Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Borough Planning Committee
Tuesday, 11th January, 2022 6.00 pm

Venue: Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre. View directions

Contact: Liz Penny  01895 250185 or Email: epenny@hillingdon.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

18.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Nicola Brightman, Councillor Ahmad-Wallana and Councillor Mohinder Birah with Councillor Jazz Dhillon substituting for the latter.

19.

Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

Minutes:

Councillor Steve Tuckwell declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 8 (32 Norwich Road, Northwood – 35516/APP/2021/2969) as he had close relatives living close to the application site. He did not vote and left the room during discussion of the item.

20.

To sign and receive the minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 151 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 7 December 2021 be agreed as an accurate record.

21.

Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent

Minutes:

Liz Penny, Democratic Services Officer, tabled a report entitled Temporary Covid-19 Protocol for Written Representations: Standardisation of Time Limits. It was confirmed that the Committee was requested to consider the standardisation of time limits for submission of additional information and written representations to no less than 48 hours prior to a meeting – consistent with the rules for those that attended to speak in person. Members were also requested to note the addition of legal services advice regarding privacy and a tidy up of the protocol by Democratic Services which did not alter any material aspect of it.

 

The proposal was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed (Councillor Dhillon was absent therefore did not vote on this item).

 

RESOLVED: That the proposal be approved as per the officer’s recommendation.  

22.

To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in Public and the Items marked Part II will be considered in Private

Minutes:

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

23.

49 Beech Avenue, Ruislip - 12926/APP/2021/3897 pdf icon PDF 15 MB

Replacement of existing property with a 2.5 storey building comprising 4 x self-contained flats, parking, landscaping works and widening of vehicular crossovers to front

 

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED:

 

1.    That delegated authority be granted to the Planning Service Manager to amend the reasons for refusal to reflect the changes in the revised ground floor plan including concerns regarding upper floor resident access to the rear garden; and

 

2.    That the application be refused.

Minutes:

Replacement of existing property with a 2.5 storey building comprising 4 x self-contained flats, parking, landscaping works and widening of vehicular crossovers to front.

 

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for refusal. It was noted that the agent had submitted a revised ground floor plan 24 hours in advance of the meeting. The Council was not obliged to consider this revised drawing at this late stage but had opted to do so since it was likely, if the application were to be refused and an appeal lodged, that the drawing would be submitted at that time; it was therefore deemed sensible to have regard to it within the meeting. Members were informed that the agent had attempted to overcome the reasons for refusal by omitting the footpath in the revised plan. However, officers felt this had not addressed overlooking concerns satisfactorily as cars would still be parked in close proximity to ground floor habitable windows. Moreover, the revised plan created an additional issue for residents on the upper floor as access to their rear garden would be impractical. It was noted that the Chairman had decided to allow the revised plan to be considered on this occasion since it did not change the building itself – only the outer area.

 

A written representation in objection to the proposal was read out to the Committee on behalf of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

 

·       Beech Avenue was currently a quiet friendly street. The petition had been signed by 63 local residents who vehemently objected to the proposed development. Many of these residents had lived on the street for many years;

·       The proposed flats were not in keeping with properties in the immediate vicinity which were family homes. There was a worrying trend whereby bungalows were being knocked down to be replaced with huge developments, thus ruining the street scene;

·       The development would result in an unacceptably high density of people for the building. This would lead to an increase in noise and waste pollution and would create additional parking stress. The proposed car park would also lead to a significant increase in air and noise pollution to surrounding properties;

·       The proposed development would be 2.5 storeys high, hence would result in a loss of privacy to surrounding properties.

 

A written representation (accompanied by an updated ground floor plan) was read out to the Committee on behalf of the agent. In response to proposed reason for refusal 1, Members heard that, as set out in the proposed revised plan, at the front of the windows to the bedroom of Flat 1 and the living room of Flat 2, a buffer at least 1.5 metres wide with 1.2 metre high hedges or similar and with a flower bed and shrubs would be created to ensure an adequate visual and physical barrier. This buffer would prohibit future residents from passing in front of these habitable windows thus safeguarding the privacy of the ground floor flats. Additionally, car parking bays P1 and P2 would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

24.

302 Kingshill Avenue, Hayes - 29352/APP/2021/3740 pdf icon PDF 6 MB

Erection of single-storey front and rear gazebo canopy structures with operable shutters, open sides with metal mesh material and gazebo metal columns and part covered sides (timber cladding) to rear gazebo structure to facilitate the use of part of the premises as a shisha lounge together with demolition of existing single storey store/office area to rear of premises.

 

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED:

 

1.    That delegated authority be granted to the Planning Service Manager to amend reason for refusal 1 as agreed by the Committee; and

 

2.    That the application be refused.

Minutes:

Erection of singly-storey front and rear gazebo canopy structures with operable shutters, open sides with metal mesh material and gazebo metal columns and part covered sides (timber cladding) to rear gazebo structure to facilitate the use of part of the premises as a shisha lounge together with demolition of existing single storey store/office area to rear of premises.

 

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for refusal.

 

A written representation from petitioners was read out to the Committee in objection to the application. Key points highlighted included:

 

·       An online e-petition had been supported by a large number of local residents who objected to the opening of a shisha lounge in a residential area;

·       Residents were concerned that, were it to go ahead, the proposal would result in unpleasant smells, loud noise late at night, an increase in parking stress, crime and antisocial behaviour. Moreover, it was felt the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of area;

·       Other shisha lounges already existed in the area therefore a new one was unnecessary;

·       Residents were content with their area which was bustling during the day and settled at night. 

 

The agent for the application was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. Key points highlighted included:

 

·       Concerns regarding parking stress had been addressed in the officer’s report;

·       It was confirmed that the restaurant was well-established, well-managed and had no track record of antisocial behaviour under the current management – there was nothing to suggest that this would change in the future; however were the restaurant not well-managed, the matter would come to the attention of the police and the local Council which would put the current restaurant in jeopardy;

·       A number of other restaurants along the parade were open at night therefore the area was not currently silent at night-time as had been suggested;

·       There were a lot of misconceptions regarding shisha lounges which were simply places where people could meet to socialise, smoke, chat and consume alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. The Hillingdon Plan highlighted the need to develop drivers of the economy that fostered social inclusion;

·       If the application were approved, odour and acoustic reports would be obtained and implemented prior to the structure being constructed. Moreover, it was confirmed that only one of the structures (to the front) would proceed;

 

In response to questions from the Committee, the agent observed that local businesses should be encouraged to rebuild post lockdown. It was reported that the proposed small extended section would have little aesthetic or obstructive impact.

 

Ward Councillor Darran Davies addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal highlighting concerns regarding the impact of increased parking stress on a busy shopping parade; it was felt said parking stress could result in a loss of revenue to the local shops.  Concerns were also raised regarding the proposed rear smoking area which would impact on residents in Kingshill Avenue and Adelphi Crescent – it was further believed that the rear entrance would encourage antisocial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.

32 Norwich Road, Northwood - 35516/APP/2021/2969 pdf icon PDF 14 MB

Demolition of existing detached property, and construction of new part two storey, part three storey building comprising 8 flats with associated vehicular crossovers, car parking and amenity space

 

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Minutes:

Demolition of existing detached property and construction of new part two storey, part three storey building comprising 8 flats with associated vehicular crossovers, car parking and amenity space.

 

Councillor Steve Tuckwell had expressed an interest in agenda item 8 therefore left the room and did not take part in the discussion or voting on this item.

 

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for refusal. Eight reasons for refusal were cited.

 

A petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal. It was felt that the officer’s report was thorough and covered all the salient points. The proposal was deemed to be a crude attempt to cram as many units as possible onto a plot with no consideration given to neighbours. It was reported that the parking allocation was misleading as only 2 of the proposed 6 spaces would be usable without driving across the bus stop. It was noted that a previous application for the site had proposed a 4 flatted development in the style of a semi–detached home which would have been far preferable. It was suggested that any future development on the site should take the form of a semi-detached or detached family home given the need for family accommodation in the Borough.

 

The agent for the application was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. He commented that he felt that the proposed reasons for refusal had not been fully justified in the report. Key points highlighted included:

 

·       Setting - the proposal was for an L-shaped development along Norwich Road and Cranbourne Road. This was a common layout for a corner plot which created a sense of enclosure and provided privacy;

·       Scale and bulk - the report did not consider that the proposal constituted overdevelopment. The proposed development would have no adverse impact on neighbouring properties;

·       Height – the proposal did not exceed the height of existing buildings nearby;

·       Design – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), section 12, paragraph 134 encouraged innovative designs and use of balconies -  buildings in the vicinity were 1930s houses with no architectural merit therefore something new was to be welcomed. Balconies would provide amenity space for the occupants and would enable them to enjoy the fresh air;

·       The tree referred to was not a mature silver birch tree. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature considered the silver birch to be the least important to include on the red list; 

·       A mix of units including 3-bedroom flats could easily be incorporated into the scheme and ground floor flats could be made accessible to disabled people.

 

Councillor Duncan Flynn was in attendance and addressed the Committee on behalf of petitioners in objection to the application. Councillor Flynn commented that the proposal in question was one of the worst he had ever seen in all his time as Ward Councillor. The fact that there were eight refusal reasons in the officer’s report spoke for itself. Councillor Flynn commented that the height, bulk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

26.

199 Field End Road, Eastcote - 2698/APP/2021/2355 pdf icon PDF 15 MB

Change of use from a financial and professional services, retail and cafe (Use Class E) to a mixed-use comprising retail, restaurant and cafe (Use Class E) and a drinking establishment (Sui Generis) and retention of awnings and air conditioning units

 

Recommendation: Approval

 

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the addition of a fire safety condition to come into effect on commencement of the restaurant operation.

Minutes:

Change of use from a financial and professional services, retail and café (Use Class E) to a mixed-use comprising retail, restaurant and cafe and a drinking establishment (Sui Generis) and retention of awnings and air conditioning units.

 

Officers presented the report and highlighted the information in the addendum. The application was recommended for approval.

 

A written submission was read out on behalf of Ward Councillors objecting to the proposal. Key points highlighted included:

 

·       Policy DMTC4 placed the onus on the applicant to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact on or loss of amenity to nearby properties;

·       The Planning Committee had not been provided with a noise impact assessment to enable it to assess this information;

·       The absence of detail regarding the kitchen layout and ventilation rendered an informed decision impossible;

·       The absence of a service plan made impact on highways impossible to determine;

·       It was unclear whether the fire exit precluded one of the car parking spaces from being used – the site plan suggested that safe exit may be hindered by the bicycle store and stairs from flats above.

 

Noting the Planning History at the site, Members enquired how the current application differed from previous ones. It was confirmed that, in the latest application, the rear entrance would no longer be used to access the drinking establishment in the basement. The previous application had also sought longer operating hours; these had been reduced in the current application which proposed a closing time of 12pm.

 

Members observed that kitchen equipment would be contained in the basement and enquired whether a fire safety condition should therefore be applicable to ensure the safety of the establishment and of neighbours. It was confirmed that there was no requirement for fire safety information to be included in the application; however, at the request of the Committee, it was agreed that a fire safety condition would be added which would come into effect on commencement of the restaurant operation.

 

With regards to noise concerns, Members heard that a noise impact assessment would be submitted prior to the commencement of the new operation at the premises.

 

Members raised no further objections or requests for clarification. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed. Councillor Alan Kauffman did not vote on this application as he had been absent during part of the presentation of the item.

 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the addition of a fire safety condition to come into effect on commencement of the restaurant operation.

27.

Barra Hall, Hayes (Application for Listed Building Consent) - 8134/APP/2021/2148 pdf icon PDF 5 MB

Barra Hall CCTV upgrade and new CCTV column addition

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Minutes:

Barra Hall CCTV upgrade and new CCTV column addition (application for listed building consent).

 

Officers introduced the application and recommended that it be approved.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

28.

Barra Hall, Hayes (Application for full planning permission) - 8134/APP/2021/2147 pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Barra Hall CCTV upgrade and new CCTV column addition

 

Recommendation: Approval

 

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Minutes:

Barra Hall CCTV upgrade and new CCTV column addition (application for full planning permission).

 

Officers introduced the application with a recommendation for approval.

 

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

 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

29.

Ravenscourt Close, Ruislip - Tree Preservation Order - No. 792 pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Recommendation: Confirm TPO 792

Decision:

RESOLVED: That TPO 792 be confirmed.

Minutes:

Tree Preservation Order No. 792 (TPO 792) Group 1: All Oaks within Ravenscourt Close, Ruislip.

 

Officers introduced the application with a recommendation for approval.

 

The Committee noted that the oak trees contributed to the amenity of the area and had a long life expectancy. Members raised no objections or concerns. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED: That TPO 792 be confirmed.