Venue: Committee Rooms 1 & 2, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow. View directions
Contact: Wendy Merry on 020 8583 2061 or Email: email@example.com
Declarations of interest under the Town Planning Code of Practice or any other communications from Members
The Chair welcomed Councillor Todd as a new member of the Committee, replacing Councillor Wilson and thanked Councillor Wilson for all his work in the past.
Item 4: Ronian & Glenthorne, Hawkes Road and 156 Bedfont Lane, Feltham
Councillor Todd had received a call from the applicant in connection with item and Councillor Dennison had spoken to the applicant on a number of occasions.
Item 6: 14A Enfield Road, Brentford
All Members had received communications in connection with this item. Councillor Dennison advised that the site was at the bottom of his road and he had used the applicant’s services, but had no pecuniary interest. Councillor Cadbury declared that she had a conflict of interest and would leave the room.
Item 7: Dukes Meadows Golf Club, Dukes Meadows, Chiswick
All Members had received communications in connection with this item.
Chairs Delegated Authority
Members agreed for the Chair to sign off a Chair’s Delegated Authority to allow officers to approve a variation to the S.106 agreement for the St George’s site at Kew Bridge, Brentford (copy attached to the minutes).
The minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2012 (agenda item 3) were agreed with the following amendment:
Councillor O’Reilly’s name had not been included in the vote and she advised that she had voted in favour of the application (item 66, page 11 refers).
The Chair advised that there was still no court date set for Boulton House and had been no additional costs since the last meeting (item 59, page 1 refers).
See report by Max Smith, Planning Officer (agenda item 4)
Councillor Alan Wilson had referred the application to the Committee and he advised that he felt that there should be a full discussion on the application because of the importance of the proposal for 20 affordable housing units and the potential for another 35 units to be built on the site.
Marilyn Smith, Head of Development Management, advised that the mix of units was slightly different to that set out in the report. There had been a number of amendments, including amenity space, overlooking and car parking since that application had been deferred, but she was still of the opinion that the application should not be approved.
There were still concerns about the configuration and the size of the units and there was overlooking from one block into the rear gardens in Bedfont Lane. Negotiations had been entered into to address the reasons for refusal, but officers were still concerned about the bulk and scale.
Councillor Wilson advised that he understood that residents from Bedfont Lane had been consulted and there had been no objections.
In response to questions, Ms Smith advised that the balconies had affected the light and those had been removed. The blocks had been moved to improve the character and scale, but there were still two large blocks. She believed that it would be possible to provide 20 affordable units if they were reconfigured and that overlooking from windows could be avoided if the configuration of those rooms were changed to bathrooms. The existing access to the fish farm was where the means of access would be and there were no proposals to pave the rest of the access to the park.
With the permission of the Chair, Amanda Sutton spoke in support of the application. She thanked Members for deferring the application and giving the applicant the opportunity to make amendments to the scheme. She felt that the Committee’s previous deliberations had given a clear steer to address their concerns and the applicant had been able to identify a number of amendments. The blocks had been reduced to achieve landscape space, the car park area had been reconfigured for a more pleasant outlook and the layout had been reconfigured and now complied with the standards for adequate daylight. The required 21m distance to Owen House had also been achieved. She was aware that officers wanted further improvements, but advised that they had to ensure that the scheme remained viable.
Ms Sutton felt that design was always subjective. In terms of scale and mass, officers had requested a reduction by setting in the top storey, but that would not work because it would compromise the minimum space standard and mean a reduction in the number of units, making it unviable. She felt that the concern was not so significant as to warrant refusal.
She expressed surprise that all of the gardens in Bedfont Lane had been mentioned, when the report only referred to 154 Bedfont ... view the full minutes text for item 72.
See report by Louise Garrod, Planning Officer (agenda item 5)
Councillor Fisher moved approval, which was seconded by Councillor Grewal.
Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation for approval.
a) That authorisation for the Director of Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or the Assistant Director – Community Safety, Environment and Regulatory Services or the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission for planning application 01049/B/S3 for the variation of condition four attached to planning application 01049/B/S2 for the redevelopment of the site at Feltham Dene Care Home, Spring Road, Feltham 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 Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment on the advice of the Assistant Director, Corporate Governance:
i) 100% affordable housing (Affordable rented - 11 x houses (6 x 3 bed, 5 x 4 bed) & 8 x flats (8 x 2 bed). Intermediate housing - 18 x flats (10 x 1 bed, 8 x 2 bed))
ii) Education Contributions – £40,314.61
iii) Health contributions – £32,664
iv) Construction Training – £10,000
v) Highways Improvements – £3,000
vi) Travel Plan
vii) Considerate Contractors Scheme
b) That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 5 March 2013, or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Department of Regeneration, Economic Development & 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 Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or the Assistant Director – Community Safety, Environment and Regulatory Services or the Head of Development Management 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, following the grant of planning permission, where (a) requested to enter into a deed of variation or legal agreement in connection with the planning permission hereby approved and by the person(s) bound by the legal agreement authorised in paragraph one above and (b) where the planning obligations are not materially affected and (c) there is no monetary cost to the Council, the Director of Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment or the Assistant Director – Community Safety, Environment and Regulatory Services or the Head of Development Management, authorisation, in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee and upon the advice of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance, to enter into a legal agreement(s) deed of variation made under ... view the full minutes text for item 73.
See report by Sean Doran, Planning Officer (agenda item 6)
Councillor Cadbury had declared an interest and left the room for the discussion on this item.
Marilyn Smith advised that there were houses on Enfield Walk, which looked into the builder’s yard and the two-storey building would be right on the boundary and facing the houses on Enfield Walk. The front of the house area was still public highway and would need to be stopped up and there had been no objections to that.
There had been a number of additional objections and letters of support and additional information from the applicant had also been submitted. There were no objections to the principle of the proposal; the problem was the scale of the house, which would affect amenity and the recommendation was, therefore, for refusal.
In response to questions, Ms Smith advised that the distance from the front of the house to the flank wall was approximately 4m and that there would be obscure glazed windows in the wall of the house facing Enfield Walk.
Ms Smith showed some photos submitted by Mr Ayres, the applicant, which showed the shadowing by the existing building over Enfield Walk.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Ayres explained the distance between the front of the houses and the flank wall would be 5m and the boundary wall would be 3.2m high, which was a difference of 16 sqm. More light would be allowed over No. 4 Enfield Walk if the office and store were removed and the back extension was turned to a 45 degree angle. He felt that Nos. 4, 6 and 8 Enfield Road would benefit and No. 2 would not be affected and advised that those residents wanted the proposal to go ahead because they currently had no light.
In response to further questions, Ms Smith advised that amenity space was being proposed, but it was inadequate for a four-bedroom house; it was 54 sqm, which was sub-standard. The existing external white wall would be removed and the building would be two storeys, which was approximately double the height of the existing white wall.
Ms Smith advised that she did not accept the applicant’s argument about the light because he was referring to direct sunlight and officers were referring to daylight.
In terms of representations from residents, Ms Smith advised that objections had been received from the ground floor and first floor flat at 14 Enfield Road, the freeholder of 14 Enfield Road and 12 and 4 Enfield Road. Letters of support had been received from 25 Enfield Road and 2 and 8 Enfield Walk.
The Chair asked if there was anyone present, who wished to speak in objection to the proposal and there was no response.
Councillor Collins moved approval on the basis that he felt that there were weak arguments in objection and it was a great improvement. He noted that it was a loss of an employment site but felt that it ... view the full minutes text for item 74.
See report by Natalie Lynch, Planning Officer (agenda item 7)
Marilyn Smith advised that officers felt that retention of the dome on a permanent basis should be refused. However, if the applicant was prepared to find a bespoke building and take on board the issues, they may consider retention of the dome whilst a permanent proposal was being worked up. Temporary retention would be subject to a S.106 agreement.
Alan Watkinson spoke in support of the application. He advised that he worked for the Youth Trust and felt that Dukes Meadows ran a prominent and successful programme. The work being done through the programme built up the next generation to change attitudes towards physical activity and helped to fight obesity. It would reach up to 4,000 children and provide training and support for teachers in physical education.
He noted that there had previously been cynicism around the motives of Dukes Meadows, but felt that they had lived up to the S.106 agreement in all the things they had provided and that there was nothing else in the country, which could parallel the facility. He felt that it was important to have the facility all year round because it was devastating if sessions were cancelled because of the weather and there was business damage to Dukes Meadows if the facility could not be used.
There had been movement towards a compromise in seeking a fixed development and Mr Watkinson asked for the Dome to be retained until a permanent facility could be developed.
Will Cobley spoke to clarify the application, as the applicant’s agent. He advised that the application was submitted because there was talk of removing the dome. After the application had been submitted, officers accepted the benefits but had concerns about the permanent retention of the dome. Asked if they were willing to pursue a purpose built permanent design, the client was pleased with the offer and happy to pursue a permanent facility but needed temporary permission to retain the Dome whilst a permanent facility was being worked up. They had believed that the recommendation would be for temporary consent to allow for this. He understood that officers were willing to recommend temporary consent and hoped that the decision would be to endorse that recommendation.
In response to Members’ questions, Mr Cobley advised that they had confirmed that they were happy to submit a proposal, subject to the granting of temporary consent.
In terms of the facility, Mr Cobley advised that the dome was only used for tennis, although there were other facilities at the site. All five courts were used from 9 am to 9 pm by schools for coaching. The facilities were taken advantage of by 54 schools over a year and there was also outreach support. More significant time was given to each child in terms of holiday programmes because there was provision in the dome was 12 hours of coaching per day, carried out by three coaches.
Councillor O’Reilly asked if there was a charge ... view the full minutes text for item 75.
Any other business, which the Chair considers urgent
Councillor Cadbury advised that the Council’s response had been submitted that day to the Government’s draft bill on planning applications and that she would ensure that copies of the response were sent to all Members.
The date of the next meeting is 7 February 2013
The date of the next meeting was noted.