Item 5: West Thames College, Isleworth

Councillor O’Reilly declared that she had a pre-determined view concerning this item and that she would address the Committee before leaving the room for the debate and the vote.

Item 6: Land at Chiswick Roundabout, junction of Gunnersbury Avenue and Great West Road

All Members had received communications concerning this item. Councillor Barwood also declared that she knew the applicant through business, but had no prejudicial interest in the application.

Item 8: Dukes Meadows Golf Club, Dukes Meadows, Dan Mason Drive, Chiswick

All Members had received communications concerning this item. Councillor Barwood declared that she had visited the site when the report had been presented at Chiswick Area Committee.

Item 9: Boston Playing Fields, Boston Gardens, Brentford

Councillor Cadbury declared that she had met the applicant.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 September 2011 (agenda item 3) were agreed.

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.

All Members had received and noted the report.

See report by Shane Baker, Planning Officer (agenda item 5) and the Addendum Report.

Councillor O’Reilly advised that she had attended many meetings with the applicant and therefore, felt that she had a pre-determined view on the application. She advised that she would address the Committee and then leave the room for the discussion and vote.

She raised concerns over the manner in which the application was dealt with last year because she felt the application had been rushed through the Committee, there had been no consultation with the neighbours and the responses in the consultation had been from 2009. She felt that there were not enough facts being provided or answers to residents’ requests. She had asked for a deferral, but had been told that officers did not think that it was necessary.

Councillor O’Reilly also raised concerns over the lack of screening, the close proximity of the Children’s Centre to residents’ properties in The Grove, the increased height, the hours of opening and the difference in the building’s finish. 

Councillor O’Reilly noted that the current report sought further changes. She felt that there were still too many unanswered questions and that the Early Intervention Service had rushed the application through.

Councillor O’Reilly left the room at this point in the meeting.

With the permission of the Chair, Councillor Reid spoke in objection to the proposals on behalf of Mr Pull and Mr Cullen, residents of The Grove.

She advised that they had enjoyed their gardens until recently because there had been a natural barrier and they were seldom aware of the students. During the past 2 years of the rebuilding of West Thames College, they felt that the process had been handled well overall but there had recently been built what they described as ‘a carbuncle’ across the bottom of their gardens.

They supported the Children’s Centre, but had concerns about disturbance at weekends and felt that the minor amendments they had suggested were reasonable.

Councillor Reid felt that the residents had been left in a difficult situation because of the way in which the application had been handled by the Council. There had been a lack of consultation and changes had been made to the original planning application with no further consultation. Misleading information had been presented to the Committee last November because consultation comments had been from the original application and not the new one. The building had not been built in accordance with the plans and Councillor Reid noted that the Committee could refuse the application and ask that it be built as the original had been planned.

She asked that, if Members were minded to approve the application they accept the mitigation requested by the residents and not just the measures shown in the report and the Addendum Report, in particular, the suggestions concerning the number of people attending the Centre and the heat pumps.

Shane Baker, East Area Planning Manager, gave details of the planning application. He advised that the application sought planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

See report by Brendan Tinney, Planning Officer (agenda item 12) and the Addendum Report.

With the permission of the Chair, Mr Collins spoke in support of the proposals. He advised that security was of paramount importance. The car park entrance would be chained to ensure that it could not be used out of business hours and it would be monitored by CCTV cameras.

With the permission of the Chair, Mr Patterson, a resident of Brackley Road, spoke in objection to the application. He advised that all of the residents supported the substance of the development and had been in discussions with the developers since May. There was however, one remaining item, which was causing concern, which was security around the car park area and residents were asking for it to be secured by railings and an appropriate sliding gate outside trading hours. There was a small area on Brackley Road at the rear of the pub, which was a site for anti-social behaviour after the pub shut and was intrusive to residents. The residents believed that the larger and secluded area to the rear of the bank would be where people would gather. They thought that railings would keep people out and they thought that it would be reasonable and appropriate to include that in a condition. He had heard the reference to a chain, but did not think that would work and that a physical obstruction was needed. Residents had asked for a gate, but were asking for a deterrent rather than something impregnable.

In response to Members’ questions in relation to the objector’s request for a gate, Mr Baker noted condition 15 in the report, which referred to security measures. The applicant’s suggestion of a chain to prevent vehicles entering the car park outside office hours had been accepted as adequate, but there would be no objections to the installation of a gate, as long as the details were provided to the Council.

Members were in favour of a gate rather than a chain and Mr Baker proposed amending the condition to ask for details to be submitted to officers for approval. Councillor Hughes suggested some prickly shrubs as well as a cheap deterrent, which Mr Baker advised would be considered.

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

For -               Councillors Bains, Barwood, Cadbury, Curran, Davies, Dhillon, Fisher, Grewal, Hughes, Jabbal, O’Reilly and Sangha.

Against -       None.

Abstain -       Councillor Gill

Resolved:

a)     That planning permission for planning application 00248/137/P1 for the demolition of the existing petrol filling station buildings and the erection of a new bank building (class A2) and servicing/parking area at 137 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick be approved, subject to the conditions in the report and the Addendum Report.

a)     That condition No. 15 be amended to ask for details of the gate to the car park to be submitted by the applicant to officers for approval.

See report by Sarah Smaill, Planning Officer (agenda item 6) and the Addendum Report.

With the permission of the Chair, Mr Gottlieb spoke in support of the application and with reference to the three reasons for refusal set out under the recommendation in the report, he made the following comments:

• The officer writing the report did not like the design. The London Mayor, the GLA and a large number of residents supported the application. Mr Gottlieb felt that it was a landmark design and although that was his personal view, he felt that most people liked it.
• The proposal would cause harm to the cemetery. Mr Gottlieb pointed out that he already had planning permission for a larger building on the site, no advertisements could be seen from the cemetery and English Heritage had not raised any objections.
• There would be harmful emissions from light. Mr Gottlieb felt that all buildings created some emissions. The type of lighting being proposed, however, kept emissions to a minimum and was acceptable to the Council’s Sustainability Officer.

Mr Buttar, Director of the Hounslow Race and Equality Council, also commented on the application. He felt that the proposals would bring investment into the area and jobs during construction. Further jobs would be provided within the offices and through the supply chain. There would be positive engagement with the community, who would be able to use the back of the screen to advertise and schools would be encouraged to use it. There would be a roof garden, which could also be used by the community. Mr Buttar was supporting the application because of the positive impact and the access for the community.

In response to Members’ questions, Mr Gottlieb advised that he would be happy to add an extra 50 trees to parks in the area as a condition. The trees would be provided in relation to concerns about emissions and would not be intended to screen the building.

Shane Baker highlighted the main points in the report and advised that refusal was recommended owing to the unsatisfactory design of the building with regard to the undue dominance of the largest media screen, the intrusive nature of the illuminated building, when viewed from the nearby cemetery and the adverse air quality implications.

If Members were to approve the application, it would be necessary to apply conditions in respect of the operation and management of the building’s lighting scheme, hours of operation and the media screens, amongst other more standard conditions. The development was also of a scale and nature, where planning obligations related to the development would be sought with contributions recommended for employment training, public transport improvements, public realm improvements, a travel plan and controls of the lighting and media screens, as set out in the report. There would also be an additional lighting management programme and a highways agreement would be required with regard to works on the adjacent highway. Mr Baker confirmed that officers would be recommending the restriction on lighting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

See report by Shane Baker, Planning Officer (agenda item 8) and the Addendum Report.

With the permission of the Chair, Mr Lenton, the Head of Coaching at Dukes Meadows Tennis Club, spoke in support of the application. He felt that the club provided the community with the opportunity for all to play tennis and delivered excellence. Mr Lenton advised that he had experienced discrimination because he could not become a member of a private tennis club and had ensured that the best coaches were at Dukes Meadows to provide accessible excellence. Dukes Meadows was the only ‘pay & play’ centre in London. School children were training with professional players and there was a weekly programme, which was full of hundreds of children. The Centre was offering a schools programme to Hounslow Council, which was all provided free of charge. Mr Lenton felt that the Centre was an exceptional place with exceptional circumstances.

Mr Tim Henman, professional tennis player, added that he had a passion for Dukes Meadows, which he felt was a world class facility. He felt that it was important to break down barriers and ensure accessibility. The facility was a ‘pay & play’ with an emphasis on providing facilities to children. In terms of anti-social behaviour and the lack of healthy life style for children, Mr Henman felt that the facility at Dukes Meadows helped children to stay out of trouble. He concluded by saying that he felt that there was a great atmosphere at Dukes Meadows.

In response to Members’ questions, Mr Lenton advised that he thought that the best way to provide facilities to children from low income families was to work with schools and their PE teachers, which he felt provided the most long term benefits. He felt that provision for children not in education was something they could look into.

With regard to the reinstatement of the dome without planning consent, Mr Cobley responded on behalf of the applicant. He advised that there was an expectation that the planning application would be approved and that the case officer had asked for the application to be withdrawn because they had wanted more information to be provided. Although the application had been withdrawn in 2008, discussions had continued between the applicant and the Council.

In terms of accessibility, Mr Cobley advised that an offer had been made to provide a minibus so that local schools could have access and that details had been provided to the Council. He also confirmed that an indoor environment was essential and that the facility was not viable without the dome. Floodlighting was also essential because there was no natural light.

Mr Lenton added that it was important to have the facilities available throughout the year. He also felt that very special circumstances had been proven because it was open to everyone, the facility was of a high quality and there was a need for the facility.

Shane Baker gave details of the application and concluded that the improved offer from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

This item has now been adjourned and will be heard at the meeting to be held on Monday 7 November.

This item was deferred to the additional meeting being held on 7 November 2011.

See report by Shane Baker, Planning Officer (agenda item 9)

Mr Baker gave details of the application. He advised that the recommendation had been changed to remove the requirement for a legal agreement, because the issue was covered by the first condition. The applicant had requested that the time period be 12 months, which would be more than the 30 September 2012 date being recommended, but was significantly beyond the Paralympics finish date of 9 September, so was not considered to be justified.

Councillor Cadbury requested that the permission be extended to the end of 2012 to cover the entire Olympic year and also requested that the vegetation be cut back alongside Boston Gardens to ensure that residents had a view.

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

Resolved:

a)     That planning permission for planning application 00132/A/P11 for the erection of a temporary artwork structure on either side of the M4 motorway at Boston Manor Playing Fields, Boston Gardens, Brentford be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

a)     That permission be amended to extend to the end of 2012 instead of September.

This item has now been adjourned and will be heard at the meeting to be held on Monday 7 November.

This item was deferred to the additional meeting to be held on 7 November 2011.

See report by Sean Doran, Planning Officer (agenda item 11)

Councillor Barwood requested that some of the S.106 funding for environmental improvements be used to protect, replant and maintain the flower bed.

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 00248/29/P14 for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a part four storey, part three storey mixed use building, comprising of 447 sq metres of commercial (Class A1, A2, A3, B1, D1) uses on the ground and lower ground floors and the construction of nine residential units including two townhouses, three two-bedroom apartments, four three-bedroom maisonettes with 9 car parking spaces at basement level at 29 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick 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 Borough Solicitor:

i) A contribution towards public open space in the sum of £4,200.

ii) A contribution towards private amenity space in the sum of £6,030.95.

iii) A contribution towards play space in the sum of £7,200.

iv) A contribution towards environmental improvements in the sum of £7,800

v) An agreement for future residents not to apply for parking permits.

vi) A Traffic Management Order in the sum of £2,500

b) That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 31 December 2011, 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,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

This item has now been adjourned and will be heard at the meeting to be held on Monday 7 November.

This item was deferred to the additional meeting to be held on 7 November 2011.

This item has now been adjourned and will be heard at the meeting to be held on Monday 7 November.

This item was deferred to the additional meeting to be held on 7 November 2011.

This item has now been adjourned and will be heard at the meeting to be held on Monday 7 November.

This item was deferred to the additional meeting to be held on 7 November 2011.

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.

The report was noted.

There was no other urgent business.