Hounslow Council


Agenda and minutes

Venue: Brentford Free Church, Boston Manor Road, Brentford

Contact: Kay Duffy on 020 8583 2067 or email;  kay.duffy@hounslow.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

Municipal Business pdf icon PDF 65 KB

Minutes:

Councillor Bains, seconded by Councillor Collins, nominated Councillor Harmer to represent the Area Committee on the Hounslow Homes East Housing Forum with the agreement of members.

 

Members noted the S106 Wish List and Terms of Reference for the Area Committee’s S106 Sub-group but agreed to defer a decision on the nomination of a Syon ward councillor to the S106 Sub-group. This decision was taken to allow for further detailed information to be submitted on the Sub-group’s work over the past 12 months, specifically in relation to its status and the schemes and related funding considered at its meetings.  

2.

Apologies for Absence, Declarations of Interest under the Council's Town Planning Code and Disclosure of Personal and Prejudicial Interests as defined by the National Code of Conduct

Minutes:

Apologies received from Councillor Harmer.

 

The following declarations were made:

 

Agenda Item 5 – 28 Burlington Road, Isleworth:

Councillor Carey noted that he had been approached by the applicant in relation to this application.

 

Agenda Item 6 – 7 Tolson Road, Isleworth:

Councillors Reid, O’Reilly, Cadbury, Dennison, Ellar, Sampson, Mayne, Collins and Bains had received correspondence in relation to this application.

 

Agenda Item 7 – 66 Beech Avenue, Brentford:

Councillors Dennison, Collins and Bains had received correspondence in relation to this application.

 

Agenda Item 10 – BskyB:

Councillor Reid declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in this application, saying that she knew people who worked for the organisation and had met with the Director of the company some time ago.

 

Agenda Item 11 – Hamilton Road Area CPZ:

Councillors had been circulated an email with Councillor Harmer’s comments on the item. Councillors Reid and O’Reilly declared knowing residents on Lateward Road.

 

Councillor Cadbury declared a prejudicial interest in this item, as a resident of Clifden Road, and noted that she would withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the discussion.

 

Councillor Curran declared a prejudicial interest in this item, as a resident of Braemar Road, and noted that he would withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the discussion.

 

Councillor Mayne noted non-prejudicial interest in agenda items 11 and 12 (Syon Lane Station Area CPZ) as Lead Member for Community Safety and Environment.  

3.

Minutes of the meeting held on 15 April 2010 & Matters Arising pdf icon PDF 98 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 April 2010 were agreed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

 

Matters Arising:

 

Minute 110: Hartham Road – Evaluation Report:

Councillor Reid drew attention to the record of her short absence from the meeting during the discussion on this item and sought advice Mr Walsh, Borough Solicitor representative, on members’ eligibility to vote following absences from discussions.  Mr Walsh advised members of the need to stay for the full discussion where possible.

4.

66 Beech Avenue, Brentford pdf icon PDF 99 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 7. Additional information was submitted via an Addendum, Agenda Item 15.

 

Planning Officer, Marilyn Smith introduced the submitted report and additional information contained within the Addendum, pointing out that the objection had been received from the neighbouring resident who would be speaking on the matter this evening.

 

With the permission of the Chair the applicant, Mr Hardy, stated that the extension was intended to house his parents. He indicated that consideration had been given to the impact on the neighbouring property when drawing up the plans and had resulted in the inclusion of a hipped roof to minimise the loss of light to that property. He estimated any loss of light would amount to approximately 1-hour of light each afternoon for a period of 2 months each year. Mr Hardy was aware of his right to build under Permitted Development closer to the boundary with his neighbour than the current plans proposed.

 

Again with the Chair’s permission, Ms John spoke on behalf of her mother at Nr. 68 Beech Avenue. Ms John had submitted computer-generated images of the proposed extension, which were displayed for members. Whilst she acknowledged Mr Hardy’s reasons for building the extension and raised no objection to the extension in principle, she highlighted concerns at its size and the resulting loss of light to her mother’s property and frequently used garden. This loss of light would, Ms John claimed, have an impact on her mother’s day-to-day experience.

 

Ms John requested the reduction of the 2nd floor element of the rear extension by 0.6m, which she suggested would allow a little more light to her mother’s garden whilst still providing a functional double bedroom. Drawing attention to points 7.14 and 7.15 in the submitted report, Ms John claimed that No. 68 would get shading from the extension and that this would be more than the 1-hour per day suggested by Mr Hardy.

 

Responding to Councillor Carey’s question, Mr Hardy confirmed that the extension would not become a separate residence but would remain part of the main house whilst providing his parents with their own living space.

 

Councillor Dennison sought responses from the officers to the objector’s comments. Sunny Desai, Planning Officer, displayed the images submitted by the objector comparing the proposal in its current form with that requested by the objector with the 0.6m set in to the 1st floor. He drew attention to the very minor change to the shadow line between the two versions.

 

When asked for his reaction to his neighbour’s request, Mr Hardy indicated that such a reduction would make no difference to the neighbour’s light but would impact negatively on the size and utility of the internal room and the construction costs and appearance of the finished building.

 

Councillor Dennison suggested that references to Permitted Development were irrelevant to the application under consideration at this meeting, noting that the neighbour’s light would be impacted. Ms Smith indicated that the British Research Institute’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Hamilton Road Area - Results of CPZ consultation (Satnam Sahota) pdf icon PDF 74 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 11.

 

Councillors Cadbury and Curran, having declared a prejudicial interest in this item, left the meeting at this point.

 

Satnam Sahota, Developments & Parking, introduced the submitted report. The Chair then invited Ms Lesley Mitchell, representing Hamilton Road residents in favour of the introduction of a CPZ, to address the meeting. Ms Mitchell asked members to consider the inclusion of Hamilton Road into the Brentford Station CPZ on its own merits, giving a number of reasons including the following:

·        its proximity to the existing CPZ

·        the fact that it had no off-street parking

·        the fact that it had the most spaces available of the surrounding roads and was consequently most affected by both commuter parking and long-stay parking by car owners travelling out of Heathrow airport

·        the increase in car drivers locally as a result of new housing projects

·        the fact local car owners living in CPZs used Hamilton Road for free parking

·        the queues of cars waiting for a parking space to free up and then accelerating to claim it

 

Councillor Mayne sought clarification on the reason for consulting local residents on the extension of the Brentford Station CPZ. Mr Sahota confirmed that this had been the result of a petition and growing complaints from local residents on the issue of parking, a report on which had been considered by a past Area Committee meeting. New members of the Committee stated that a synopsis of any such vital information should be included in all subsequent reports in future.

 

Members queried whether Lateward Road could be made a stand alone CPZ, having received more support from residents than the Hamilton Road proposals. Mr Sahota reminded members that, whilst there was no technical reason why Lateward Road could not be made a stand alone CPZ, Hamilton Road was on the immediate periphery of an existing CPZ whereas Lateward Road was isolated. Added to this residents of the roads surrounding Lateward Road had opposed the introduction of a CPZ.

 

Councillor Collins asked whether studies had been carried out to assess the feasibility of matchday parking restrictions and whether there was available funding for such a study. In response Mr Sahota informed members that only very preliminary studies had been carried out but that any costs for such a study would be absorbed within the Traffic Management Team’s budgets.

 

Members asked whether there were any Hamilton Road residents opposed to the introduction of a CPZ present at the meeting. Following a member discussion one Hamilton Road resident addressed the meeting and highlighted the level of dispersal that would occur should Hamilton Road be included in the Brentford Station CPZ.

 

Councillor Dennison moved the recommendations including 1.1a and asked that officers also investigate the match day parking restrictions.  Councillor Collins seconded this, supporting the introduction of “At Any Time” waiting restrictions, which he said provided benefits to people with disabilities.

 

Councillor Mayne sought advice on what would happen to option 1.1b (to include Hamilton Road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

28 Burlington Road, Isleworth pdf icon PDF 109 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 5. Additional information was submitted via the Addendum, Agenda item 15.

 

Councillor Carey moved the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Mayne.

 

Voting Record:

Voting for: All councillors.

 

Resolved:

That the planning application (00178/28/P3) (P/2010/0465) for the erection of a two-storey side and rear extension and a ground floor rear extension to the house be approved, subject to safeguarding conditions in the report.

7.

7 Tolson Road, Isleworth pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 6. Additional information was submitted via the Addendum, Agenda Item 15.

 

In response to queries officers explained to members that an ‘outrigger’ was normally an original feature of these properties and extended beyond the rear elevation. Members were informed that the queries raised around the consultation on this application were addressed in the submitted addendum.

 

Councillor Carey raised concerns at the size of the submitted addendum the members’ difficulties in reviewing this amount of new information shortly before a meeting. He suggested that the site should have been known as Nr. 5 Tolson Road. Councillor Carey went on to raise concerns at the language used in 7.3 of the report and the relevance of the site named in 7.4.

 

Councillor Collins queried the status of the existing single-storey garage on site and the height of this building, acknowledging that the proposal would be considerably larger than the current approx. 2m high structure.

 

Councillor Reid moved the recommendations, seconded by Councillor Curran.

 

Voting Record:

Voting for: all councillors.

 

Resolved:

That the planning application (01125/7/P1) (P/2010/0125) for the construction of a new house adjacent to Nr 7 Tolson Road be approved, subject to safeguarding conditions in the report and to the additional condition contained within the Addendum Report as follows: No development shall commence until the existing dropped kerb has been reinstated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. This reinstatement shall be carried out at the developer’s expense. (Reason: to ensure safe and efficient pedestrian access along Tolson Road.)

8.

1a Westbury Place pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 8.

 

Voting Record:

Voting for: all councillors

 

Resolved:

That the Area Committee considers 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 an enforcement notice in relation to 1a Westbury Place, Brentford requiring within three calendar months:

·        Cessation of the use of the land for the repair of vehicles

·        The removal of all equipment related to the use of the land for the repair of vehicles

·        The removal of all resultant debris associated with the unauthorised use

·        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

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.  

9.

75 Windmill Road, Brentford pdf icon PDF 93 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 9.

 

Voting Record:

Voting for: all councillors

 

Councillor Dennison suggested that the Local Authority was the owner of 79 Windmill Road, which was a very similar property and had also been converted into flats some time ago. Ms Smith reminded members that that conversion had most likely been undertaken before the 1997 guidance and acknowledged that it would not now be supported under the 2003 UDP. 

 

Resolved:

That the Area Committee considers 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 an enforcement notice in relation to 75 Windmill Road, Brentford requiring within three calendar months:

·        Cessation of the use of the house as two self contained residential units

·        The removal of all kitchen facilities from all but one of the residential units

·        The restoration of the property to a single dwelling

·        The 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

 

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.  

10.

BSkyB - combined heat and power system pdf icon PDF 115 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 10. Additional information was submitted via an Addendum, Agenda Item 15.

 

Members discussed the proposals and asked that the following parties be included in the consultation; operators of the freight railway, Boston Gardens (West Side) residents, Boston Manor Residents Association, Syon Lane residents and London Borough of Ealing residents who may be affected by the proposals.

 

Members queried the proposed delivery routes, whether a green transport plan had been considered by the applicant and sought details on the storage of the biomass fuel on site.

 

Members expressed the view that applications of this size and significance should be considered by Sustainable Development Committee members and asked that detailed assessments of noise and air quality impact be included in the report to that committee.

 

Resolved:

That members comment on the proposed development; and that

Members note that their comments will be reported to Sustainable Development Committee if an acceptable scheme can be negotiated or that the scheme will be dealt with under delegated powers.  

11.

Syon Lane Station Area - Results of CPZ consultation (Satnam Sahota) pdf icon PDF 32 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 12.

 

Satnam Sahota, Developments & Parking, introduced the submitted report.

 

Councillor Reid moved the recommendations, adding that residents had waited a long time for the introduction of parking restrictions in these highlighted roads. She asked for the inclusion of text from point 3.3 of the report inviting those originally consulted to reconsider their views on the CPZ to be in the recommendations, supported by the officer. Councillor Carey seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Dennison was puzzled at the need for a CPZ in Marlborough Road, which only had houses on one side and was somewhere he never had difficulty finding parking. For this reason Councillor Dennison moved the removal of Marlborough Road from the recommendations.

 

Councillor Dennison also queried the consultation with local residents on the proposed timing of the restrictions, preferring instead to shorten the times of the restrictions to reduce commuter parking. Mr Sahota explained the consultation process for members indicating the 9-5pm was the most favoured option amongst the respondents. He stated that the statutory consultation would not be for residents to participate in, rather it was purely to consult with the Local Authority’s statutory partners such as the Police. Residents would, however, receive notice in writing from the Council on the Area Committee’s decision.

 

Councillor Reid suggested that the removal of Marlborough Road from the recommendations would be up to local ward members to discuss but urged officers to proceed with proposals for both Hexham Gardens and Rothbury Gardens. Councillor Dennison moved the recommendations with the omission of Marlborough Road. Councillor Reid supported this and asked that officers include the text inviting residents to reconsider their views with the text of recommendation (e).

 

Voting Record:

Voting For: all councillors.

 

Resolved:

Members considered the results of the two consultations undertaken and agreed that:

·        Officers proceed with the formal (statutory) consultation as detailed at paragraph 3.5 to create a CPZ incorporating Hexham Gardens and Rothbury Gardens, and that the hours of operation of this CPZ are 9am to 6pm, Monday to Friday;

·        The CPZ proposal for Marlborough Road is withdrawn at this time;

·        Any objections received in response to the statutory consultation that could not be resolved by officers be brought back to this Area Committee for consideration and decision;

·        The CPZ proposal for Almond Grove, Brambles Close, Epwowrth Road and Syon Lane is withdrawn;

·        Officers proceed with the introduction of “At Any Time” waiting restrictions as detailed at paragraph 3.5, subject to satisfactory statutory consultation;

·        Residents of the original consultation area (i.e. the ‘Northumberland Estate’) be notified of the consultation results and of this Area Committee’s decision and invited to reconsider their views on the CPZ option;

The cost of this scheme of about £25,000 be met from the TfL’s funding for 2010/11 for CPZs of £100,000 in the Isleworth & Brentford and Chiswick areas.

12.

Delegated Decisions Report pdf icon PDF 66 KB

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 13.

 

Ms Smith informed members that officers were working to produce an online link for reports including delegated decisions reports, weekly planning lists and appeal decisions. It was hoped that this would be available on both the Intranet and Internet. Once this link was up and running smoothly, members would no longer receive printed copies of delegated decisions reports in their Area Planning Committee agenda packs.

 

Resolved:

Members noted the submitted report.

13.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

14.

Addendum Report pdf icon PDF 82 KB

17.06.10 – Addendum report attached to the electronic agenda and circulated to members on the day of the meeting.

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 15.

 

Resolved:

Members noted the submitted report.