Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Adam Bennett, Councillor Keith Burrows and from Councillor Raju Sansarpuri with Councillor Tony Gill substituting for the latter.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 5 November 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.

Enabling works to allow implementation of full runway alternation during easterly operations at Heathrow Airport including the creation of a new 'hold area' at the western end of the northern runway, the construction of new access and exit taxiways, the construction of an acoustic noise barrier to the south of Longford Village and temporary construction compounds. 

The proposed development is subject to an Environment Impact Assessment (Notice under Article 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017). 

Recommendation: Approval 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to section 106, conditions as set out in the report and the information in the addendum.

Enabling works to allow implementation of full runway alternation during easterly operations at Heathrow Airport including the creation of a new 'hold area' at the western end of the northern runway, the construction of new access and exit taxiways, the construction of an acoustic noise barrier to the south of Longford Village and temporary construction compounds.

The proposed development is subject to an Environment Impact Assessment (Notice under Article 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017).

The Area Planning Service Manager and the Head of Environmental Specialists introduced the application which concerned an application at Heathrow Airport. It was noted that the application related to enabling works intended to implement full runway alternation during easterly operations. The proposals included the creation of a new holding area at the western end of the northern runway, construction of new access and exit taxiways, installation of an acoustic noise barrier south of Longford village, and establishment of temporary construction compounds. These works were subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Officers clarified that the application did not propose an increase in the air traffic movement cap set by the Terminal Five decision, nor did it enable airport expansion. The submission was standalone and unrelated to expansion proposals. Detailed plans and constraints maps were presented, highlighting conservation areas, listed buildings, and green belt land. Officers explained the operational context, including the historic Cranford Agreement, which had previously restricted departures over Cranford village. It was noted that the agreement had been formally ended to allow equitable noise distribution and predictable respite periods for affected communities.

The proposed easterly alternation mirrored westerly operations, introducing runway alternation to provide relief from noise. Planning history indicated that a similar application had been refused in 2013 but subsequently approved on appeal in 2017, with consent later lapsing. The current application sought to secure appropriate mitigation measures, including the noise barrier and rapid access taxiways. Due to the significant environmental effects, permitted development rights had been removed, necessitating a full assessment.

Members heard that an extended consultation process had been undertaken, involving 370 letters, public notices, advertisements in local and regional newspapers, and publication on the Council’s website. It was noted that the London Borough of Hounslow had objected, citing insufficient engagement and technical detail regarding mitigation measures. Officers clarified that these concerns had been addressed in the Committee report and Heathrow’s response, and recommended approval of the application with mitigation secured. Amendments to conditions and heads of terms were outlined, including sustainable water management and ultrafine particle considerations.

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

·         It was stated that the officer’s recommendation was unsound because it relied on an incomplete environmental statement with key impacts either unassessed or assessed using flawed methodologies. Noise, vibration, and ultrafine particle impacts were identified as missing or uncertain, while mitigation measures were deferred, undefined, and ineffective. The proposed increase in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

Demolition of existing rear workshop buildings (Use Class E) and construction of 2 no. self-contained flats and 1 no. dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) with associated private amenity space, landscaping, cycle and refuse storage, together with alterations and a two-storey rear extension to the existing building, including internal layout changes to the first-floor residential flat above the retail unit and the installation of a rear dormer window (REVISED DESCRIPTION) 

Recommendation: Approval 

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

Demolition of existing rear workshop buildings (Use Class E) and construction of 2 no. self-contained flats and 1 no. dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) with associated private amenity space, landscaping, cycle and refuse storage, together with alterations and a two-storey rear extension to the existing building, including internal layout changes to the first-floor residential flat above the retail unit and the installation of a rear dormer window (REVISED DESCRIPTION)

Sally Robbins, Senior Planning Officer, presented the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was noted that the site was located within the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character and subject to constraints including critical drainage, air quality focus, and potential land contamination. The proposal introduced a car-free arrangement with bin and cycle storage, hard and soft landscaping, and defensible space within a courtyard. The unit mix comprised one retained and altered flat, two two-storey dwellings, and one single-storey dwelling, all meeting internal space standards.

It was considered that the design broadly reflected the existing footprint and preserved the character of the area while optimising site capacity. The proposal was considered to provide acceptable living conditions, safeguard neighbour amenity, and address environmental matters through conditions. Highways officers had raised no objection, and the increase in built form was not deemed harmful to neighbouring properties. Overall, the scheme represented an appropriate design-led approach for a High Street location and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

A petition had been received in objection to the application, and a representative of the Northwood Residents’ Association (NRA) was in attendance to address the Committee Members on behalf of the lead petitioner who had been the tenant of the shop and resident of the flat above since 1985. Key points highlighted included:

·         The proposal required the lead petitioner to vacate the premises, resulting in the loss of her home and business.

·         The NRA strongly opposed the application, primarily due to the complete absence of on-site car parking.

·         It was argued that reliance on proximity to bus stops as justification for no parking would set a borough-wide precedent, as most properties were within walking distance of public transport.

·         Previous applications for the site had included car parking spaces, and earlier refusals highlighted inadequacy of proposed parking provision.

·         The current scheme introduced three additional residential units to the rear of the site, accommodating approximately ten residents, without any on-site parking provision.

·         Concerns were raised about increased illegal parking and difficulties for residents and visitors, as well as the impracticality of assuming reliance solely on public transport.

·         The applicant had initially claimed ownership of the pavement in front of the shop for parking purposes, later admitting this was incorrect after evidence was provided.

·         Additional objections included inadequate amenity space, lack of lift access to upper floors, and loss of storage facilities for the retail unit.

·         The NRA submitted a further objection during the November reconsultation, reiterating that on-site parking was a requirement under the local plan and that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.