Councillors Jabbal, Hills, Cooper and Hutchison declared that they were members of the Sustainable Development Committee.

Item 4 – ASI House

All Councillors had been contacted by both applicants and objectors.

Councillor Bowen had spoken at a peace conference organised by the applicants.

Councillor Howliston had met the applicants as part of his work as a Methodist member of the Hounslow Friends of Faith.

The minutes were agreed, subject to the following change:

Minute 51 – The London Plan Consultation

Councillor Howliston asked that his comment be amended to read ‘draw cars from parking on the road’ rather than ‘draw cars from the road’.

See report of Director of Environment, agenda item 4.

Tim Joll, Deputy Area Planning Manager, summarised the report saying that the application was for a change of use of ASI House from B1 business to D1 non-residential institution and 27 Sunbury Way from B1 business to C3 dwellinghouse.

Mr Paul Beech, the applicant’s agent, then addressed the committee. Ahmadiyyah Muslim Association was an international community which held the motto ‘love for all, hatred for none’. The community was involved in a wide range of humanitarian activities. Its members were educated and sensitive to their neighbours. The Hounslow Branch was based at Martindale Road, and this currently served one hundred and forty families, of which thirty families would be transferring to ASI House. This would mean a total membership at ASI house of less than two hundred people. He noted that ASI house was not a replacement for Martindale Road. The offices at ASI house had been unoccupied for eighteen months and there had been theft and unauthorised parking at the site. The building was also deteriorating due to its lack of use. The principal function of the site would be as a community centre. It was expected to be used regularly by twenty to thirty people, although for short periods at important times such as Eid, this could rise. He compared this to the fifty to sixty office workers who could currently use the site and were in his opinion more likely to drive. There was a condition to restrict noise from the centre, which he felt would be minimal in any case. A green travel plan was proposed to ensure that the development did not adversely impact upon the surrounding area. A travel plan already successfully operated at the Martindale Road site. He said that there was no reason to fear traffic congestion, as only a small number of local people would be using the site.

Councillor Stewart questioned the numbers of people likely to attend the centre, and asked how additional members would be prevented from attending the ASI house site. Mr Beech said that there were thirty families who lived within two miles of the centre who would use it. He said that this would not total more than two hundred people. Each of the Martindale Road and ASI House centres would have its own services.

Councillor Williams asked how people could get to the centre, and how cars could be dealt with. Paul Beech said that the majority of families who would be using the centre lived within walking distance of ASI House. He added that there was on site car parking and that a marshalling scheme could be used to ensure that cars did not park in surrounding areas.

Councillor Williams questioned the need for a new mosque as there was capacity for 10,000 people only 30 miles away. Paul Beech said that this mosque was the Ahmadiyyah Muslim Association’s National Headquarters, and that ASI house was to be a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

See report of Director of Environment, agenda item 5.

Councillor Harris asked why 86 Granville Road had been granted permission for a garage whilst an enforcement action was ongoing. Myfanwy McNally said that if an enforcement action was not related to the new application then permission could not always be refused.

Councillor Cooper clarified that an appeal could be launched if a decision were delayed.

Councillor Drew Morgan-Watts asked why the application at 78 Main Road had been refused, as there was a similar development next door to the property. Myfanwy McNally agreed to investigate and respond to Councillors Drew and Andy Morgan-Watts.

Councillor Bowen asked what an appeal against non determination was. Myfanwy McNally replied that this was an appeal where the planning department had taken too long to give a decision and so the applicant could appeal against the lack of decision in a similar way to a refusal.

This item was agreed as urgent by the Chair on 09/02/2010 as the practicalities of the application meant that it was time limited.

See report of Director of Environment, agenda item 6a

Myfanwy McNally, Area Planning Manager, informed the committee that Councillor Hills had asked to call the application in to Sustainable Development Committee. The protocol was for the Area Committee Vice-Chair, The Chair of Sustainable Development Committee and The Leader to decide on the appropriate forum. They had decided that the West Area Committee should decide if they felt that they could make a decision or it they would rather ask Sustainable Development Committee to make a decision.

Councillor Hills said that he felt that the item was not just a planning application, but affected the whole borough’s waste strategy, as the report explained. He felt that this should be decided by a borough wide body.

Councillor Jabbal said that he thought that this was a planning application and therefore could be determined by the West Area Committee, which had been set up to make planning decisions in the West Area.

Councillor Howliston said that he believed there was a conflict of interest.

Councillor Cooper felt that Sustainable Development Committee would be a better forum for the decision as the Council had an interest in the application.

Councillor Hills moved a motion to ask the Sustainable Development Committee to consider the item. Councillor Cooper seconded this.

In response to questions from Councillors, Jimmy Walsh, legal adviser, explained that the item was not considered to be the Council’s own application, but the Council did have a connection with SITA as they provided waste management services to the Council.

Councillor Hills said that granting the application would give SITA an advantage in future tendering exercises, as they would be better able to meet the Unitary Development Plan Policy ENVP 2.1 - Waste Management. He did not feel that the West Area Committee should be making borough wide policy decisions.

Councillor Andy Morgan-Watts noted that Councillors didn’t consider possible future contracts when considering planning applications.

Councillor Nakamura noted that the report said that the site was essential to Hounslow’s waste management strategy. She commented that it appeared as though the committee were being asked to approve the application without thorough consideration.

Myfanwy McNally apologised and said this part of the report was poorly worded.

Councillor Hills said that SITA already had a large contract with the Council, and so it was appropriate that the application be looked at by the Sustainable Development Committee.

Councillor Bowen said that Councillors had received a large amount of paperwork on the item on the night, and hadn’t had the opportunity to read it. Due to the urgency he would support asking the next Sustainable Development Committee to determine the application.

Councillor Drew Morgan-Watts clarified that the motion did not contain a reason why the committee wanted to refer the application to the Sustainable Development Committee.

Jimmy Walsh explained that the protocol for call in from Area Committees to Sustainable Development Committee said that a reason should be provided for a request. The protocol was, however, only a protocol and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Councillor Andy Morgan-Watts congratulated Councillor Hutchison on chairing the most difficult West Area Planning meeting he had been involved in as a Councillor.

It was then resolved to exclude the press and public by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Paragraph 5.

Councillors considered a report on the Parking Charges at the Centre Feltham. Councillors expressed concern about the length of time the issue was taking to resolve.