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

59.

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 for lateness were received on behalf of Councillor Cadbury who was travelling from an earlier meeting. Apologies for lateness were also received from Councillor Mayne whose train had failed to stop at Brentford Station. 

 

The following declarations of interest were made:

 

Councillor O’Reilly knew residents living close to 45 Wood Lane (Agenda Item 5); she had received correspondence from residents local to the Goals site (Agenda Item 11); she had also received correspondence on the London Apprentice application (Agenda Item 8);

 

Councillor O’Reilly declared a prejudicial interest in the application for 166 Wood Lane (Agenda Item 6), having met with the applicant and their parents before and after the application submission without an officer present. As a result she would be leaving the room for the discussions on this item.

 

Councillor Reid declared that she had received correspondence on the London Apprentice site (Agenda Item 8). She knew a number of residents in Oaklands Avenue, next to the Goals site (Agenda Item 11).  Councillor Reid had also received correspondence on 63 Elizabeth Gardens (Agenda Item 4) and declared a prejudicial interest in the application for 166 Wood Lane (Agenda Item 6) stating that the applicant was known to her and that she had been contact in relation to the application to give procedural guidance about getting in contact with members of the Area Committee. As a result she would be leaving the room for discussion on Agenda Item 6.

 

Councillor Carey had received correspondence on agenda items 4, 8 and 11 and had visited The London Apprentice as a customer.

 

Councillor Harmer had received correspondence on agenda items 4, 5, 6 and 8 and was a member of the car club connected with the 26 Glenhurst Road site (Agenda Item 7).

 

Councillor Harmer declared a prejudicial interest in the Kew Bridge site, on grounds of the relationship between his employer and the site’s developer. As a result he would leave the room during discussion of this item.

 

Councillor Harmer also declared a prejudicial interest on 1 Brook Lane North (Agenda Item 13), as he was a regular user of the café and knew the owners. Again he informed the meeting that he would be leaving the room during discussion on this item.

 

Councillor Curran declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 13 on grounds that he was also a regular user of the café. He would also be leaving the room during discussion of this item.

 

Councillor Collins had received correspondence on Agenda Item 4. He had received a letter and had a telephone call on Agenda Item 6 but had not entered into a discussion on the application.

60.

Minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2010 & Matters Arising pdf icon PDF 71 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 October 2010 were agreed and signed by the Chair as a correct record, subject to the following amendment:

 

Minute 52: 6 Byfield Road, Isleworth:

The sentence “Councillor Reid moved approval…“should be corrected to read; “Councillor Carey moved approval…”

 

Matters Arising

 

Minute 57: London Apprentice PH:

Councillor Reid asked whether members of The Isleworth Society had been informed that this item would be put on the agenda for this meeting. Planning Officer, Sunny Desai, confirmed that The Isleworth Society had been provided with a copy of the applicant’s statement and explained that the reason for requesting deferral to the December meeting was because none of the members of the Society could attend tonight’s meeting.

 

The Chair informed members that she would be taking Agenda Item 14 as the first item of business.

61.

Twickenham Road Improvements pdf icon PDF 82 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 14.

 

Christopher Deakins introduced the submitted report and took members through the proposed 4 phases with the aid of ordnance survey maps. In response to questions Mr Deakins provided the following information:

·        The feasibility study would look at the primary focus in each phase (e.g. the feasibility of installing a pedestrian crossing at the southern arm of the Busch Corner junction; resolving the issue of ramp access from busses at the bus stop situated across from West Middlesex University Hospital – busses were currently prevented from lowering their ramps safely by footway parking at this location).

·        Officers were aware of and would investigate further the issues for safe egress from Park Road onto the Busch Corner junction.

·        It was considered that the widening of the cycle lanes and the resulting narrowing of the central hatching in Phase 1 would not impact on safety for vehicles, as it was considered that the hatching was currently wider than necessary.

·        Clarification was provided on the costs submitted in the report. The anticipated total cost was £800,000.  Of this total £400,000 was currently available and an application had been submitted to TfL for a further £450,000. As each phase developed officers would return to this Area Committee with detailed costings. It was estimated that the works would be completed over a period of between 2 and 3 financial years.

 

7.50pm – Councillors Collins and Cadbury arrived at the meeting.

 

·        In the short-term works could be carried out by direct services organisations currently contracted to the Council. Larger schemes might then be carried out using alternative contractors. On the issue of value for money, officers were aware that they were spending tax payers’ money and would, therefore, endeavour to deliver the very best for the available funding.

·        Councillor Dennison asked that ward councillors be consulted with in the early stages of each of the phases. Mr Deakins invited input from all parties at any time. 

 

The Chair called for a vote on the recommendations.

 

Voting record:

For:                 Councillors Bains, Carey, Curran, Dennison, Ellar, Harmer, O’Reilly and Reid.

Against:          None.

Abstained:     Councillors Cadbury, Collins (arrived during the discussion) and Mayne (not yet arrived)

 

Resolved:

That the scheme proposals detailed in Section 3 of the submitted report be approved and that the proposed phasing of the project and methodology for progressing the various phases of this project as outlined in paragraphs 3.1.2, 3.2.3, 3.3.3 and 3.4.3 be approved.

 

That, for items listed in paragraph 3.1.1, officers proceed with the statutory consultation and that officers be authorised to, where possible, resolve any objections received to the statutory consultation and implement the schemes and, in the event of any objections remaining unresolved, that these be reported back to this Committee for consideration.

62.

Discussion on The London Apprentice application

Minutes:

There followed a brief discussion on The London Apprentice item. 

 

The Chair stated that she had been approached by representatives of The Isleworth Society requesting deferral but felt after seeking officers’ advice that the issues of noise and odour should be resolved without having to delay a further month.  Planning Officer, Marilyn Smith advised members that the Head of Pollution, Mr Gerry McCarthy, and the applicant’s representative on ventilation, Mr Maurice White, had been invited to speak on the matter at tonight’s meeting. With the support of the Chair she suggested that members could decide whether to defer their decision on the application once they had heard these verbal submissions.

 

Whereas some members were happy to proceed with hearing these submissions, Councillor Dennison moved deferral of the item suggesting that natural justice required that all parties should be present. Members agreed to defer the discussion on the application until Councillor Mayne had arrived.

63.

63 Elizabeth Gardens, Isleworth pdf icon PDF 87 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 4. Additional information was submitted via an Addendum Report, Agenda Item 17.

 

Sunny Desai introduced the submitted report and additional information within the Addendum using plans and photographs of the site, including photographs taken from the inside of the objector’s downstairs kitchen, which looked out onto the current boundary with the application property. He highlighted to members that the objector’s rear ground floor living area received daylight both from the window shown in the submitted photographs and from glazed patio doors.

 

In response to members’ queries the officer explained how the proposed extension would appear from the objector’s ground floor rear window. Mr Desai explained that other refused applications for rear extensions on Elizabeth Gardens had been larger in scale and had included different roof designs.

 

Although the owners of the property had been invited to speak at this meeting, they had declined this invitation.

 

With the prior permission of the Chair Mr Laurents spoke on behalf of Ms Barrett of No. 62 Elizabeth Gardens and raised the following points:

·        There was no guarantee that, should be proposed extension be given permission, Ms Barrett would then also be permitted to build a similar extension in order to claw back lost light and to mitigate the resulting sense of enclosure the proposed extension would cause.

·        The inclusion of a roof light in the proposal suggested there was an issue with the availability of light.

·        Ms Barrett disputed the measurements given in the report, arguing that the application property extended 0.25m further out from her property, which meant that an extension at No. 63 would extend 3.25m in total – exceeding the maximum 3.05m the Residential Extension Guidelines (REGs) recommended.

·        The ground floor rear living space formed Ms Barrett’s main habitable room and any permitted extension would harm her outlook.

·        Ms Barrett had spoken to the applicants who she claimed would be happy to erect a smaller extension than that included in the submitted plans..

 

In response to Councillor Reid’s query, Mr Desai confirmed that the application property did exceed the objector’s property by 0.25m but suggested that this depth was not sufficient to warrant refusal of the application and didn’t change the officer’s recommendation. Members were informed that Permitted Development rights had been removed from a number of properties in 2008, as a result of policy changes. 

 

8.20pm – Councillor Mayne joined the meeting at this point.

 

Councillor Dennison cited Elizabeth Gardens as a “delightful development” and asked whether officers used other controls aside from the REGs to inform their recommendations. Mr Desai acknowledged that the REGs were used as a guide but were balanced with the reasonable expectations of the applicant. The officer acknowledged that there was a need to review and update the Authority’s REGs to take modern residential developments similar to Elizabeth Gardens into consideration in future but drew members’ attention to the Addendum and the quote from the 2009 amendments to legislation, which asked planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

64.

45 Wood Lane, Osterley pdf icon PDF 72 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 5.

 

Following the officer’s introduction of the report, Councillor Collins moved approval of the officer’s recommendations, seconded by Councillor Carey.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors Bains, Cadbury, Carey, Collins, Curran, Dennison, Ellar, Harmer, Mayne, O’Reilly and Reid.

Against:          None.

Abstained:     None.

 

Resolved:

That the application number (01225/45/P1) (P/2010/2260) for the erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension be approved, subject to the safeguarding conditions in the submitted report.

65.

166 Wood Lane, Isleworth pdf icon PDF 110 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 6. Additional information was submitted via an Addendum Report, Agenda Item 17.

 

Councillors O’Reilly and Reid left the room at this point, having declared prejudicial interest in this item.

 

In response to members’ questions the officer confirmed that a contemporary design would be acceptable on this site, providing that it was a coherent scheme that took into account the neighbouring properties.

 

Councillor Mayne moved approval of the officer’s recommendation, seconded by Councillor Carey.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors Cadbury, Collins, Ellar, Mayne, Carey, Dennison, Harmer, Curran and Bains.

Against:          None.

Abstained:     Councillors Reid and O’Reilly

 

Resolved:

That the application number (01225/166/P3) (P/2010/1728) for the erection of a detached four bedroom house be refused.

 

Councillors Reid and O’Reilly were invited back to the meeting at this point.

66.

26 Glenhurst Road, Brentford pdf icon PDF 108 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 7. Additional information was submitted via an Addendum Report, Agenda Item 17.

 

Ms Smith confirmed that the scheme now offered 100% affordable housing and included 2 disabled bay parking spaces.  Councillor Dennison moved the officer’s recommendation, seconded by Councillor Mayne.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors Cadbury, Collins, Ellar, Mayne, Carey, Dennison, Harmer, Curran, Reid, O’Reilly and Bains.

Against:          None.

Abstained:     None.

 

Resolved:

That the application number (01106/Z/P1) (P/2010/2195) for the variation of Conditions 2 and 9 of planning permission 00485/26/P2 for change of use from former council offices to create 41 flats (20 x 1 bedroom and 21 x 2 bedroom with 33 car parking spaces), demolition of existing side extensions and erection of extensions to east and west elevations, alterations to existing roof, and landscaping dated 22/11/06, to alter the car parking provision and layout. (Amended provision) be approved, subject to the variation of S106 agreement, and the safeguarding conditions in the submitted report and the amendments submitted in the Addendum Report.

67.

London Apprentice Public House, Isleworth pdf icon PDF 99 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 8. Additional information was submitted via an Addendum Report, Agenda Item 17.

 

Planning Officer, Sunny Desai, introduced the submitted report and invited Head of Pollution, Gerry McCarthy, to brief members on the background to the complaints received and the measures taken to mitigate the cause of those complaints to date.

 

Through the Chair, Councillor Mayne asked if he could move a procedural notice on this item once members had the chance to speak on the matter.

 

Councillor Carey sought clarification on the conditions to ensure that the applicant would be duty bound to maintain the equipment in perpetuity and how this could be enforced. In response to Councillor Harmer’s question on whether the modifications in place were working, Gerry McCarthy confirmed that officers had the power to enforce against the breach under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and where members of this Area Committee were minded not to give permission, officers could use statutory enforcement powers.

 

A written submission from The Isleworth Society was included in the Addendum. Representatives of the Society had requested the opportunity to speak on the item but were unable to attend this evening’s meeting. Mr Maurice White of ADM Ventilation (acting on behalf of the applicant) provided information on the installation of the odour control equipment and explained the 3-stage filtration system, which would be assessed 6 times a year and the filters changed every 12 months (or before that where necessary). The filters in question had been changed 4 weeks ago.

 

On the matter of noise, Mr White acknowledged that the equipment had been extremely loud in the past. The applicant had commissioned a noise assessment, which assessed noise levels to be within the guidelines at 41dba. The plant was in the best location, contained on 3 sides by the public house and screened from view and could only be seen by those sitting out on the pub’s terrace or by climbing the fire escape.

 

Councillor Harmer drew on previous work experience to inform members that 35db was the equivalent of a quiet countryside, adding that each 10db increase in the measurement doubled the noise level (45db was twice as loud as 35db). He suggested that it would be more expedient to give planning permission for the plant, which would also allow officers to enforce against any breach.

 

Ms Smith informed members that a condition of the permission required the applicant to install the equipment within 2 months but, as the applicant intended to complete the installation within this timeframe, she suggested that this could be reduced to one month and for a noise assessment carried out following completion of this installation.

 

Councillor Dennison asked whether officers could set a maximum noise level by condition, suggesting that the language in Condition 3 was unspecific. Ms Smith informed members that the noise levels were already outlined in the statement and Mr McCarthy added that the noise levels in the evenings were higher than 45dba because of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

68.

Land adjacent to Kew Bridge, Brentford pdf icon PDF 110 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 9. Additional information was submitted via an Addendum Report, Agenda Item 17.

 

Councillor Harmer, having declared a prejudicial interest in this item, left the meeting at this point.

 

Councillor Collins sought clarification on the density of street lighting and noted concern that the level of lighting on the junction boxes and across Kew Bridge was very poor.  He requested that the lighting be conditioned so that the illuminated signs were switched off late at night.

 

Councillor Dennison moved approval of the officer’s recommendation, noting that the site had long been an eyesore, which should now be celebrated. Councillor Reid seconded the motion.

 

The Planning Officer, Marilyn Smith, informed members that the signs would be lit with down lighters and that one of these signs was situated behind an existing illuminated bus stop. She indicated that she could approach the applicant to ask that it be turned off at night but assured members that the light levels would be lower than an illuminated advertisement or the existing bus stop. It was therefore not considered that there would be light pollution as a result.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors Cadbury, Ellar, Mayne, Carey, Dennison, Harmer, Curran, Reid, O’Reilly and Bains.

Against:          Councillor Collins.

Abstained:     None.

 

Resolved:

That the application number (0065/P/AD2) (P/2010/1951) for the advertisement consent for the erection of a temporary site hoarding, 12 flag poles with flags and two free standing externally illuminated signs be approved, subject to the safeguarding conditions in the submitted report.

 

Councillor Harmer was invited back to the meeting.

69.

The Old Brentford Baths, Clifden Road, Brentford pdf icon PDF 213 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 10.

 

Councillor Cadbury left the meeting for discussion on this item, on grounds that she lived locally to the application site.

 

Councillor Mayne queried the condition on air conditioning and the planning officer acknowledged that this had been included in error, as there was no air conditioning within the application.

 

Councillor Harmer supported the application, which he suggested would keep the building in use, and moved approval of the officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Collins.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors, Collins, Ellar, Mayne, Carey, Dennison, Harmer, Curran, Reid, O’Reilly and Bains.

Against:          None.

Abstained:     Councillor Cadbury.

 

9.50pm – Councillor Collins moved the suspension of Standing Orders in order to complete the business of this meeting to which members agreed.

 

Resolved:

That the application numbers (00279/D/P2) (P/2010/2133) and (00279/D/L3) (P/2010/2136) for the refurbishment and alterations to the Victorian baths to convert the building to four live/work units and two houses (Planning and Listed Building Applications) be approved, subject to the safeguarding conditions within the submitted report.

 

Councillor Cadbury was invited back to the meeting.

70.

GOALS, McFarlane Lane, Syon pdf icon PDF 151 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

Councillor Curran asked whether the signs at the entrance could be combined to reduce the street furniture clutter. This was not deemed necessary as the signs for GOALS and Grasshoppers pointed towards different site entrances. The Grasshoppers’ site was used primarily during daylight hours whereas GOALS was intended to be used later into the evenings. Sunny Desai confirmed that in terms of the appeal decision the kick boards should be plain – removing the branding from them would not be sufficient.

 

Councillor Reid had visited the site with officers, local residents and the applicant and failed to understand how the applicant did not realise that they would need 8m high fencing. She asked officers to investigate whether the trees cut down on the boundary between the Tesco site and GOALS were part of the soft landscaping conditioned as part of the Tesco site.

 

Councillor O’Reilly proposed modification to the officer’s recommendations, suggesting that where consent was proposed, refusal should be recommended. Councillor O’Reilly expressed the view that enforcement action should be taken against the 8m fencing and the facility be brought back to within the Planning Inspector’s recommendations.

 

There followed some discussion on the use of Metropolitan Open Land. Due to the number of applications contained within the report, Councillor Harmer suggested taking a vote on each of the applications in turn.

 

Voting Records:

Application number (01106/Z/AD3) (P/2010/2505) for the retrospective application for the display of an externally illuminated directional sign to reception. Councillor Harmer moved the officer’s recommendation for refusal, seconded by Councillor Collins.

For:                 Councillors Cadbury, Collins, Ellar, Mayne, Carey, Dennison, Harmer, Curran, Reid, O’Reilly and Bains.

Against:          None.

Abstained:     None.

 

Application number (01106/Z/L1) (P/2010/2506) for the retrospective application for the installation and display of an externally illuminated freestanding reception sign (Listed Building Consent). Councillor Harmer moved the officer’s recommendation to refuse, seconded by Councillor Collins.

For:                 Councillors Cadbury, Collins, Ellar, Mayne, Carey, Dennison, Harmer, Curran, Reid, O’Reilly and Bains.

Against:          None.

Abstained:     None.

 

Application number (01106/Z/AD1) (P/2010/2248) for the display of ten rebound board advertisements. Councillor Harmer moved the officer’s recommendation to refuse, seconded by Councillor Carey.

For:                 Councillors Cadbury, Collins, Ellar, Mayne, Carey, Harmer, Curran, Reid, O’Reilly and Bains.

Against:          Councillor Dennison.

Abstained:     None.

 

 

Application number (01106/ZP1) (P2010/2195) for the retrospective application for erection of 8-metre high perimeter catch netting to the artificial grass pitches. Councillor Harmer moved the officer’s recommendation to approve, seconded by Councillor Cadbury.

For:                 Councillors Cadbury, Collins, Ellar, Mayne, Dennison, Harmer, Curran and Bains.

Against:          Councillors Carey, O’Reilly and Reid.

Abstained:     None.

 

Application number (01106/ZAD2) (P/2010/2304) for the erection of an externally illuminated directional sign. Councillor Harmer moved the officer’s recommendation to approve, seconded by Councillor Cadbury.

For:                 Councillors Cadbury, Collins, Ellar, Mayne, Dennison, Harmer, Curran and Bains.

Against:          Councillors Carey, O’Reilly and Reid.

Abstained:     None.

 

Application number (01106/Z/AD4) (P/2010/2766) for the installation of three free-standing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

71.

Goat Wharf, 42-50 High Street, Brentford pdf icon PDF 929 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 12. Additional information was submitted via an Addendum Report, Agenda Item 17.

 

Sunny Desai introduced the submitted report and commented that the Brentford Community Council had been broadly supportive of the application but had noted some outstanding concerns.

 

10.20pm – Councillor Reid left the meeting at this point.

 

Members submitted the following comments:

·        Members sought clarification on the landscaping next to the footpath to the south of the application site.

·        Clarification was sought on the actual room sizes in relation to guidelines.

·        Members sought assurances that the distance from the Ferry Quays development was sufficient to prevent overlooking from the application site.

·        Members asked whether a publicly accessible Thames-side path would be retained in line with the Blue Ribbon policy and to compliment the path included in the Ferry Quays development.

·        Members requested that affordable housing was provided. 

·        There was a risk of local families being priced out of the housing market.

·        Members suggested that the scheme offered little engagement with the local community and local economy. Further detail was sought on the ground level treatment on the Brentford High Street elevation and it was noted that a more active shop frontage at ground floor level was needed.

·        Concern was also raised around the levels of crime on neighbouring riverside developments.

 

Resolved:

That members comments be reported to Sustainable Development Committee if an acceptable scheme can be negotiated. That the application be refused under delegated authority in the alternative.

72.

1 Brook Lane North, Brentford pdf icon PDF 96 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 13. Additional information was submitted via an Addendum Report, Agenda Item 17.

 

10.30pm - Councillors Harmer and Curran left the meeting at this point.

 

Resolved:

That the 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 1 Brook Lane North, Brentford requiring within three calendar months:

 

·        The removal of the front canopy and supporting wooden posts

·        The removal of the illegal advert situated on top of the canopy

·        The removal of the white painted screen on the northern boundary adjoining number 3 Brook Lane North, and

·        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; and

 

The carrying out of works in default under Section 178 and 225 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.

73.

Delegated Decisions Report pdf icon PDF 86 KB

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 14.

 

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

 

10.33pm – Councillor Dennison left the meeting at this point.

74.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

Councillor Ellar raised concern at the number of inaccurate ward annotations on the planning reports and asked officers to double check these before the agendas were published. Ms Smith assured members that officers did try to pick up on some of the anomalies in the Council’s GIS programme and would continue to do so in future.

75.

Addendum Report pdf icon PDF 111 KB

10.11.10 – Addendum report attached to the electronic agenda pack and circulated to members of the Area Committee.

11.11.10 – 2nd Addendum added to the electronic agenda pack and distributed to members for their attention.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 17.

 

Resolved:

That the report be noted.