Noted.

Item 5: 71 Thorney Hedge Road

All Members had received communications concerning this item.

Item 6: 7 Bridge Wharf

All Members had received communications concerning this item.

Item 10: Apex Corner

All Members had received communications concerning this item.

Item 13: Variations to the Kew Bridge Development and Hounslow Social Club Legal Agreements

Councillor Curran advised that he was the Lead Members for Housing, but did not have a prejudicial interest in the application.

Agreed.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2012 (agenda item 3) were approved with the following amendments:

a)     Delete the word ‘not’ from ‘would not solve the problems (item 96, para.2, page 5 refers)

b)     Amend the third sentence to read ‘She questioned, however, whether the conclusion that the proposals would not make matters worse was sufficient reason to approve them. She did not feel that they met current or future needs’ and amend the word ‘proposals’ to ‘purpose’ in the last sentence (item 97, para.4, page 7 refers).

c)      Amend the last sentence to read ‘and asked that the money be retained for future enhancements to the station rather than being diverted to other local public transport enhancements within the vicinity of the station’ (item 97, para. 5 page 7 refers).

d)     Amend the word ‘construction’ to ‘reconstruction’ (item 97, para. 6, page 97 refers).

Matters Arising

Councillor Davies noted that comments made by herself and other Councillors had not been included in the 7 November minutes concerning agenda item 7, 5 Hardwicke Avenue. The Committee agreed that those comments would be included in an appendix, which would be attached to these minutes.

An Addendum report will be published shortly before the meeting with any additional information relating to agenda items not available at the time of publication of the main agenda.

Noted.

The Addendum Report was noted.

Approved.

See report by Nikolas Smith, Planning Officer (agenda item 5) and the Addendum Report

With the permission of the Chair, Mr West spoke in support of the application as the agent for the applicant. He advised that previous application had been deferred from the January Committee meeting and had been revised and amended in favour of a car free scheme, as requested by the Committee.

The site would be a car free development and access was restricted by a bollard. The applicant was willing for a condition to be attached concerning the detailed design. Traffic, congestion and servicing remained the same as it was for the existing properties. Mr West did not believe that the additional properties would make an impact as the five extra houses represented a 3% increase.

In terms of refuse collection, Mr West advised that each house had its own front door and that the refuse store at No.71 was for holding refuse only on collection day. If the Committee felt that it was appropriate, he was happy for the location to be dealt with by condition. The Fire Brigade had agreed to a sprinkler system without the need for access to the site. Amenity space provision was in accordance with Council policy and Mr West felt that it was an efficient and appropriate development.

With the permission of the Chair, Mr Barker advised that he lived at No.70 and shared the access way with the site. He felt that the site was still ill equipped and requested that the application be deferred again to address the issues. He felt that the number of houses should be reduced to three, which would be less of a strain on the controlled parking zone. He advised that there would be a large number of trucks and cars stopping in the road, which was a narrow one-way road.

(Councillor Cadbury joined the meeting at this point).

Mr Barker advised that he appreciated that extra housing was needed but felt that it should not be to the detriment of existing residents. He also felt that there would be a huge safety risk if there was no emergency access and that there should be some signage. Mr Barker felt that there should be a condition on access for new residents and that the bollard should only able to be opened by the emergency services.

Ms Rabouhans also spoke in objection on behalf of the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society and as a resident of Silver Crescent. She wanted to see a sustainable development for the site and a good quality environment for all. She felt that the need for family housing needed to be balanced with the existing houses and a reduction to three new houses would achieve that desired balance. She felt that there should be an increase in the communal amenity space for others to use and asked the Committee to defer the application again to allow for the development to be amended to three houses and for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

Approved.

See report by Sam Collins, Planning Officer (agenda item 6)

With the permission of the Chair, Mr Patrick Robinson spoke on behalf of the applicant, Bridge Wharf Residents Association and made the following amendments and additions to the officer’s report:

• The application was made by Bridge Wharf Residents Association and not 7 Bridge Wharf Road.
• One of the objections had stated that the demise of the bridge had been brought about by the lack of maintenance by residents. Mr Robinson advised that the Bridge Wharf Residents Association did maintain the bridge from 1987 up until its closure in 2004 and during that time replaced all the walking slats on more than one occasion and added non-slip treading. He advised that the reason the bridge was closed was on the recommendation of the Environment Agency, who had retained a company to repair the river banks. The company had identified that the wooden support structure beneath the bridge was rotting away. None of this was visible from the surface, which was the reason it had not been maintained.
• The report did not mention toddler safety and Mr Robinson advised that toddlers had a tendency to peer through and climb on the railings running alongside the Bridge Wharf footpath. The Residents Association’s concern was that there was not safety ledge below the Bridge Wharf footpath, unlike that on 20 Church Street.
• Section 3.9 in the report stated that Bridge Wharf’s agreement was not obtained for Taylor Woodrow to co-fund a repair. Mr Robinson advised that it was obtained but that Taylor Woodrow had never completed an agreed Schedule of Work and instead, went on to sell their development.

With the permission of the Chair, Mr Tom Beaton spoke in objection to the proposals. He asked the Committee to reject or defer a decision on the application until the overall objectives of the Thames path had been reviewed. He noted that the application was to vary the terms of a planning condition in respect of one part of the path. He advised that another application to vary conditions relating to the path at Heron’s Reach would likely to be made in the coming months and another to potentially close the wooden humpback bridge at Town Wharf. He raised concerns that small pieces of the path were being considered in isolation and that the bigger picture was being lost.

Mr Beaton hoped that the Council would consider its position in relation to the legal form best to secure public rights of access to a path for the future and whatever form of access rights were used, the best way to secure maintenance of those paths. He did not feel that imposing duties on landowners was the best  way and urged consideration of a one-off charge to the developer, after which the Council would adopt responsibility for the maintenance and ancillary functions.

Mr Beaton noted that a summary of letters of objection had been included in the officer’s report, but felt that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

Approved.

See report by Shane Baker, Planning Officer (agenda item 7) and the Addendum Report.

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation, for approval.

Resolved:

a)     That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to grant planning permission for planning application 00816/A/P16 for the conversion of the existing building to provide 9 residential units (6 x 1 bedroom, 1 x 2 bedroom, 2 x 3 bedroom), with external alterations, landscaping, 6 car parking spaces and the formation of a vehicle access at the Baptist Church, 1 North Road, Brentford be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the Addendum Report and the securing of the following planning obligations by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment on the advice of the Assistant Director, Corporate Governance:

i)                    Car club contribution (free membership of local car club for each new household within the development annually for five years and up to 50 memberships for households in North Road and Distillery Walk annually for three years) – this has an approximate value of £10,000.

ii)                  Open space improvements contribution of £2,800.

b)     That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 23 May 2012, or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment or within Legal Services.

c)      That, if the legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed by the date specified above or any agreed extended period, authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory and Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal should include planning obligations required to make the development acceptable in planning terms, in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 development plan policies and the Planning Obligations SPD, as described in Section 8 of the report, be approved.

d)     That, if planning permission is refused for the reasons set out above,  authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager, in consultation with the Chair of the Sustainable Development Committee to approve any further application for planning permission validated within 12 months of the date of refusal of planning permission, provided that it duplicates the planning application, there has not been any material changes in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations and provided a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the obligations set out in the Report is completed within any specified period of time, be approved.

Deferred.

See report by Stephen Hissett, Planning Officer (agenda item 8)

This item was deferred because both the Councillor, who had made the request for the application to be heard by the Committee and the applicant were not able to attend the meeting.

Approved.

See report by Jermaine Thomas, Planning Officer (agenda item 9) and the Addendum Report

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation for approval.

Resolved:

a)     That, subject to a Stage II referral from the GLA, authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to grant planning permission for planning application 01032/E/P35 for the erection of a 15,893 sqm, three storey data centre warehouse with associated parking, single storey gatehouse, new access road and access onto Hayes Road at Western International Market, Hayes Road, Southall be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the Addendum Report and the securing of the following planning obligations by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment on the advice of the Assistant Director, Corporate Governance:

i) Greenbelt

      A payment of £300,000 is outstanding from the previous 2006 Section 106. The payment of this amount is due on commencement of any of the previously approved employment schemes on this site. Given the current economic climate theses schemes, that each proposed one or two stand alone buildings, are no longer viable and will not be forth coming. As such the outstanding payment will now be secured through a separate legal agreement that requires the payment of the contribution regardless of the commencement of any development on the site.

(Addendum Report states that, in addition to the above paragraph, it is noted that the £300,000.00 that is due to come to the Council will be received in three amounts, partly in acknowledgement of the current economic climate, but also to reflect the fact that the Council has separate schemes within Comprehensive Project Area 6 that can be implemented at different times to reflect this split of payment).

ii) Transport

      A payment of £25,000 was received from the previous 2006 Section 106 to ensure that the transport impacts of an B8 Industrial use on Western International Market are mitigated or compensated for. It is therefore considered that no additional public transport payments are required for any proposed B8 Industrial uses at Western International Market.

iii) Section 278 works

      Either the agreed Section 278 works or the requirement to agree 278 works will be secured by a legal agreement. A second condition would also be attached to any decision to ensure that no development can commence until the Section 278 works have been implemented. 

(Addendum Report states that it would be secured prior to occupation rather than commencement).

iv) Employment & training:

      An employment and training payment of £140,000 was previously received by the Council in relation to a previous Section 106 in 2006. Given that the floor area of this scheme is less than the previously approved scheme, a smaller contribution of £103,000  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

Refused.

See report by Stephen Hissett, Planning Officer (agenda item 10) and the Addendum Report

Members fully supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal and the reasons set out in the report. They were particularly concerned about the unsuitable location on a busy, dangerous roundabout and the lack of parking provision at a site with a poor public transport accessibility level. Members also felt that there were other sites in the locality, where the proposed facilities would be more beneficial, for example, near to Hanworth Library or at Leisure West.

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

Resolved:

That planning permission for planning application 01252/Z/P2 for the erection of two restaurant units (A3), including a new access road and associated surface level car park, cycle parking, refuse area, landscaping and other associated works at land off Apex Corner (A316) Twickenham Road, Feltham be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

Approved.

See report by Sam Collins, Planning Officer (agenda item 11) and the Addendum Report.

Councillor Hughes felt that the proposals were appropriate for the specific area where they would be located, but raised concerns about security. Ms Gallagher advised that officers would look to improve security and ensure that the development was ‘secure by design’ where possible.

Councillors Jabbal and Wilson had not been present throughout the discussion and therefore, abstained.

Members voted in favour of the officer’s recommendation for approval, as follows:

For -               Councillors Cadbury, Curran, Davies, Dhillon, Fisher, Gill, Hughes, O’Reilly and Sangha.

Against -       None

Abstain -       Councillors Jabbal and Wilson

Resolved:

a)     That planning permission for planning application 00745/1/P4 for the change of use from D1 (education) into eight self-contained flats with associated amenity space, refuse and cycle storage at 1 Martindale Road, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the Addendum Report.

b)     That officers would look to improve security and ensure that the development was ‘secure by design’, where possible.

Approved.

See report by Sam Collins, Planning Officer (agenda item 12)

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation, for approval.

Resolved:

That retrospective planning permission for planning application 01095/D/S13 for the erection of a new mobile classroom unit at Welllington Primary School, Sutton Lane, Hounslow be approved.

(Councillor Davies left the meeting at this point).

Urgency Reasons: changes to both schemes are required to secure affordable housing and given the critical stage in the build process, a delay to the March committee is not feasible.

Approved.

See report by Stephen Hissett, Planning Officer (agenda item 13)

This item had been accepted by the Chair as a late report on the grounds that changes to both schemes were required to secure affordable housing and given the critical stage in the build process, a delay to the March Committee meeting was not feasible.

Cathy Gallagher advised that the report was a briefing paper concerning affordable housing for schemes, which had previously been granted permission. There were two applications and two legal agreements, which both needed to be varied to ensure that the proposed offer was secured. It was an unusual situation arising from ownership options on two sites with planning permission at the same time, with an opportunity to review the affordable housing provision across the two sites.

Councillor Hughes felt that the Kew Bridge site was a good location for social housing because there were good transport links and job opportunities in the area. Councillor Dhillon commented that minor changes had been shown to the Chair and some of the other Members and that he was happy with the design changes. Councillor Cadbury felt that both sites had opportunities to provide more benefits and was glad to see improvements created by having the two sites linked.

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation, for approval.

Resolved:

a)     That the report written in relation to a non-material amendment to the land adjacent to Kew Bridge scheme (Appendix 1) be noted and authorisation for officers to vary the relevant legal agreement (ref 00657/P/P16) be approved.

b)     That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Assistant Director – Environment Department (Regulatory & Development Services) or the Development Control Support Manager to grant planning permission for planning application 00530/60/P3 for the variation of condition two of planning permission 00530/60/P2 for the erection of a five-storey building, comprising of a new social club at ground floor level with 29 flats in the upper four storeys, with associated parking dated 09/11/2011 to alter the approved plans to provide up to 29 affordable housing units in place of the 29 flats previously approved at Hounslow Social Club, 60 Grove Road, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the securing of the following planning obligations by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment on the advice of the Assistant Director, Corporate Governance:

i)                    Townscape/public realm and open space – financial contribution towards improvements to the pedestrian environment and the maintenance of Inwood Park (£16,500)

ii)                  Travel Plan – preparation and implementation of a plan to reduce the number of car trips made by employees or other users of the development

iii)                Public transport – payment of a financial contribution to enhance local public transport services (£26,000)

iv)                Traffic management – removal of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

The following note is intended to supplement individual committee reports and provides guidance to Members on National Planning Policy for consideration in reaching decisions and/or providing comments on planning applications.

Noted.

The report was noted.

There was no other urgent business.

There was no other urgent business.

Noted.

The date of the next meeting was noted.