report

·       The applicant had no issues with petitions in objection and again commended the officers for answering each of the questions that had been posed by the petitioners

Officers clarified that there was a landscaping condition proposed.

Members asked about the existing street scene and the 10% rule. Officers noted that the scale of other nearby flatted developments were greater than that of the current application. The current application for was a corner plot. Furthermore, there was a 10% threshold placed within the policy. The pretext of the policy advised that the conversion of single dwelling homes into more dwellings, or the redevelopment of dwellings into blocks of flats can enable more effective use of the sites.

Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Erection of first floor rear extension.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred.

Erection of first floor rear extension.

Item 7 was taken before item 6.

Officers noted that the site was not within a conservation area and was not listed.

In general, officers were satisfied that the design was in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing building, the straight scene and the wider character in terms of amenity. There would be no loss of daylight/ sunlight.

A further site inspection had been carried out this afternoon to examine the outlook of the neighbouring properties and officers were satisfied that the outlook would be retained to the garden area.

The application was recommended for approval.

The petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·       The petitioner lived next door to the application site

·       The officer’s report stated that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity. This was not the case and the proposal would have a considerable adverse impact for the petitioner’s property and way of life, being both intrusive and causing severe lack of light

·       The petitioner had lived here for nearly 34 years

·       The petitioner’s conservatory had a glass roof through which they can see the sky and trees. The proposed extension was due south of this conservatory and would block a lot of light

·       Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan stated it seeks to ensure that development proposals do not adversely impact on the amenity daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties

·       The view from the conservatory had already been spoiled by construction

·       During spring and autumn, the petitioner’s house benefitted from bright sunshine in the kitchen. The proposed extension would remove this uplifting experience. It would remove considerable daylight from the kitchen, and the petitioner would have to use electric light. This was not good for global warming, and not in accordance with the policy

·       The Human Rights Act stated that public officials should only do things that restrict one's right to private and family life when they need to

·       There had been numerous previous applications on this site which were not carried out to plan and had Planning Enforcement involvement. Construction over four years took little notice of their conditions such as working hours

·       The building of the extension resulted in extensive damage to the side of the petitioner’s rear outbuilding which needed wall strengthening; the roof copings being replaced; and drainage installed. The petitioner’s insurance company was still trying to resolve excessive damp inside the outbuilding and had had no response from the applicant

·       There were errors in the officer’s report which included referring to the wrong house number; the wrong street; the fact that number 15 was the two-storey house when it had a third story; two driveways when there was only one; and wrongly describing an outhouse as the lean-to

·       Policy DMHB 1 of the Local Plan stated that alterations and extensions to buildings would be required to ensure that a satisfactory relationship with the adjacent dwellings was achieved. Until there was no unacceptable loss of outlook  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Variation of condition 3 (re. deliveries) of planning permission ref. 36999/T/93/0878 (allowed at appeal under ref. 94/236865) and dated 10 May 1995 for the removal of condition 12 (re. opening hours) of planning permission ref. 36999E/89/1214 and dated 1 May 1990 for the erection of a District Shopping Centre incorporating a retail store of 6228sqm gross floorspace with 725 car parking spaces, 12 small shop units with residential accommodation over, a covered mall, a doctor's surgery, a public house, a restaurant, changing facilities, a meeting hall, public convenience, a petrol filling station, a children's play area, an associated car parking area, a service yard and landscaping on land at Willow Tree Lane/Glencoe Road/Jolly's Lane, Hayes.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Variation of condition 3 (re. deliveries) of planning permission ref. 36999/T/93/0878 (allowed at appeal under ref. 94/236865) and dated 10 May 1995 for the removal of condition 12 (re. opening hours) of planning permission ref. 36999E/89/1214 and dated 1 May 1990 for the erection of a District Shopping Centre incorporating a retail store of 6228sqm gross floorspace with 725 car parking spaces, 12 small shop units with residential accommodation over, a covered mall, a doctor's surgery, a public house, a restaurant, changing facilities, a meeting hall, public convenience, a petrol filling station, a children's play area, an associated car parking area, a service yard and landscaping on land at Willow Tree Lane/Glencoe Road/Jolly's Lane, Hayes.

The application proposed to amend the condition wording to allow for one delivery to take place between the hours of 09:00 and 10:00 on a Sunday, which the current wording of the condition prohibited.

The applicant was proposing to deliver to the front of the store prior to the store opening and delivering to the front of the store would make it quicker to unload perishable goods. This would also reduce the potential noise impacts upon neighbouring residents.

The proposal for one delivery between 09:00 and 10:00 on a Sunday was not considered to result in a significant increase in noise, given that this was one delivery and it was set in a location which was at least 34 metres from a neighbouring property. Unlike the existing service and delivery yard there would be a negligible impact upon air quality and the highways network. The application was recommended for approval.

The lead petitioner addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·       The petitioner lived on Telford Way

·       There was a longstanding issue with pollution, noise and diesel fumes coming into the garden

·       There had been a previous application in 2018 which was refused

·       Tesco were currently allowing people into the store at 09:00 before the tills opened at 10:00. Therefore, there could be cars in the car park when the lorry attempted to deliver

·       The lorries were noisy and cannot reverse so they would have to drive nearer to the flats in order to exit the car park

·       The petitioner could not use their garden whilst deliveries took place

·       The petitioner stated that they had evidence of Tesco making a delivery on a Sunday and on a Bank Holiday, and this had been submitted to officers

·       Permission for one delivery would lead to more deliveries

·       As this application sought to deliver to the front of the store, the petitioner questioned how a delivery vehicle would manoeuvre around the mini roundabout

·       The petitioner had emailed the manager of Tesco on numerous occasions

·       Some local residents had moved away from the area as a result of this

·       The local MP, John McDonnell, had been engaged on this issue

Members asked the petitioner if Tesco had engaged with residents over this proposal. The petitioner confirmed that they had initiated some engagement along with John McDonnell MP.

Members asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The development of a Centre of Excellence for servicing and repair of Airside Support Vehicles (Use Class B2), consisting of a service building with 7no. service bays and 1no. storage bay, an ancillary two storey office building, with associated hardstanding, parking, a wash bay, plant, solar PVs, landscaping and drainage.

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

The development of a Centre of Excellence for servicing and repair of Airside Support Vehicles (Use Class B2), consisting of a service building with 7no. service bays and 1no. storage bay, an ancillary two storey office building, with associated hardstanding, parking, a wash bay, plant, solar PVs, landscaping and drainage.

The current application sought permission for a centre of excellence for the servicing and repair of electric airside support vehicles falling under use class B2.

Officers highlighted the addendum which amended references to starting hours of operation from 07:30 to 07:00.

Members asked if it would be possible to condition that only electric vehicles be serviced at the site, and if it was possible to condition the route taken to Heathrow. Officers further referred to the apprentice scheme and no Sunday opening.

Officers noted that routing would form part of the operational management plan. This was listed under Condition 28 and would direct vehicle movements to the north. There was also Condition 17 which would restrict access to the site. On a condition on electric vehicles, officers noted that conditions needed a demonstrable harm to mitigate against. The scheme had been reviewed from an air quality perspective, and there was an air quality contribution that had been agreed. Head of Term 5 was the employment strategy which would encompass an apprentice scheme.

The landscape scheme condition did secure the provision of both active and passive electric vehicle charging provision.

It was noted that four alternative sites had been identified in the appendix to the applicants’ planning statement. None of those sites were deemed to be adequate in terms of operation or location. This had been scrutinised by officers, planning policy and the GLA.

Officer’s recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agree.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved