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

40.

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 were received from Councillors Carey, Harmer and Mayne.

 

The following declarations were made:

Councillor Reid declared that she knew residents of St Mary’s Crescent (Agenda Item 4) and was an occasional customer of the Coach & Horses PH (Agenda Item 6) and an occasional customer of PC World and its sister company Currys (Agenda Item 8).

 

Councillor O’Reilly declared that she also knew people living in St Mary’s Crescent (Agenda Item 4), was an occasional customer of the Coach & Horses PH (Agenda Item 6).

41.

Minutes of the meeting held on 5 August 2010 & Matters Arising pdf icon PDF 87 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 August 2010 were agreed and signed by the Chair as a correct record. There were no matters arising from the minutes.

42.

Goats Wharf, Lots Ait, Brentford pdf icon PDF 207 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 7. Additional information was submitted via an Addendum Report, Agenda Item 11.

 

The Planning Officer, Marilyn Smith, introduced the submitted report and addendum.

 

7.40pm – Councillors Reid and O’Reilly arrived at the meeting.

 

With the permission of the Chair, Jon Hardy and Nigel Moore made the following comments in objection to the proposals:

·        The proposed bridge would not be in keeping with the amenity of the area;

·        There was concern that the applicant would offer residential/ leisure moorings on the Ait;

·        The Area Committee should ensure that all aspects of the planning approval were legally enforceable;

·        Concerns were raised at the type of boatyard in the proposal (light maintenance, which would restrict the work permitted) when other boatyards were continuously busy despite being situated close to residential developments.

·        Any unilateral undertaking would have to ensure the type of boatyard and the work that could be done there, as well as ensuring that no residential or leisure moorings would be permitted.

 

Mr Chris Robinson, representing the applicant, was invited to respond. Mr Robinson endorsed the officer’s report and suggested that the market would dictate the type of work carried out in the boat yard. In support of the need for a bridge, he drew attention to the poor access to the boat yard at the present time, which he claimed would make the working hours on the boat yard unviable. The applicant informed members that he would target the emerging market for pleasure vehicles, fitting boats out, and was not intending to go for heavy barge work.

 

Members requested assurances that the boatyard would not be used for residential moorings. In response to members’ questions the following points were made: The closest boat repair facility was situated 300yards up river and included a floating dry dock to carry out heavier work; the intention was to restore the existing boatyard facilities for use and the investment in the bridge would be a long-term one, which was in the applicant’s opinion the only viable way of bringing the boatyard back into use.

 

Ms Smith reminded members that the applicant already held a Certificate of Lawful Use for the boatyard and that the application before them was for the construction of the bridge. When asked whether there was a specific description of what could and could not be carried out in this boatyard, Ms Smith indicated that she would have to check the Certificate of Lawfulness.

 

Councillor Cadbury moved deferral of the application, to allow time to answer a number of questions. She suggested that the boatyard could only be used for industrial work on and to boats in accordance with the Certificate of Lawfulness. The capitalisation of the cost of setting up the site coupled with the fact that the activity was not a high income yielding one caused some concern that the applicant might have other intentions for the future use of the site. In addition to this Councillor Cadbury highlighted the concern  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

43.

8 St Mary's Crescent, Isleworth pdf icon PDF 121 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 4.

 

Marilyn Smith, Planning Officer, informed members that the roof extension had been carried out under Permitted Development. She was not aware of any properties that had been converted into flats, apart from those already noted in the report (see point 5.0).  Referring to the proposed bedroom size of Flat 3, the officer indicated that this was considered acceptable, as it was the only bedroom in that flat.

 

Councillor Cadbury moved approval of the officer’s recommendation, seconded by Councillor Curran.

 

Councillors Reid and O’Reilly noted their strong concerns in relation to the conversion, citing overdevelopment and the loss of a valuable large family home.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors Cadbury, Ellar, Sampson, Curran and Bains.

Against:          Councillors Reid, O’Reilly, Dennison and Collins.

Abstained:     None.

 

Resolved:

That application number (00986/8/P1) (P/2010/1572) for the subdivision of the house to create two x two bedroomed flats and one x one bedroomed flat at 8 St Mary’s Crescent, Isleworth be approved, subject to the conditions in the report.

44.

The Pottery Arms, 25 Clayponds Lane, Brentford pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 5. Additional information was supplied via the Addendum, Agenda Item 11.

 

Councillors corrected the report, stating that John Aird House should be referred to as Greenrod Place, as the extended care sheltered unit was annotated on the submitted plan. Planning Officer, Marilyn Smith, confirmed that the homes would not be Registered Social Landlord (RSL) but privately marketed.

 

There followed a discussion on the maintenance and rubbish clearance around the proposed planting adjacent to the pavement and within the site boundary (7.34 of the report). The applicant, in attendance to observe the meeting, was invited to speak and informed members that this section of the site was part of the Council owned highway and that the applicant had been asked in discussion with Brentford Community Council (see point 5.5 of the report) to look at greening the site. The applicant was prepared to include the maintenance of this part of the site in the residents’ maintenance agreement, subject to a separate legal agreement with the Authority.  Ms Smith stated that the land in question was currently the responsibility of Hounslow Homes and not part of the application site. It would not be possible to condition the maintenance without a transfer of land to the applicant. Otherwise the land and its maintenance would remain the responsibility of Hounslow Homes.

 

Members discussed the risk of overlooking from the proposed new build to Perran Walk. It was proposed that the windows on the upper two floors of the end property could be moved from the rear of the property to the south facing side of the building overlooking the green space and making the windows in the neighbouring property high level to mitigate the risk of overlooking.

 

Referring to the car parking, Ms Smith informed members that the car park was currently used by local residents but that there were alternative spaces available for them.

 

Councillor Collins moved approval of the applicant in accordance with the officer’s recommendations, subject to additional conditions requested by members. Councillor Reid seconded this motion.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors Bains, Cadbury, Colins, Curran, Dennison, Ellar, O’Reilly, Reid and Sampson. 

Against:          None.

Abstained:     None.

 

Resolved:

That the application number (00271/25/P5) (P/2010/0572) for the refurbishment and change of use of the vacant Pottery Arms Public House and the erection of a new building to provide two 3 bedroom houses (within the public house) and two new 4 bedroom houses, including on-site parking and access arrangements be approved, subject to the conditions in the report (amended Condition 3 in the Addendum report) and the addition of conditions covering the long-term maintenance of landscaping and the position of the windows on the upper 2 floors of the proposed two three-storey houses located to the south of the Pottery Arms building.

45.

Coach and Horses Public House, 183 London Road, Isleworth pdf icon PDF 151 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 6. Additional information was supplied via the Addendum, Agenda Item 11.

 

Councillor Collins asked whether visitor car parking spaces could be designated for people with disabilities in anticipation of the increased use of the site. Ms Smith indicated that to her knowledge the upper floors had not been converted to a hotel (as per the 2008 planning approval, see 4.2 of the report).

 

The Planning Officer responded to members’ concerns that the consultation had not been broad enough (see Section 5.0 of the report) by pointing to the exact location of the proposed link and drawing from that the 13 closest residences consulted were those who would be most affected by the proposals.

 

Councillor Curran moved approval of the application, in accordance with the officer’s recommendations, subject to the suggested amendment to the parking arrangements, seconded by Councillor Collins.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors Bains, Cadbury, Colins, Curran, Dennison, Ellar, O’Reilly, Reid and Sampson. 

Against:          None.

Abstained:     None.

 

Resolved:

That the application numbers (00707/183/L3) (P/2010/1716) and (00707/183/P5) (P2010/1715) for the demolition of existing extensions and replacement with a link structure together with associated internal alterations be approved, subject to the conditions in the report and subject to negotiations with the applicant on the allocation of designated spaces in the existing car park for people with disabilities.

46.

6 West Cross Centre, West Cross Way, Brentford pdf icon PDF 125 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

Members provided the following comments:

·        A retail impact assessment on Brentford Town Centre was requested to be completed before the report was taken to SDC.

·        Members also requested a further traffic assessment to investigate whether separate traffic lights could be required, as a result of the anticipated additional traffic generated by the proposals.

·        Officers were asked to look at installing additional signs alerting pedestrians and cyclists using the Great West Road to the location of these vehicular access points.

 

Resolved:

That members noted this report and note that their comments will be reported to Sustainable Development Committee if an acceptable scheme can be negotiated. The application will be refused under delegated authority in the alternative.

 

8.57pm – Councillor O’Reilly left the meeting at this point.

47.

Delegated Decisions Report pdf icon PDF 145 KB

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved:

That the submitted report be noted.

48.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.

49.

Addendum Report pdf icon PDF 62 KB

16.09.10 - Addendum Report added to the electronic agenda pack and distributed to members.

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved:

That the submitted report be noted.