Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Roy Chamdal with Councillor Shehryar Ahmad – Wallana substituting and also Councillor Raju Sansarpuri with Councillor Jagjit Singh substituting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Roy Chamdal with Councillor Shehryar Ahmad – Wallana substituting and also Councillor Raju Sansarpuri with Councillor Jagjit Singh substituting.

None.

None.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 11 February 2026 be agreed as an accurate record.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 11 February 2026 be agreed as an accurate record.

None.

None.

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

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

Erection of single storey wrap around extension to side and rear, and amendments to fenestrations. 

Recommendation:  Approval 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.

Erection of single storey wrap around extension to side and rear, and amendments to fenestrations.

Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and made a recommendation for approval. Representations received from the applicant’s agent were summarised for the Committee.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Concerns were raised regarding loss of light, overshadowing, overbearing impact and enclosure, particularly given the quiet cul?de?sac location and the scale of the proposal. It was stated that the development would be out of character, with a large wrap?around extension altering the scale of the property and reducing natural daylight. Further concerns were raised in relation to parking pressures, increased vehicle movements and the alleged use of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). Reference was also made to unauthorised structures and activities at the site. The strength of local opposition was highlighted through the number of objections and the petition and the Committee was urged to refuse the application.

Councillor Jan Sweeting, Ward Councillor for West Drayton, addressed the Committee in support of the petitioners and asked that the planning reasons for refusal be taken into account. It was stated that the proposal would result in loss of light, overshadowing, an overbearing impact and increased parking pressures and was contrary to Policy DMHD1 due to the depth of the rear extension. Concern was raised that the proposal relied on previously unauthorised development that had become lawful only through the passage of time and that it would exacerbate parking issues in an already congested cul-de-sac. A site visit was requested.

A question was raised as to whether Anti?Social Behaviour or Planning Enforcement had been made aware of residents’ concerns regarding the alleged unauthorised HMO use of the property. It was stated that no enforcement action had been recorded to date and that residents were advised to continue reporting concerns directly to the Council.

Clarification was sought on daylight impacts, parking provision and the status of the existing development. Officers explained that the existing structure, which had originally been unauthorised, had become lawful through the passage of time and represented a material fallback position. It was noted that the site provided off?street parking for two vehicles and that the north?facing orientation reduced the significance of any sunlight loss. Officers advised that the proposal was acceptable in terms of scale and bulk and that no statutory floor?area limits applied. Members were further advised that any future lawful HMO use would require a separate application and that enforcement action could be taken if licensing breaches were identified.

Members considered the robustness of the officer report and were advised that any lawful HMO use would require a separate application. The officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded and, when put to the vote, was approved with five votes in favour and two abstentions.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.

Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved excluding access) for demolition of existing buildings (above basement level) and phased delivery of residential development (Class C3), flexible residential / commercial floorspace, new public realm, landscaping, play space, car parking, cycle parking and associated works.

Recommendation: Approval 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.

Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved excluding access) for demolition of existing buildings (above basement level) and phased delivery of residential development (Class C3), flexible commercial/community floorspace, new public realm, landscaping, play space, car parking, cycle parking and associated works.

Officers introduced the application and took Members through the plans and addendum. A recommendation for approval was made.

Members discussed the proposed development in the context of changing office use patterns and increasing residential intensity in the area. Clarification was sought on the Section 106 transport contributions, particularly the extent of Transport for London’s discretion over how funds would be spent. It was explained that contributions would be transferred to TfL under a service level agreement, with monitoring requirements in place to ensure the mitigation benefited the local area and addressed impacts arising from the development.

Heritage matters were considered, with Members noting the site’s aviation and industrial history and seeking assurance that heritage?led public art would be delivered. Officers advised that the design code referenced the site’s history and that public art was secured through existing conditions. Parking impacts were also discussed, particularly in relation to visitor parking and displacement onto nearby residential streets. Officers confirmed that the low?car scheme included limited on?site parking, permit restrictions, and a preference for family units, and that the site’s public transport accessibility and secured transport contributions were considered sufficient mitigation.

Members sought further reassurance regarding water efficiency and pollution prevention measures raised by consultees. Officers advised that these matters were addressed through proposed conditions and that no objection had been raised, subject to compliance. Clarification was also requested on the Section 106 contribution towards health infrastructure, with officers confirming that further detail would be provided at the reserved matters stage or secured by informative if necessary.

The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to the vote, was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.

Application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Approved Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Development Scope); 6 (Mix of Units); 7 (Phasing); 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Development Height); and 15 (Landscaping) of planning permission ref. 76551/APP/2021/4502 dated 28-09-2022. (Hybrid planning application seeking OUTLINE permission (with all matters reserved) for residential floorspace (Class C3) including demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings; new pedestrian and vehicular accesses; associated amenity space, open space, landscaping; car and cycle parking spaces; plant, refuse storage, servicing area and other works incidental to the proposed development; and FULL planning permission for Block A comprising 30 residential units (Class C3); new pedestrian access; associated amenity space and landscaping; cycle parking, refuse storage, and other associated infrastructure) to increase the number of homes, remove the existing parking court and increase podium size, revise the height strategy, removal of vehicle access and increase separation distances to create a new public square.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.

Application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Approved Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Development Scope); 6 (Mix of Units); 7 (Phasing); 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Development Height); and 15 (Landscaping) of planning permission ref. 76551/APP/2021/4502 dated 28-09-2022. (Hybrid planning application seeking OUTLINE permission (with all matters reserved) for residential floorspace (Class C3) including demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings; new pedestrian and vehicular accesses; associated amenity space, open space, landscaping; car and cycle parking spaces; plant, refuse storage, servicing area and other works incidental to the proposed development; and FULL planning permission for Block A comprising 30 residential units (Class C3); new pedestrian access; associated amenity space and landscaping; cycle parking, refuse storage, and other associated infrastructure) to increase the number of homes, remove the existing parking court and increase podium size, revise the height strategy, removal of vehicle access and increase separation distances to create a new public square.

Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and made a recommendation for approval.

Members sought clarification on the proposed air quality contribution and whether the higher or lower sum would apply depending on the implementation of a parking management scheme. Officers explained that the contribution was proportionate, with a lower amount payable where a parking management scheme was introduced due to reduced anticipated vehicle movements and air quality impacts. It was clarified that the introduction of such a scheme would be subject to resident consultation and was not imposed by the Council.

Concerns were raised to ensure that parking management decisions would be taken for appropriate planning reasons rather than financial considerations. Officers advised that the development’s transport impacts had been assessed under both scenarios and were considered acceptable, and that the contribution was reasonable given the scale of the development and potential for parking displacement. Further clarification was provided that the removal of existing parking courts and any associated overspill parking impacts had been assessed by the highways authority and were not considered harmful to highway safety or residential amenity.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.

Section 73 application to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Land Uses and Development Scope); 6 (Housing Mix); 7 (Phasing Plan); 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Building Heights); 19 (Landscaping); 22 (Parking Allocation and Management); and 50 (Wind Effects Assessment) of application reference 76550/APP/2023/2931 dated 01-05-2024. Section 73 application to vary Condition 3 of application reference 76550/APP/2021/4499 dated 28-09-22 (Hybrid planning application seeking OUTLINE permission (with all matters reserved) for residential floorspace (Class C3) including demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings; provision of a community centre (Use Class F2(b) floorspace); new pedestrian and vehicular access; associated amenity space, open space, landscaping; car and cycle parking spaces; plant, refuse storage, servicing area and other works incidental to the proposed development; and FULL planning permission for Blocks A and B comprising 80 residential units (Class C3); new pedestrian and vehicular access; associated amenity space and landscaping; car and cycle parking; refuse storage, servicing area, and other associated infrastructure to include temporary highways and landscaping works) to increase the parapet height by 50cm in the Detailed First Phase. Variation to increase the number of homes, to join blocks in phases 2 and 3, a reduction of parking to create green spaces, amendment to scale of street and relocation of community facility. 

Recommendation: Approval 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.

Section 73 application to vary Conditions 3 (Approved Plans); 4 (Supporting Plans/Documents); 5 (Land Uses and Development Scope); 6 (Housing Mix); 7 (Phasing Plan); 9 (Residential Density); 10 (Building Heights); 19 (Landscaping); 22 (Parking Allocation and Management); and 50 (Wind Effects Assessment) of application reference 76550/APP/2023/2931 dated 01-05-2024. Section 73 application to vary Condition 3 of application reference 76550/APP/2021/4499 dated 28-09-22 (Hybrid planning application seeking OUTLINE permission (with all matters reserved) for residential floorspace (Class C3) including demolition of all existing buildings and structures; erection of new buildings; provision of a community centre (Use Class F2(b) floorspace); new pedestrian and vehicular access; associated amenity space, open space, landscaping; car and cycle parking spaces; plant, refuse storage, servicing area and other works incidental to the proposed development; and FULL planning permission for Blocks A and B comprising 80 residential units (Class C3); new pedestrian and vehicular access; associated amenity space and landscaping; car and cycle parking; refuse storage, servicing area, and other associated infrastructure to include temporary highways and landscaping works) to increase the parapet height by 50cm in the Detailed First Phase. Variation to increase the number of homes, to join blocks in phases 2 and 3, a reduction of parking to create green spaces, amendment to scale of street and relocation of community facility.

Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and made a recommendation for approval.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.