Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Keith Burrows with Councillor Shehryar Ahmad-Wallana substituting.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 14 January 2026 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 outbuilding to rear of office building.

Recommendation: Approval

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

Erection of outbuilding to rear of office building.

Officers introduced the application noting that the proposal complied with all the relevant planning policies and was therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions specified within the report.

A petition in objection to the application had been received but the lead petitioner was not in attendance. The agent for the application chose not to address the Committee Members.

In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that two conditions had been proposed to ensure that, should independent office use or residential use be proposed in the future, a new planning application would be required.

A question was raised by the Committee regarding parking, specifically whether the absence of additional employees - and therefore vehicle movements - could be enforced in perpetuity as part of the application.

It was explained that parking standards were determined by floor space, at a ratio of one parking space per 50–100 square metres of office space. It was noted that, even with the additional outbuilding, the overall floor area would not exceed approximately 150 square metres, hence no more than three parking spaces would be required. It was confirmed that the site already provided three off?street parking spaces and that even the addition of another employee would not alter the parking requirement under the Council’s standards.

Members sought clarification as to why the increase in office space was not expected to generate additional parking demand.

It was reiterated that the assessment had been carried out strictly against the Council’s parking policies, which were based on floor space. The increased floor area would still comply with policy, and the existing parking provision already met the required standard. It was also clarified that, although the applicant had stated that no additional staff were proposed, the assessment had been based on land use rather than any particular operator. Therefore, even a future operator with different staffing patterns would still be bound by the same parking standards, which had been satisfied.

Councillors asked whether granting approval could set a precedent for further commercial intensification in rear gardens within the locality.
Officers confirmed that each application would have to be assessed on its own merits and that the approval of this proposal would not set a precedent. It was noted that other outbuildings already existed in the surrounding area, and it was considered that the proposal would not be out of character. Nevertheless, it was emphasised that all future applications would be judged individually.

No further concerns were raised by the Committee. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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

Erection of a first-floor extension over existing building to create a two-storey dwelling

Recommendation: Approval

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

Erection of a first-floor extension over existing building to create a two storey dwelling.

Officers introduced the application, noting its relationship to neighbouring properties, compliance with design policies, and adherence to standards relating to character, amenity, daylight/sunlight, and parking. The application was recommended for approval.

A petition in objection to the application had been received. A petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         It was noted that the report had stated no significant harm would be caused to the character of the street, yet 130 neighbours - all from Great Central Avenue and adjoining roads - had signed a petition disagreeing with this, a figure higher than the incorrectly reported 101 signatures;

·         The petitioner acknowledged variation in house types on Great Central Avenue but noted that the proposal would create a six?bedroom property with potential for seven, which was not reflective of the typical two? or three?bedroom pattern on the road;

·         It was argued that comparisons to No. 18 were misleading because that property had only three bedrooms, unlike the scale of the proposal;

·         Concerns were raised that increasing bedroom numbers would likely lead to more occupants and more cars, worsening existing parking pressures in a permit?restricted street;

·         Although the report stated BRE standards would be met, the petitioner questioned whether “sufficient” daylight would be acceptable for gardens and homes, especially as daylight assessments had not been carried out on frequently used non?habitable areas such as hallways, staircases, and bathrooms;

·         It was highlighted that some windows, including those providing the only natural light to key internal areas, appeared not to have been properly assessed, leading to concerns about reduced light and increased risks when using stairs.

·         Existing drainage issues were referenced, including a recent blockage affecting multiple properties, suggesting that a six? or seven?bedroom dwelling could exacerbate the problem.

·         It was pointed out that No. 31 already had lawful permission for a roof alteration that would provide additional space without harming neighbours, unlike the current proposal;

·         It was argued that the report did not reflect the strength or scale of local concern, noting that 130 households had consistently sought updates for eight months;

·         It was stated that the proposal benefited only one household while negatively impacting many others and therefore the Committee was urged to refuse the application.

The applicant was also in attendance and addressed the Committee highlighting the following key points:

·         The applicant clarified that the proposed extension was not intended for HMO use, resale, subdivision, or any commercial purpose;

·         It was explained that the extension was required solely to meet the needs of the applicant’s family, including two young children and a daughter with complex medical needs who was unable to climb stairs and required her own bedroom;

·         It was noted that additional family support frequently came from relatives abroad, and the existing layout with one small office and a single bathroom was inadequate for their circumstances;

·         It was stated that the applicant worked remotely as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

Infilling of existing ATM aperture area, fenestration changes including the replacement of a bay window with an automatic sliding door and replacing existing single swing door with fixed shopfront glazing

Recommendation: Approval

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

Infilling of existing ATM aperture area, fenestration changes including the replacement of a bay window with an automatic sliding door and replacing existing single swing door with fixed shopfront glazing.

It was explained that the two related applications (agenda items 8 and 9) would be introduced together for clarity. Officers also provided an update noting that additional petition signatures had been received after publication of the Committee report. It was outlined that the first application concerned alterations to the shopfront (agenda item 8), while the second related to the installation of plant equipment at the rear (agenda item 9), with both proposals assessed only within the limited scope of their described works since no change of use was involved. Officers advised that design impacts, noise assessments and planning history had been fully reviewed, confirmed that no increase in background noise or breach of policy would occur, and recommended approval of both applications.

A petition had been received in objection to the application, and a petitioner was in attendance to address the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         The petitioner had lived directly behind 34 Station Road since 2006 and spoke on behalf of residents of West Drayton, particularly those on Ferrers Avenue adjoining the proposed site.

·         It was expressed that although no change of use class was proposed, the opening of a Tesco store was considered likely to alter the established character of Station Road and intensify activity in a manner uncharacteristic of the neighbourhood.

·         Concerns were raised that increased traffic, delivery vehicles, parking demand, noise, lighting, and extended operational hours would be experienced along Ferrers Avenue and would directly affect the daily access routes and living conditions.

·         It was highlighted that parking shortages and congestion were already experienced by residents, and fines had previously been issued due to the lack of available spaces.

·         It was argued that planning decisions should have considered not only economic factors but also the lived experience of long?standing residents, whose quality of life could be adversely affected.

·         The Committee was asked to consider whether the proposed development would genuinely enhance the area or instead undermine both the character of Station Road and the amenity of those who lived there.

Councillors asked whether the resident had experienced any issues when the bank previously occupied the site that would not be experienced now. The resident confirmed that no such issues had occurred with the bank and noted that any problems would arise from increased Tesco?related traffic rather than from the former use.

The agent for the application was also in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         It was emphasised that the applications sought only fenestration changes and the installation of new plant equipment, and that they did not involve a change of use.

·         The agent clarified that a Tesco store could have opened on the site without planning permission, as the lawful use already fell within Class E, the same use class as the former bank.

·         It was stated that many  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Installation of new plant solution and boundary treatment to rear of store.

Recommendation: Approval

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

Installation of new plant solution and boundary treatment to rear of store.

This application was considered in tandem with the previous application.

A petition had been received in objection to the application, and a representative of the petitioners was in attendance to address the Committee. The Chair reminded the petitioner that discussion must remain limited to the plant equipment and associated noise, as the broader concerns relating to Tesco’s operations had already been addressed under the previous application. Key points highlighted included:

·             The petitioner acknowledged that the application related only to plant installation but argued that the officer report had taken an excessively narrow approach, stating that wider impacts such as highway safety, congestion and servicing - referenced in Local Plan policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and London Plan policy T4 - should have been considered because the plant facilitated the store’s operation.

·             The Chair intervened, stating that references to deliveries and operational matters were not relevant to this application and instructing the petitioner to confine comments to issues associated with the plant equipment.

·             The petitioner then raised concerns about potential air?quality impacts arising indirectly from the development, arguing that the plant installation was intrinsically linked to the operation of the retail business. The Chair again clarified that such matters related to the previous item and were not material to the application under consideration.

·             The petitioner proceeded to address noise impacts, asserting that the submitted noise impact assessment did not accurately represent the likely disturbance from continuously operating plant equipment, particularly during night?time hours when background noise would be lower.

·             The petitioner questioned how continuous night?time noise would be mitigated and requested clarification on where comparable units existed locally and what noise assessments had accompanied those installations.

·             Officers reiterated that the noise report had been prepared by an appropriately qualified professional, assessed by the Council’s own noise consultant, and conditioned to ensure plant noise remained below background levels.

·             The Chair again reminded the petitioner that only matters directly related to the plant equipment were relevant and emphasised that broader concerns about Tesco’s operations could not form part of the Committee’s determination.

·             The petitioner concluded by stating that although some matters fell outside the strict scope of the application, the plant installation would have a “vicarious effect” enabling the store to operate, which was why residents had raised such concerns and signed the petition.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee Members highlighting the following points:

• It was clarified that the proposal related to a Tesco Express, identified as a small?scale retail convenience store.
• The shop floor area was confirmed as below 280 square metres to ensure compliance with Sunday Trading Act requirements.
• The noise assessment had been reviewed during the meeting, and it was noted that the first?floor flatted property, located approximately 7–9 metres away, had been used as the reference point.
• Appendix A (page 19) of the noise report indicated that the air?conditioning units would operate only during opening hours, anticipated to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

Erection of a single storey side and rear extension, following demolition of existing garage (AMENDED PLANS).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report; and

2.    That the drafting of an additional condition requiring submission of surface water drainage details for approval (in the interests of managing the risk of surface water flooding) in relation to managing the risk of flooding from surface water be delegated to the Planning Team Leader. 

Erection of a single storey side and rear extension, following demolition of existing garage (AMENDED PLANS).

Officers introduced the application highlighting the site context, existing and proposed plans and flood?risk mitigation. It was confirmed that the scale, design, neighbour impacts, and landscaping restoration were all policy?compliant. As the proposal met local planning guidance and included appropriate mitigation measures, officers recommended approval.

Ward Councillor Philip Corthorne was in attendance to address the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·          Councillor Corthorne emphasised that he was speaking solely in his capacity as a ward councillor and thanked the Planning Committee for considering the application following his request for a call?in.

·          It was noted that long?standing concerns existed regarding the planning policy framework, which was viewed as failing to give adequate weight to increasing flood risk as a material planning consideration.

·          Councillor Corthorne highlighted that flooding in the cul?de?sac was not theoretical, noting that residents had experienced repeated incidents over several decades, with one property affected on four occasions, largely due to the local topography causing water to accumulate around numbers 10 and 11.

·          Reference was made to paragraph 7.43 of the report, where it had been stated that the proposed extension would not significantly increase flood risk, a conclusion the Councillor considered overly optimistic given the known flooding history.

·          Even accepting officers’ assessment at face value, it was noted that the report still acknowledged an element of increased flood risk, which was considered particularly concerning in this location.

·          Councillor Corthorne urged Committee Members to rigorously question officers about the reliability and substance of the flood risk assessment, the meaning of sustainable drainage in this context, and the real?world effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.

·          It was stated that residents should be given clear justification as to how approval would offer them reassurance, given their previous traumatic flooding experiences.

·          It was argued that a cited precedent (No. 12) was not directly comparable due to being located on higher ground and therefore should not be relied upon.

·          The Committee was requested to give serious consideration to the concerns raised and, if refusal was not deemed possible, to apply robust scrutiny to officers’ claims regarding flood risk and its management. 

Members asked whether the proposed flood?mitigation measures would ensure that the extension did not increase flood risk for neighbouring properties, given the site’s location within Flood Zone 3. In reply, officers stated that, although the footprint would extend slightly into the green area, the River Pinn was located over 20 metres away, and it was confirmed that the flood risk assessment had considered the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. It was explained that mitigation had been incorporated through reduced extension size, the demolition of the garage, and the installation of soft landscaping during the first planting season, thereby increasing flood?storage capacity and aligning with Environment Agency guidance.

Councillors queried the relevance of a planning inspector’s decision referenced in the report. In reply, it was clarified that previous  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.