Councillor Carey advised that he had resident contact in respect to Campion House hoarding (agenda item 6).

Councillor Reid advised that she had resident contact in respect to 28A The Grove (item 4) and 3 The Pavement (item 5).

In respect to Campion House, Councillor Reid stated that she is now advised that potentially she has a prejudicial interest in relation to this site and that she should take no part in the discussion or decision.

Councillor O’Reilly advised that she had resident contact in respect to Campion House hoarding (item 6).

Councillor Hibbs advised that she had resident contact in respect to 3 The Pavement (item 5), and 403-405 Twickenham Road ATM (item 7).

Councillor Hardy advised that he had resident contact in respect to 3 The Pavement (item 5), and Campion House hoarding (item 6).

Councillor Shirley Fisher advised that she had received correspondence in respect to 3 The Pavement (item 5), and Campion House hoarding (item 6).

Councillor Paul Fisher declared an interest in respect to 3 The Pavement (item 5), and took no part in the deliberation and decision on this application; he also had received correspondence in respect to Campion House hoarding (item 6), and 403-405 Twickenham Road (item 7).

Councillor Phil Andrews advised that he had received correspondence in respect to 3 The Pavement (item 5), Campion House hoarding (item 6), and 403-405 Twickenham Road (item 7).

Received;

‘The Regents Network, Press Release, Moorings Proposal on River Brent Impede Navigation’ of 22 October 2009.

An article to the November 2009 issue of Waterways World titled ‘Carrying & Freight News, Brentford battle rumbles on’.

Isleworth Society Memorandum, dated 6 October 2009, titled ‘Unauthorised Satellite Dishes In Conservation Areas.’

(Councillor Cadbury arrived at 7.35pm.)

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 September 2009 were confirmed.

In respect to Enforcement of Unauthorised Satellite Dishes in Conservation Areas, (clause 13 of the Minutes), Councillor Hardy reported that a meeting had been held with Hounslow Homes who were working with a new contractor to provide a ‘communal feed’ for tenants to connect their individual television sets into, rather than having each tenant placing their own satellite dishes onto the building.

It is hoped to have made significant progress on the tidying up of satellite dishes by Christmas; members would be informed of progress on this contracted work.

In response to a question from Councillor Cadbury, Councillor Hardy advised that it was not possible to include those tenants into a ‘communal feed’ who sought connections to overseas television networks; they would still required a satellite dish to meet their needs.

(Councillor Dakers arrived at 7.45pm.)

Mr. Peter Cusden had been granted speaking rights; refer to Minutes clause 25.

See the report of the Director of Environment, agenda item 4.

A decision on this application had been held over from the previous meeting; the application was for an extension, only, to what was considered to be a house in a derelict state. The Committee had sought an assurance that the whole property would be refurbished, if this application was to be approved.

Marilyn Smith, Development Control Support Manager, advised the meeting that the applicant had now agreed to encompass the whole house into the refurbishment of his property. It had also been agreed that the removal of trees from the site would be subject to a separate planning application.

Members were now satisfied with the amended application, to encompass the total refurbishment. However, they sought assurances in respect to landscaping and the occupation of the dwelling, and agreed to conditions of approval to protect these concerns.

Councillor Harmer moved approval of the application, with the additional conditions, and this was seconded by Councillor Carey.

Voting record

Voting for; Councillors Caroline Andrews, Cadbury, Carey, Dakers, Paul Fisher, Shirley Fisher, Hardy, Harmer, Hibbs, O’Reilly, and Reid.

Councillor Phil Andrews abstained.

Resolved

That planning application P/2009/1256 being a part ground floor, part two storey rear extension incorporating refurbishment of the house at 28A The Grove, Isleworth be approved, subject to the conditions in the report, and the following additional conditions;

. that the applicant will undertake full landscaping of the property, and

. that this property be a single family dwelling.

See the report of the Director of Environment, agenda item 5.

Marilyn Smith, Development Control Support Manager, summarised the key points relating to the application.

The applicant sought retrospective approval to the replacing of the (original) shop front with the modern frontage now in place, together with an internal non-illuminated fascia sign. Objections were received to the modernised shop frontage work.

The Committee was advised that the applicant had now agreed to remove the (current) frontage and replace it with a timber shop front of a traditional design. Council planning and conservation staff were satisfied with the changes. The objector’s had also confirmed acceptance to now withdraw their objection.

Members received an addendum report which corrected, or added to, some information contained in the planning report.

Members expressed their appreciation of the work that staff had undertaken with the applicant and the objector’s to achieve a good outcome, being the reinstatement of a traditional frontage to the shop.

Councillor Harmer moved approval of the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Hardy.

Voting record

Voting for; Councillors Caroline Andrews, Phil Andrews, Cadbury, Carey, Dakers, Shirley Fisher, Hardy, Harmer, Hibbs, O’Reilly and Reid.

Councillor Paul Fisher declared an interest in this item, and took no part in the deliberation and decision.

Resolved

That planning application P/2009/ 1633 and P/2009/1641 being the replacement shop front and display of non-illuminated fascia sign at 3 The Pavement, South Street, Isleworth be approved, subject to the conditions in the report.

See the report of the Director of Environment, agenda item 6.

Marilyn Smith, Development Control Support Manager, summarised the key points relating to the application.

Councillor Hardy sough a deferment of the application, so as to allow the compliance to previous (planning) conditions.

Other members, however, supported approval so as to achieve better site security and tidying up of the security hoardings along the road frontage.

The idea of having viewing portals put into the security hoarding was seen as being a benefit to on-site security, as well as allowing the public to view site progress. A condition was therefore agreed to, for inclusion into the decision.

Councillor Harmer moved approval of the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Cadbury.

Voting record

Voting for; Councillors Caroline Andrews, Phil Andrews, Cadbury, Carey, Dakers, Paul Fisher, Shirley Fisher, Hardy, Harmer, Hibbs, and O’Reilly.

Councillor Reid declared an interest in this item, and took no part in the deliberation and decision.

Resolved

That planning application P/2009/1732, being the continued retention of the 2.4 m high security hoarding, for a period of two years, expiring on 31 August 2011 at 112 Thornbury Road, Twickenham be approved, subject to the conditions in the report, and with an additional condition of asking the applicant to place viewing portals along the security hoardings.

See the report of the Director of Environment, agenda item 7.

The application sought the installation of a free standing Automated Teller Machine and anti-ram bollards on the forecourt of the petrol station.

Members noted an additional condition to enforce the hours of access to the ATM was received in the addendum report.

Although invited, the applicant advised that a representative would not be in attendance.

An objector, Mr. Peter Cusden (of 66 Lynton Grove, the adjoining property) addressed the Committee.

In his written speech, Mr. Cusden reaffirmed his objection, being noise and on site activity nuisance, the compromising of space for those motorists wishing to use the car hand wash facility, the congestion of ATM customers and the wash facility customers, the adjoining gas bottle dispensing facility, and the prevalence of air driven water spray.

Mr. Cusden also sought the full closure of the petrol station (by barriers) so as not to allow any vehicles onto the site when the station (and ATM) was closed.

Some members expressed sympathy to the views of Mr. Cusden and sought consideration to the possible relocating of the ATM machine to another position on the forecourt, or to the inside the petrol station building.

Noise generated from the use of the ATM was also discussed, as was the full closing off of the forecourt when the station was closed.

But there was the view, also, that the placement of the ATM would not add to any real additional on-site issues which could be detrimental to adjoining properties, and that the application was reasonable and supportable.

Councillor Carey moved approval of the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Harmer.

Councillor Hardy, seconded by Councillor Dakers, sought a deferral so as to allow the applicant to take consideration of the matters raised in discussion by members.

Before this was considered, however, the members voted upon the application.

Voting record

Voting for; Councillors Cadbury, Carey, Harmer, Hibbs, O’Reilly and Reid.

Voting against; Councillors Caroline Andrews, Phil Andrews, Dakers, Paul Fisher, Shirley Fisher, Hardy and the chair’s casting vote.

Resolved

That planning application P/2009/1299 for the installation of a free standing Automated Teller Machine and anti ram bollards at 403-405 Twickenham Road. Isleworth be declined on the following grounds;

Public safety, noise generated by the operation of the ATM, and the inappropriate location of the ATM being adjacent to the gas bottle and car hand wash facilities.

See the report of the Director of Environment, agenda item 8.

Marilyn Smith, Development Control Support Manager, summarised the key points relating to the application.

The Committee was asked to consider a resolution for the demolition of the out-building, to be acted upon if the applicant’s appeal [currently under consideration, to its retention] was not successful.The resolution was sought at this time, to enable immediate actioning if the applicant’s appeal was not successful.

Councillor Caroline Andrews sought some clarification to the inconsistencies (in her view) being applied by Council officers to similar applications in another area of the Borough.

Councillor Harmer moved approval of the application, and this was seconded by Councillor Carey.

Voting record

Voting for; all Councillors.

Resolved

That the Committee, by resolution, considered it expedient, having regard to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan, and all material considerations, to grant authority for all necessary steps to be taken for the preparation, issue and service of enforcement notice in relation to 10 Springvale Avenue, Brentford requiring within three calendar months:

·        The removal of the outbuilding; and

·        Removal of all resultant debris; and

·        For the institution of any necessary legal proceedings in the event of non-compliance with the above enforcement notice, pursuant to Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and

·        The carrying out of works in default under Section 178 of the Act in the event of non-compliance with the enforcement notice, including the recovery of the Council’s costs in carrying out such work.

Due to problems experienced with [the Council’s] IT Development Control, the report of the list of delegated decisions cannot be produced. The decisions from this month will be carried over to next month.

The report will be presented to the next meeting, on 5 November 2009. Members expressed concern at this delay, as access to this information was considered to be very beneficial and desirable.

(Councillor O’Reilly left the meeting at 9.07pm.)

 Any other items, which the Chair accepts for consideration on the grounds of urgency

Members agreed to accept the following matters of business as being urgent;

(clause 30) Mooring Proposal on River Brent Impede Navigation.

(clause 31) Mogden Monitoring.

(clause 32) Brentford/Hounslow Town Centre manager, immediate recruitment of a Brentford/Hounslow Town Centre Manager.

(clause 33) Gunnersbury Park, restoration of Gunnersbury Park, the local history museum and mansions.

If required, 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.

The following addendum report was tabled;

Agenda Item 5

Page: 24-34, P/2009/1633 and P/2009/1641, 01031/C3/P6 and 01031/C3/AD3

3 The Pavement, Isleworth  

The drawing numbers should read: two drawings numbered RP/03/07A and received 20/10/2009

5.4             Should continue to read: The external shutter serving the main entrance to the shop would be of a mesh design and like the shop front, would be painted in a dark blue colour.

6.4     Should be replaced to read: Both the Isleworth Society and The Four Roads Residents Association have subsequently withdrawn their objections to the proposal.

8.18         Should continue to read: Furthermore, the external shutter would be of a mesh design so as to avoid an obtrusive and visually harsh feature when in use. It would, like the shop front as a whole be painted in a dark blue colour.

Agenda Item 7; Page: 45-51, P/2009/1299 and 01137/403-405/P27 403-405 Twickenham Road, Isleworth

Condition 3 to be added and should read: The ATM hereby approved shall not be used between the hours of 11pm and 7am. During which time the roller shutters as shown on drawing no. 5124 02 Rev 04 shall remain shut.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential properties.

Councillors Shirley Fisher and Hardy tabled the following information;

‘The Regents Network, Press Release, Moorings Proposal on River Brent Impede Navigation’ and an article to the November 2009 issue of Waterways World titled ‘Carrying & Freight News, Brentford battle rumbles on’.

The Committee was asked to support the Regent Network stance in opposing the Inspector’s decision to allow the River Brent Waterway being used for the mooring of boats. The Network contended that this would lead to the waterway becoming partially obstructed, which will impede safe navigation.

Whilst a majority of members supported the intent of the motion, there were concerns raised as to the legality of the Committee being able to ‘instruct’ Council staff, as the motion sought. Also of concern were the legal ramifications and enforceability of parts of the motion.

Councillor Shirley Fisher moved approval of the motion, and this was seconded by Councillor Hardy.

Voting record

Voting for; Councillors Caroline Andrews, Phil Andrews, Dakers, Paul Fisher, Shirley Fisher, Hardy, and Hibbs.

Voting against; Councillor Carey.

Councillors Cadbury, Harmer and Reid abstained.

Resolved

The Area Committee supports the action taken by Del Brenner in challenging the Inspector’s decision regarding the moorings on the River Brent, and,

Instructs the Director of Environment and his staff to co-operate fully and in a timely manner with any reasonable requests from Mr Brenner relating to this.

Furthermore, that IBAC, in line with residents’ wishes, recommends to the Sustainable Development Committee that it is investigated to lift the following planning obligations relating to ferry Quays development;

That which compels Hither Green to site moorings in the River Brent.

That which compels Hither Green to erect a building on Point Wharf and to replace this with a condition to create an appropriate garden area with a seating area.

And, that he ensures that proper enforcement action is taken to compel Hither Green to complete the Ferry Quays as soon as reasonable.

IBAC also asks that there should be a report at the next meeting of IBAC detailing progress on the above items.

Councillor Hardy sought the support of the Committee to place a more proactive monitoring regime over the operation of this site. He identified various resident concerns that, in his view, were not being addressed by the present operations of the treatment site.

Councillor Hardy then expanded upon these matters, and had included his suggested new regime within the tabled motion.

Councillor Hardy moved approval of the motion, and this was seconded by Councillor Hibbs.

Voting record

Councillors Caroline Andrews, Phil Andrews, Cadbury, Dakers, Paul Fisher, Shirley Fisher, Hardy, Harmer, Hibbs, and Reid.

Councillor Carey abstained.

Resolved

The Area Committee instructs the Director of Environment to make the following changes to the Monitoring regime starting on Monday 26^th;

.When an emergency number is called, instead of calling the EHO on-call directly, the operator calls the Lead member for Thames Water Liaison.

.He then calls the complainant to verify the address and the precise location of the stench (if it is on private property he will obtain permission to enter that private property to take a reading)

.He then calls the duty EHO and,

   Arranges to meet them at that location and

   Witnesses them carrying out the tests according to the operational procedure,

   Recording the readings and countersigning them- the on-site log will then be scanned by him and sent directly to the Head of Regulatory Services and the Senior EHO.

If members of the public wish to meet with the Lead member and the officer on site, then that is their right to do so- in fact we should welcome that- and courtesy will be extended to them.

   If the monitor records anything significant (in the Lead Member’s estimation) then TW at Mogden will be called and an immediate site visit will be arranged to establish the cause of the smell.

Councillor Dakers introduced this motion, seeking early decisions to the appointment of a Town Centre Manager for Brentford and Hounslow, to be funded from S106 monies.

To support the motion, Councillor Dakers noted the (prolonged) history of seeking such positions arising from the community vision exercise, November 2007.

Councillor Reid suggested that a decision await a report from the Leader on the whole S106 funds held by Council.

Councillor Dakers moved approval of the motion, and this was seconded by Councillor Paul Fisher.

Voting record

Voting for; Councillors Caroline Andrews, Phil Andrews, Cadbury, Dakers, Paul Fisher, Shirley Fisher, Hardy, Harmer, and Hibbs.

Councillors Carey and Reid abstained.

Resolved

The Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee calls for the Leader of the Council to proceed with the recruitment of a Town Centre Manager for Brentford and Hounslow through an urgent report to the November Executive. Given the steps that have already been taken, and years of discussion, any further delay is considered unacceptable given that Brentford High Street is a ‘’special project’’ of Community Plan and so many retail units are now closing or derelict on High Street Brentford.

Councillor Dakers introduced this motion, seconded by Councillor Hardie on which they sought the Area Committee’s support to secure funding of the restoration of Gunnersbury Park.

Members were in agreement with the intent of the motion, noting slow progress for funding, and the need to explore other avenues of funds.

It was confirmed, however, that a recent meeting of the London Borough of Ealing had withdrawn its financial support to the Park.

Councillor Dakers moved approval of the motion, and this was seconded by Councillor Hardy.

Voting record

Voting for; all Councillors.

Resolved

The Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee welcomes the recent work of the both Councils and the Development Manager to progress the urgent restoration of Gunnersbury Park, the local history museum and mansions. We support local resident’s calls for a more extensive search for alternative sources of funding (e.g. alternative land sale for capital receipts, prudent borrowing or new revenue streams within park) for the building restoration and new museum/collection store at Gunnersbury Park as an alternative to building on parts of the park.

We call on Ealing and Hounslow councils to fully explore these alternative funding sources before a final decision is made. This must be undertaken with urgency so as not to delay progress in developing a business plan and submitting funding applications to national bodies which has, thus far, been too slow.