Item 5: Ascot Road Industrial Estate

Councillor Hills advised that he had been contacted by the agent, but had no personal interest in the application.

Item 8: 41 High Street, Brentford

All Members had received correspondence concerning this item and Councillor Dakers declared that he was a member of Brentford Community Council, but did not take part in any decision making.

Item 9: Kew Bridge

All Members had received correspondence concerning this item and Councillor Barwood had attended an exhibition. Councillor Dakers advised that he would speak on the application and then withdraw from the meeting for the discussion and the vote.

Item 10: 104-108 Chiswick High Road

The Chair advised that the item had been withdrawn and would be provided to the March meeting of the Sustainable Development Committee.

Item 11: Dukes Meadow Golf Club

The Chair advised that the item had been withdrawn and would be provided to the March meeting of the Sustainable Development Committee.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 2009 (agenda item 3) were agreed.

Approved.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 4)

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

Resolved:

That planning application 00170/193/P1 for the demolition of an existing garage and the construction of a new garage at 193 Bulstrode Avenue, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Approved, with a variation to condition 3 to allow the developer to carry out the works in two phases.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 5) and the Addendum Report.

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

Resolved:

a)     That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Divisional Head of Regulatory and Development Services to grant a variation of condition three (approved plans) of planning permission 01270/E/P3 dated 24/09/09 for the erection of 24 no. 490m² of class B warehousing and 8,730m² of class B1 offices, new access arrangements, 332 new parking spaces, servicing and associated landscaping to the site to allow a phased development at Ascot Road Industrial Estate, Feltham be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the Addendum Report and either a deed of variation or the re-issue of the S.106 agreement.

b)     That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking shall be completed and planning permission issued by 10/03/2010, or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment or Borough Solicitor’s office.

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 Divisional Head of Regulatory and Development Services 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 Circular 05/05, relevant policies in the development plan and the Planning Obligations SPD, as described in Section  4.7 – 4.8 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 Divisional Head of Regulatory & Development Services, 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, that there has not been any material change in the circumstances in the relevant planning considerations and that a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the obligations set out in the report is completed with any specified period of time be approved.

Approved

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 6)

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

Resolved:

a)     That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Divisional Head of Regulatory and Development Services to grant permission for outline planning application 01321/N/P1 for the re-development of the site (up to 10,000 sqm (GEA) for light industrial (B1C) and/or general industrial (B2) and/or storage and distribution (B8) purposes, including ancillary office space, car parking and landscaping at Unit 681, 682 and 683 Armadale Road, Feltham be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the securing planning obligations as set out in Sections 8.0 and 8.1 of the Report by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and/or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers with the Department of Environment on the advice of the Borough Solicitor.

b)     That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed within six months from the date of approval and planning permission or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Environment or Borough Solicitor’s office.

c)      That, if the legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed by the six months specified above (or any agreed extended period), authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Divisional Head of Regulatory and Development Services 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 Circular 05/05, relevant policies in the development plan and the Planning Obligations SPD, as described in Section 8.0 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 Divisional Head of Regulatory & Development Services, 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, that there has not been any material change in the circumstances in the relevant planning considerations and that a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the obligations set out in the report is completed with any specified period of time be approved.

Approved

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 7)

Myfanwy McNally, Area Planning Manager, advised the Committee of an amendment to the recommendation, which should have recommended approval, subject to planning obligations and conditions, rather than referral to the Sustainable Development Committee.

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

Resolved:

That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Divisional Head of Regulatory and Development Services to grant extant planning permission for planning application 00507/AE/P1 for the alteration of an extant planning permission during the course of development to construct a new B1C, B2 and B8 Industrial Warehouse at Airport Works, Green Lane, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the securing of planning obligations for an environmental improvements contribution to the value of £10,000 by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and/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 Borough Solicitor.

Planning Application, Conservation Area Consent and Listed Building Consent approved.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 9) and the Addendum Report.

With the permission of the Chair, Charmaine Young spoke on behalf of the applicant. She advised that, since deferral of the application from the September meeting, they had worked hard with officers to address the matters raised by the Committee at that meeting.

She advised that design changes had been made to the corner building and materials would be conditioned. Car parking and cycle provision had been increased and amenities for the house boats and toilet would also be conditioned. The S.106 agreement had been confirmed and included affordable housing and a claw back mechanism.

Peter Hughes and Brian Sawyer from the Brentford Chamber of Commerce also spoke in support of the proposals.

With the permission of the Chair, Paul Lewis spoke on behalf of the Strand-on-the-Green Association. He felt that the 5 months since the last meeting had been a waste of time because the 6 amenity groups' views had not changed; they did not feel that there was any significant difference to the new proposals and that the development was still too big, and over-development of the site, it had a detrimental effect to Kew Bridge, the views were unacceptable and no account had been taken of the River Thames setting.

Councillor Dakers advised that he would comment on the application and then leave the room for the discussion and decision.

He acknowledged the concerns raised by the objectors, but advised that Members’ aspirations were restricted to within the planning guidance. He also noted that there had been many letters and emails in support of the application. The application had been deferred from the September meeting because of issues around social housing provision and details of the design and Councillor Dakers noted that the proposed open book approach was acceptable to the Council. The applicants had held a workshop to allow Members and representatives from the local community to discuss the design details and he felt that improvements had been made to the corner building.

Councillor Dakers felt that, if the proposals were refused, the applicant was likely to win an appeal and that, on balance, it would be best to accept the application. If the application was approved, however, he felt that a fair claw back trigger needed to be agreed. He also proposed that the roof space be used for allotments and that fruit and nut trees be planted in the square. He suggested that S.106 funding be used for a proportion of the costs towards the lamp columns on the bridge and that an old Brentford pub name was needed for the pub. He welcomed the fact that the developer had allowed the eco-villagers to stay on the site and hoped that the developer would provide them with notice to leave the site when works began.

(Councillor Dakers left the room at this point).

Cathy Gallagher acknowledged that the application had not changed significantly. She advised that the claw back mechanism  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Approved

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 8)

Councillor Dakers raised some concerns about the potential use of metal cladding and white render for the building’s finish.

Maggie Urquhart advised that the materials could be conditioned for when construction was known. Metal cladding was being proposed for the top of the building because traditional materials were inappropriate for that style, which was designed to lighten and break up the mass at roof level. The river walkway would be backed by a grille above a low wall with planting to create a living wall. The greenery would be between the walkway and the car park, offering some screening of the car park. In terms of render, officers were suggesting that light materials to be used in the courtyard to prevent the area from being too dark.

Councillor Hardy advised that he could not support the application because he disapproved of the affordable housing provision and felt that it would be in the shade.

Councillor Dakers advised that he would like to aspire to better architecture in Brentford, including no usage of white rendering and alternative finishes to the metal cladding on the top of the building. He also felt that specially designed grilles should be used and suggested that S.106 environmental improvements money be used to add interest to the area around the riverside walkway.

Cathy Gallagher did not feel that the Council could refuse white rendering completely but acknowledged that it was sometimes not appropriate. She advised that she would consider conditions to improve the riverside and agreed that the potential for a project to improve the walkway was a good idea, but would be dependent on timescales for the works.

Members voted on the officer’s recommendation, as follows:

For -               Councillors Barwood, Cooper, Dakers, B. Fisher, Hills, Hutchison, Mann and O’Reilly.

Against -       Councillor Hardy.

Abstain -       Councillor Andrews.

Resolved:

a)     That authorisation for the Director of Environment or the Divisional Head of Regulatory and Development Services to grant planning permission for planning application 00607/41/P28 for the demolition of the existing buildings for a mixed use development, comprising of 56 residential units, 174m² commercial floor space (use class A1/A2/B1) and 44 car parking spaces at Albany House, 41 High Street, Brentford 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 and/or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers with the Department of Environment on the advice of the Borough Solicitor:

i)                    Affordable housing provision with a cascade clause.

ii)                  A contribution towards the maintenance of existing public open space in the area, in the sum of £6,200

iii)                A contribution towards providing and/or enhancing off-site public open space in the local area. The Council have requested £9,757, but the final figure has yet to be agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Withdrawn

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 10) and the Addendum Report.

The Chair advised that the item had been withdrawn and would be provided to the March meeting of the Sustainable Development Committee.

Withdrawn

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 11) and the Addendum Report.

The Chair advised that the item had been withdrawn and would be provided to the March meeting of the Sustainable Development Committee.

"The Sustainable Development Committee endorses the report included  within this reports pack, published on the web and reported on the TW8 website (www.brentfordtw8.com) outlining the many concerns of the several Amenity Groups in Hounslow regarding the operation of the Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) in Planning and calls upon  the Director of Environment to act upon the various Measures they have proposed and implement them forthwith." (see Appendix A for details).

Councillor Cooper questioned the reasons for the motion being presented to a planning committee because issues around the operation of the Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) were potentially concerning policy, which he felt should be presented to Borough Council.

Councillor Andrews felt that the EDMS system was a planning issue and should, therefore, be presented to the Sustainable Development Committee.

Councillor Mann agreed with Councillor Cooper that the motion should be put to Borough Council. He also pointed out that many of the issues around the EDMS system involved the ICT Department.

Councillor Dakers felt that the Sustainable Development Committee was a specialist sub-committee, with a greater knowledge of planning issues and the EDMS system. He also felt that there may not be the opportunity for motions to be discussed at Borough Council for the remainder of the Municipal year and advised that residents associations were keen to see improvements to the EDMS system.

Councillor Hardy felt that it was appropriate to bring the motion to the Sustainable Development Committee for endorsement because it called for action from the Director of Environment. He felt that the Committee was the superior committee in terms of the opportunity for debate about a planning issue and could include contributions by officers.

Cathy Gallagher advised that the EDMS system had been very successful for small applications and was being used by the public. She acknowledged, however that there had been problems, some of which were being addressed. There were significant problems over IT issues and staff training on the system. Ms Gallagher welcomed the opportunity to produce a report addressing the issues raised in the appendix and felt that it would be sensible for Members to be given the opportunity to discuss the issues.

Councillor Cooper advised that he was not challenging the importance of the issue, but felt that Ms Gallagher’s point about problems with IT confirmed that the motion should be raised at Borough Council, or with the Executive, where officers from the IT department could be present to answer questions.

Councillor Andrews advised that the issue was of great concern to the community groups, who had suggested solutions. He raised concerns that there would not be an opportunity to discuss the matter at Borough Council or to have officer input into the debate.

Councillor Mann felt that it was unfair to expect officers to comment on political priorities. He felt that the issue was within the remit of the Executive and not within the remit of the Sustainable Development Committee. He suggested that the motion be targeted at individual Executive Members, who could request a report from officers. He felt that, procedurally, it was appropriate for the motion to be directed to the Lead Member for Environmental Services and the Head of ICT.

The Chair agreed that improvements were needed to the EDMS system. She suggested that officers provide a report back to the Sustainable Development Committee prior to the matter being raised either with the Executive or Borough Council.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.