Councillor Collins had given apologies for lateness.

Item 6: Northfield Road Estate, Heston

Councillor Ajmer Dhillon advised that he had received correspondence in connection with the application and Councillor Curran advised that he was the Cabinet Member for Housing.

Item 7: 537A Staines Road, Feltham

Councillor Collins declared an interest because he had dealt with the organisation at another site in the Borough and advised that he would be taking no part in the discussion or the vote.

Item 10: Ronian & Glenthorne, Hawkes Road and 156 Bedfont Lane, Feltham

Councillor Ajmer Dhillon advised that he had received correspondence in connection with the application.

Item 12: Reynard Mills Trading Estate, Windmill Road, Brentford

Councillor Curran advised that he had met representatives from the development, but had no pre-determined view. Councillor Cadbury declared that she may have a perceived pecuniary interest and would, therefore, leave the room for the discussion on the item. Councillor Dennison also declared a pecuniary interest as a resident of Avenue Road and advised that he would also be leaving the room for the discussion on the item.

(Councillor Collins joined the meeting at this point).

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2012 (agenda item 3) were agreed with the following amendment:

Councillor Cadbury advised that the Old Fire Station, London Road was in Brentford and not Isleworth (item 35, page 3 refers).

Matters Arising

The Chair advised that, since the meeting the legal team had concluded an agreement with Kew. It was yet to go to the High Court and would be heard in due course. The application would be dealt with in the normal way afterwards and the Chair apologised to members of the Committee, who had not been aware of his joint statement with Kew and explained that the press office had the information as a reactive release, which meant that the information was only given to those, who had requested it. He advised that a copy would be provided to Members (item 42, page 9 refers). 

The report was noted.

See report by Stephen Hissett, Planning Officer (agenda item 4) and the Addendum Report.

Stephen Hissett and Myfanwy McNally, Planning Officers, presented the report.

In response to questions about the S.106 agreement, Mr Hissett advised that the figures for health care would be slightly less than those quoted in the report and Ms McNally referred Members to the Addendum Report, which explained that the Council could not enter into an agreement with itself and that monies would come from the Heston Regeneration Programme.

Councillor O’Reilly noted a reference to sports facilities and asked when alternative facilities would be available on Brabazon Estate and whether there would be a gap. Mr Hissett advised that, he would find out about the timescales and get back to Members with the details.

Councillor Brad Fisher raised some concerns about the distance between the site and the proposed play space, which would take approximately five minutes to travel, but would mean crossing Cranford Lane to get.

There were also some concerns raised by Members over the absence of any lifts. Mr Hissett advised that there was no lift access because the block was only three storeys high and therefore, not required. There was a ground floor storage area, however, for flats at upper levels and Mr Hissett advised that he could look at the internal storage space for the best use of layout, which could be secured by the relevant condition. Ms McNally added that the Council would be able to allocate ground floor accommodation as appropriate because the scheme was for Council.

In response to further questions, Mr Hissett confirmed that the upper flats had a downstairs door entry system and that each maisonette would have its own private front door.

Councillor Cadbury felt that new occupiers should be advised that there were no lifts and that the upper floors should not be allocated to elderly residents or families with children. She noted that there had been concerns raised about the play space, but she felt that the space in the proposal was more generous than many other schemes. She suggested that crossings could be considered to make it safer to cross Cranford Lane. She commented that the area had a lot of open space and felt that it was, overall, an excellent scheme.

Councillor Cadbury moved approval, which was seconded by Councillor Collins.

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

For -               Councillors Cadbury, Collins, Curran, A. Dhillon, G. Dhillon, Grewal and Sangha

Against -       Councillors Barwood, Davies, Fisher, Jabbal and Wilson

Abstain -       Councillors Dennison and O’Reilly

Resolved:

a)     That planning permission for planning application 00557/R/OAP2 for the proposed erection of a three-storey building to contain six maisonettes (three bedrooms) and four flats (two bedrooms) with external landscape works at the rear of Harlech Gardens Estate, Harlech Gardens, Heston be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

b)     That officers would give further consideration to the internal storage space for the best use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

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

With the permission of the Chair, Tony Henson, the architect of the scheme, spoke in support of the application. He advised that most of the site was a disused garage block, where there had been incidents of anti-social behaviour and the scheme was an opportunity to rebuild and regenerate the site. There had been a lot of consultation with residents and most of the issues raised had been taken on board.

Only a small amount of green space would be lost and the existing green spaces would be enhanced. There would be some loss of car parking with the additional new units, but there would be a car parking strategy to help to address this. The design had been kept low-key and traditional. The windows were positioned to face diagonally away so that there would be no overlooking. The proposals were the result of several meetings with residents and Mr Henson felt that the scheme would be an improvement on the existing state of the site.

In response to questions, Mr Henson advised that the scheme had been redesigned after the consultation process to allow for all of the mature trees to be kept. A small corner of green space to the south would be lost, but the tree would be retained. Refuse collection would be done by the usual street collection and all of the properties would have garden sheds for storage. The site would be landscaped as part of the scheme and a parking strategy would be used to turn small corners into parking space.

Natalie Trani spoke in objection to the proposals. She advised that there had been problems with people coming onto the estate, who did not live there and spoke of some serious incidents, where she had been attacked, had her property broken into and had her car broken into and stolen. She did not feel that there was any security and commented that wardens were rarely seen. Ms Trani advised that she supported new development and welcomed the retention of the trees although she raised concerns that the garages to be knocked down were being used by the existing residents. She asked for improvements to be made to safety before money was spent on new development and requested that entry doors be installed.

Councillor Cadbury suggested that the issue could be taken up with Cranford School, which was opposite the estate and suggested CCTV may also help as Ms Trani had stated that non-residents were going onto the estate at lunchtimes.

Councillor Curran felt confident that planning officers could discuss site security for the existing blocks to ensure that the estate was not a haven for people to hang around. He undertook to go back and look at security, as the Cabinet Member for Housing. He also felt that it may be possible to make use of domehawk cameras for security, which had been suggested by Councillor Fisher.

Gary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

See report by Stephen Hissett, Planning Officer (agenda item 6) and the Addendum Report

With the permission of the Chair, Tony Henson, the architect of the scheme, advised that the scale had been reduced as a result of the consultation process. In response to questions from Members, he advised that there were no lifts in the blocks.

Mr Aftav Hussain spoke in objection to the proposals. He advised that he lived in the property adjacent to scheme C11. His main concern was over loss of privacy, particularly as his wife used the garden a lot because of a deficiency in vitamin D. He was also concerned that there would be an increase in noise and that the building could block out sunlight to his garden.

Ms McNally advised that the window on the new building was obscure glazed and angled so that the view was out towards the road. It could impact on the sunlight to the rear garden first thing in the morning, but there would be no impact after then.

Mr Hussain was still unhappy with the proposals, so Ms McNally advised that she would speak to the architect about re-designing the window to face the other way so that there could not possibly be any overlooking. The redesign could be covered by a condition, if the application was approved.

In response to questions, Ms McNally confirmed that noise disturbance from the motorway was currently quite loud, but Mr Hussain advised that his concerns were only about overlooking and loss of light.

The Chair noted that Ms McNally had already undertaken to seek a condition to improve the design and asked if any of the other properties could be redesigned to reduce the impact on light and overlooking. Ms McNally advised that it was not needed as Mr Hussain’s property was the closest to the development.

In response to further questions, Ms McNally confirmed that the C10 site was closer to the motorway, but advised that the living space was towards the front of the block and away from the motorway. The air quality was considered acceptable for a new residential development and the site was slightly away from the main section of the motorway because of the slip road. Ms McNally pointed out that the site was an existing residential site, although it was acknowledged that Members had a choice as to whether more building should take place.

Councillor Grewal moved the recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Sangha.

Members voted on the officer’s recommendation for approval as follows:

For -               Councillors Cadbury, Collins, Curran, A. Dhillon, G. Dhillon, Grewal and Sangha

Against -       Councillors Dennison, Barwood, Davies, Fisher, Jabbal, O’Reilly and Wilson

Abstain -       None

As the votes for and against the motion were equal, there was no determination and the Committee decided to vote on the three applications separately.

Site C10

Members voted on the officer’s recommendation for approval of the site to the north west of Northfield Road Estate (site C10), Heston, as follows:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

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

Ms McNally highlighted the amendment in the Addendum Report, which showed the correct drawing numbers.

Councillor Collins had declared an interest because he had dealt with the organisation at another site in the Borough and advised that he would be taking no part in the discussion or the vote.

With the permission of the Chair, Councillor Lynch spoke in support of the proposal. He advised that, as an ex-serviceman and the Chair of his branch of the British Legion, he had visited the organisation’s principle site in Fulham. They provided a high standard of accommodation and Councillor Lynch felt that there would be an increase in the need for accommodation for ex-servicemen. He felt that the site in his own ward was a great asset to his ward. He did not feel that many of the likely residents would have cars so a small car parking area was not likely to be a problem.

Councillor Mammatt also spoke in support of the proposal. She advised that the site at Burlington Lane was quiet and well-kept and the residents were keen to co-operate with the local community. She was involved with the Fairholme Estate in Bedfont and advised that there had been anti-social behaviour on the site, endangering residents. She felt that the proposal would enhance the whole area.

Councillor Barwood had also had long links with the foundation and felt that it was an admirable organisation, which specialised in looking after older ex-armed forces people. 

Councillor Curran supported the proposal and advised that consideration towards giving preference to ex-service personnel was included in the social housing policy consultation. 

Councillor Barwood moved approval, which was seconded by Councillor Curran.

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

Resolved:

That planning permission for planning application 01054/5237A//P3 for the demolition of the former children’s home and ancillary buildings and the erection of a three-storey building, comprising of 36 residential flats to provide supported accommodation to war veterans, currently within the Borough and without appropriate housing at 537A Staines Road, Bedfont be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

See report by Rupinder Dhoot, Planning Officer (agenda item 8)

Councillor Collins moved approval, which was seconded by Councillor Fisher.

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

Resolved:

That planning permission for planning application01341/C/P2 for the erection of a part two-storey and part three-storey building, comprising of 1 one-bedroom and 13 two-bedroom affordable rented apartments at the former Health Care Centre, Chinchilla Drive, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

See report by Louise Garrod, Planning Officer (agenda item 9)

Councillor Sangha advised that the application had been called in by Councillor Poonam Dhillon, who was not present at the meeting and it was not known why she had called it in. The Chair advised, however, that he was still willing for the Committee to determine the application.

Myfanwy McNally advised that refusal was being recommended because there was overdevelopment of the site and it was a poor layout.

In response to questions, she advised that 12 parking spaces were required but only 9 were being provided in the scheme. The public transport accessibility level (PTAL) was 3 and fewer parking spaces could be considered reasonable if it wasn’t for the way parking provision related in terms of site layout and proximity with no room for amenity space.

The difference between the current application and the scheme approved in 2002 was that there was a significant increase to the units on site and the current application was for flats and houses whereas the previous one had been for two houses. There were no objections to the design but there were issues around density.

Councillor O’Reilly commented that she felt the current proposals were extensive over development.

Councillor Gopal Dhillon noted that the report stated that the type of development in the proposal was acceptable and there were several other positive points made in the report. He found it difficult to understand, therefore, why the officer’s recommendation was for refusal. He felt that the open space on Bath Road would solve the problem of the lack of amenity space. If the application was approved, he suggested that a contribution could be sought to mitigate the lack of parking.

Councillor Sangha agreed with Councillor Dhillon and pointed out that the principle of the development was acceptable and there was no objection to the design.

Councillor Fisher moved refusal, which was seconded by Councillor Jabbal.

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

For -               Councillors Cadbury, Collins, Dennison, Barwood, Davies, Fisher, Jabbal, O’Reilly and Wilson

Against -       Councillors A. Dhillon and Sangha

Abstain -       Councillors Curran, G. Dhillon and Grewal

Resolved:

That planning permission for planning application 00083/486/P11 for the erection of 7 two-bedroom flats and 2 four-bedroom townhouses, following the demolition of the existing property at 486 Bath Road, Cranford be refused for the reasons set out in the report.

See report by Max Smith, Planning Officer (agenda item 10)

Myfanwy McNally advised that a legal agreement had not been negotiated with the developer because refusal of the application was being recommended. 

Councillor Wilson asked for clarification as to what was regarded as the street scene because there were no other properties in the road for the development to interfere with.

Myfanwy McNally advised that the site would be clearly visible to anyone going to the park and could be seen from properties on Bedfont Lane.

The Chair noted that Councillor Wilson had referred the application to the Committee and invited him to speak. Councillor Wilson declined as there was already a speaker permitted in support of the application.

With the permission of the Chair, Amanda Sutton, the applicant’s planning consultant, spoke in support of the application. She advised that the properties would be 100% affordable housing. She was disappointed that refusal was being recommended, although she respected that it was the view of officers. The planning arguments highlighted four areas of concern, which she had responded to in the papers the applicant had circulated to Members.

Ms Sutton felt that the design was subjective and advised that the height would be kept to the minimum possible. In terms of the impact on the park, the photos showed that it would only be glimpsed in the autumn and only by the flats. She was unsure as to why the standard of accommodation was considered to be poor.

In terms of the lack of amenity space, Ms Sutton did not feel that there were any disadvantages because there was a park next to the site. The client had previously offered off-site contributions to mitigate. With regard to privacy, she felt that conditions could be used to address any issues around privacy and fencing or hedging could be provided.

There were no objections to a S.106 agreement and Ms Sutton advised that her client was recognised as one of the most consumer friendly housing organisations. The redevelopment proposals would see an end to a vacant site and provide affordable housing. In her view, the planning officer’s reasons for refusal were unfounded.

In response to questions, Ms Sutton advised that there were concerns over limited light into some of the kitchens but she was confident that future occupiers would not suffer from adverse light. If it was possible to purchase land at the scout hut, it would be possible to re-design a bigger scheme but it would have to be a separate application from the one being considered. I was noted that the Council owned the land and the scouts owned the hut.

Councillor Wilson felt that there were many positive aspects to the proposal. He pointed out that Hawkes Road would be upgraded, there was a generous S.106 contribution, all the houses would be affordable social housing, there would be the possibility of another 15 units if the scout land was purchased and maintenance would be carried out by whoever built  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

See report by Shane Baker, Planning Officer (agenda item 11)

With the permission of the Chair, Robert Clarke spoke in objection to the proposals on behalf of his client. He advised that his client had only recently been made aware of proposals because the letter had originally been sent to the vacant property, Wheatstone House.

Mr Clarke advised that Wheatstone House was a prime redevelopment opportunity and that his client had been in pre-application discussions since 2009. The proposals were for a residential scheme and he was concerned that officers had not taken into account that the Volkswagen scheme did not fetter, in principle, proposals for the redevelopment of Wheatstone House and should prepare details to show how it would not be undermined.

(Councillor Curran took over the chairing of this meeting from Councillor Dennison at this point).

There was no analysis in the report concerning daylight and there were insufficient details in the report concerning the surrounding environment. Mr Clarke felt that the proposal was not supportable and he was, therefore, arguing for refusal.

With the permission of the Chair, George Vasdekys spoke in support of the application as the agent for the applicant. He advised that the application was before the Committee under unusual circumstances, which was explained in the report and he felt that the scheme approved on 6 September merited continued support. There was an additional condition in relation to noise mitigation but, apart from that, the scheme remained the same and would be a significant benefit in supplying jobs to the area. The building would be larger than the existing one and would be a better utilisation of the space. The key driver for the design of the building was to retain the trees. Mr Vasdekys felt that the proposal had due regard to Wheatstone House, but pointed out that there were no specific proposals for Wheatstone House and he questioned how it could be affected by his client’s proposals. The analysis had concluded that there would be no impact on the conservation area and the proposals had been accepted by the Council’s Conservation Area officer. There were already high levels of noise because the site was next to the A4 and M4 motorway.

Councillor Collins moved approval, which was seconded by Councillor Grewal.

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

For -               Councillors Cadbury, Collins, Curran, A. Dhillon, G. Dhillon, Grewal, Sangha, Barwood, Fisher, Jabbal and O’Reilly

Against -       None

Abstain -       Councillor Wilson

Resolved:

a)     That planning permission for planning application 01508/B/P11 for the demolition of existing warehouse and construction of a new car dealership for the Volkswagen brand comprising of four storeys (comprising new and used retail sales, workshop space including MOT testing bays, internal operational and non-operational parking/storage) plus rooftop vehicle storage and on-site external parking and servicing at West London Volkswagen, Capital Interchange Way, Brentford be approved, subject to the conditions and securing the planning obligations from the report and the Council’s resolution of 6 September 2012,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

See report by Shane Baker, Planning Officer (agenda item 12)

Councillors Cadbury and Dennison had declared an interest on this item and had left the room.

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

Resolved:

That authorisation for officers to negotiate a legal deed (S.106 agreement) to secure necessary planning obligations in relation to planning application 01217/C/P37 for the proposed development at Reynard Mills Trading Estate, Windmill Road, Brentford, which had been appealed, with the obligations to be in accordance with the Council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document and the Government’s Community Infrastructure Levy tests, be approved.

There was no other urgent business.

Would Members please note that the draft Statement of Community Involvement is currently out for consultation.  Copies of the document will be available at the November Planning Committee.  Could Members please read the document in anticipation of a discussion and presentation of the document at the December Planning Committee.

The date of the next meeting was noted.