Agenda item

Retrospective Application for the use of the ground floor as a banqueting suite, with associated ancillary facilities at basement level for private civil ceremonies, weddings and parties (Sui Generis).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Retrospective Application for the use of the ground floor as a banqueting suite, with associated ancillary facilities at basement level for private civil ceremonies, weddings and parties (Sui Generis).

Officers introduced the application.

The lead petitioner attended and addressed the Committee, noting that 113 petitioners strongly opposed this application. The petitioner noted that the Council’s website stated that to apply to host weddings/ civil ceremonies, applicants had to be the proprietor or a trustee of the premises. The applicant, as tenant, was neither. The site currently held planning permission for class A3 restaurant or café use only and the petitioner referenced a pending investigation (ENF83719) relating to unauthorised usage. The venue’s website had already been advertising its permitted use for weddings/ civil ceremonies. This noted their disregard for their current permitted use. The volume of traffic on St Andrews Road was referenced, and that this was a small private road which was the only vehicular entrance/ exit point to the site. This could cause potential issues for emergency vehicle access.

A number of further points of objection were noted including double parking and illegal parking on yellow lines and pavements; noise pollution as everts were held seven days a week; music played beyond permitted hours; the right to a private/ family life due to hired security guards loitering in the area; safety, due to the site’s use of fireworks coinciding with its location within the Northolt flight path; deliveries and waste collections being made outside of permitted hours; and the effects that each of these had on children’s welfare. The application was unsuitable for its location within the area of a quiet, residential road, and was not in line with the Council’s strategy (updated in November 2022) of putting residents first; and to safeguard the neighbourhood and the wellbeing of residents. Therefore, the application should be refused.

Photos and a video had been submitted by the petitioner which were shown to the Committee.

Members thanked the petitioner for their petition and sought come cultural context. Members asked if there were mainly Asian weddings taking place at the venue, which the petitioner confirmed was the case. This had a negative impact on traffic as large numbers of vehicles all arrived and exited at the same time, often late at night. It was noted that vehicles entered via Vine Lane. It was noted that Wren Avenue had pedestrian access on only one side, while cars park on both sides of the road.

Members clarified that there was only one road for vehicular access to the site (Wren Avenue), and Vine Lane was also affected. Members noted that this was a retrospective application, and the petitioner noted that issues had been ongoing since 2019.

A written representation from the applicant was read out, making the following points:

• The pre-existing use of the ground floor of the property had planning permission for use as a restaurant as part of the hybrid consent for the wider St Andrews Park Site.
• The subject of the application was very similar to the existing authorised use as a restaurant.
• Apart from the planning conditions, there was no specific restriction on the existing authorised use as a restaurant.
• The current application was therefore very similar to the existing use and previous authorised use was a “fallback” position, which was a material planning consideration.
• The principle of the application accorded with local and national policies, there was therefore no objection to the use.
• The Council’s Highway Officer was satisfied with the proposal, subject to appropriate planning conditions.
• A Noise and Odour assessment report had been submitted to justify the proposal.
• Since submission of the noise report, the mode of operation of the use of the ancillary kitchen had significantly reduced due to the use of outside caterers, who supply cooked food to the premises.
• Food was only heated up in the kitchen, if necessary. For this reason, steps recommended by the initial report were not strictly relevant.
• The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had no objection to the proposal, subject to imposition of appropriate conditions.
• The only objection was from the Conservation Officer who wished to see the details of the suggested measures in the consultant’s initial report up front.
• The applicant considered that these matters could be addressed by imposition of appropriate conditions. In case conditions were not discharged or details were unsatisfactory, the Council had powers to take enforcement against breach of condition(s), against which there was no right of appeal.
• The applicant considered that the use of the kitchen has substantially decreased due to the involvement of outside caterers. Members were requested to take this material consideration into account.
• Notwithstanding this, the applicant was willing to submit a revised Acoustic and Odour Assessment Report based on the changed circumstances, which could be achieved by an appropriate planning condition.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS:

• A significant number of local people supported the application.
• The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had no objection to the proposal, therefore other third-party objections were not sustainable.
• Any other information/ details required could be addressed by appropriate planning conditions.

CONCLUSION:

• There was no objection to the principle of the development.
• There was no material difference between the existing authorised use of the site as a restaurant and the subject of the application.
• Whilst the Environmental Health Officer had no objection (subject to imposition of conditions), the application was being recommended for refusal due to the comments of the Conservation Officer, who wished to see the details upfront.
• The applicant considered the Conservation Officer’s concerns could be addressed by appropriate planning conditions.
• Planning applications were decided on balance having regard to all relevant policies and material planning consideration. On balance, the application should be approved.
• Members were requested to approve the application which would preserve 20 jobs (directly or indirectly).
• As an alternative to refusal, Members were requested to defer the application to enable the applicant to submit a revised Acoustic and Odour Assessment Report based on the changed circumstances to address the matters of dispute.

Councillor Reeta Chamdal attended as Hillingdon West Ward Councillor. Councillor Chamdal noted that the Committee was not deciding on a new application, but on an existing situation, where issues were already happening. Hillingdon House had been in use as a banqueting hall since 2019. The applicant had not demonstrated any regards to residents, or to the permitted use. The report noted permitted times and permitted use and the site was ignoring these. This was demonstrated by a previous visit to the site which had taken place on a Sunday. Highways had noted that there were 40-50 parking spaces for 150-160 guests. The noise issues persisted all night. The use of outside caterers would only add to the existing issues. The use of an outside music system would also add to existing issues. A previous occasion of the use of a horse and cart, which was not cleaned up after, was noted. Residents were already experiencing all of these issues.

Members asked about engagement with local residents, and it was confirmed that no recent engagement had taken place, although reference was made to discussions with former Ward Councillors. The Chairman noted that this was a prior approval application.

Members noted that the current reasons for refusal, on residential amenity grounds, appeared light and suggested an additional reason for refusal on Highways grounds. Officers noted that, while it was clear that the above-mentioned activities were taking place, the Council would have to be able to effectively defend a reason for refusal on Highways grounds, should one be added, in the event of an appeal. Officers further noted that if they were in a position to recommend that the application be approved, that conditions would be applied, such as hours of use. However, officers were not currently adequately satisfied, on the grounds of noise issues, to be able to recommend approval, as further details would need to be received in order for this to be the case. Officers further noted that should an additional refusal reason be added on Highways grounds, there was a possibility of a cost award being granted against the Council should it be deemed, on appeal, that the refusal reason was unreasonable. Officers noted that the site’s lawful use as a restaurant had been considered. Officers noted the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 111, which stated “Development should only be prevented or refused on Highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on Highways safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe”.

Members agreed with strengthening the reasons for refusal. It was noted that the site had full capacity of 200, for which the current parking was insufficient. The cultural context was also important. Officers noted that each vehicle attending would likely hold more than one person, and so the likely number of vehicles on site would likely be less than the number of people.

Members questioned possible conditions around hours of use, to which officers noted that as the site had been operating without planning permission, there was some doubt as to whether conditions would be complied with. It was noted that previous non-compliance was not in itself a reason for refusal.

The Head of Legal Services noted that they would be reluctant to advise the Committee to refuse planning permission solely on Highways grounds. It was noted that there had been little cooperation from the applicant, and that although a refusal on Highways grounds may be reasonable, there was also a risk of costs in the event of an appeal. It was suggested that highways information from the applicant would be difficult to receive.

The Chairman asked whether a traffic management plan had been received, and officers noted that a form of traffic management plan had been submitted. NPPF paragraph 111 was again noted.

Members noted that they were not suggesting a Highways refusal reason alone, and suggested the Committee would not lack evidence for this. Members suggested the possibility of a site visit. The Chairman suggested that a site visit would not add much information that the Committee was not already aware of. Members further highlighted that residents were having to walk on the road to avoid parked cars; and that this was a retrospective application where issues had persisted since 2019. In relation to this, the Chairman referred back to the Head of Legal Services’ comment regarding the potential costs that could be incurred in the event of an appeal. Officers noted that Members had suggested that the current use of the site had resulted in parking stress and congestion which was not in the best interests of highway safety and could not be adequately controlled through the imposition of conditions or other mitigation, as so was consequently contrary to the development plan and relevant highways policies.

The Chairman summarised that the retrospective planning permission that had been sought had resulted in parking stress and associated congestion to the detriment of pedestrian highway safety as well as amenities of local residents. These issues could not be satisfactorily resolved through the planning conditions and therefore were contrary to a number of policies that had been outlined.

The Head of Legal Services noted that residents were suffering and had been for a number of years. The additional refusal reason was not unreasonable, but any appeal would require resident engagement. It was agreed that wording for an additional refusal reason on Highways grounds would be agreed by with the Chairman, Head of Legal Services and Planning Service Manager. It was noted that any conditions would have to be by agreement and that the applicant may not engage.

The officer’s recommendation with additional refusal reason on Highways grounds was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.