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

76.

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 submitted by councillors Cadbury, Curran, Dennison, Harmer, Mayne who were attending a meeting at the Civic Centre. Apologies were also received from Councillor Reid.

 

Councillor O’Reilly declared an interest in Agenda Item 4, 59 Church Street, on grounds that she knew a number of residents living in the area of the application site. She also declared an interest in Agenda Item 7, 35 Parkwood Road, for the same reason.

 

Councillor Collins declared an interest in Agenda Item 5, Haverfield Estate, as a resident of the estate and because he had campaigned for the proposed improvements. He would, therefore, not be taking part in the discussions.

77.

Minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2010 & Matters Arising pdf icon PDF 128 KB

Minutes:

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

 

Minute 72: 1 Brook Lane North, Brentford:

Insert the missing voting record as follows:

 

“Councillor Carey moved the officer’s recommendation, seconded by Councillor Ellar.

 

Voting Record:

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

Against:          Councillor Dennison.

Abstained:     Councillors Harmer and Curran (not present for this item).”

78.

59 Church Street, Isleworth pdf icon PDF 317 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

The Planning Officer, Sunny Desai, introduced the submitted report.

 

7.40pm – Councillor Collins joined the meeting.

 

With the permission of the Chair, Jakki Thompson and Fiona Woodall of 12 and 13 Snowy Fielder Waye respectively, spoke in objection to the application. Copies of Ms Thompson’s detailed notes had been circulated to members and Mr Desai before the meeting with her permission. The following points of objection were raised:

·        A number of notes in the submitted report were misleading.

·        Ms Thompson had only just been made aware during Mr Desai’s presentation that the boundary wall at the north side of the application site would be increased in height, further impacting on the loss of light to her property. A satellite image of the locality was displayed on behalf of the objectors. 

·        The area between the Church Street properties and Snowy Fielder Waye was densely planted with trees. Ms Thompson claimed she currently had to use artificial lighting in her home during daylight hours as a result of the impact this had on the level of daylight to her home.

·        All windows in the application site faced Snowy Fielder Waye and none towards the Church Street residences.

·        Emergency vehicles would not be able to access the proposed site through the altered garage access.

·        Clarification was sought on whether the wording of the Policy B.2.2 (see 5.27 of the report) stated that the development should “protect and enhance” or “protect or enhance”, as the officer claimed.

·        Concerns were noted in relation to the sunken element of the proposed building and the risk of flooding in the area. Where would the walls block and redirect the flood waters to?

·        The plot of land at 59 Church Street sat was higher than the objectors’ sites on Snowy Fielder Waye. 

 

Again with the Chair’s permission the agent for the application, Ms Kathy Else, asked members to recognise the enabling nature of this application to restore the property at 59 Church Street. She noted that the application was a carefully balanced scheme incorporating a sympathetically designed dwelling, which did not detract from the historic buildings on Church Street and did not constitute garden grabbing.

 

7.50pm – Councillor Ellar joined the meeting at this point.

 

Ms Else informed members that English Heritage had raised no objections to the proposals and that the reasons for refusal of past applications had all been overcome. The footprint of the application had been reduced by 35% in comparison to previous applications, reducing the dwelling’s mass and scale and minimising its visual impact on neighbours. The location of the proposal reflected the historic development of the area.

 

In response to members’ questions the following points were made:

·        The current garage structure would be amended and restored to the full elevation, which would allow cars access through the entrance whilst still protecting the Church Street frontage. Parking provision would be made for 3 cars on a permeable surface.

·        The turning circle for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

79.

Commerce Road, Brentford pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 9. Additional information was provided via an Addendum Report, Agenda Item 12.

 

Members commented as follows:

·        Members sought clarification on the access to the other side of the A4 from the application site.

·        A query was raised on the distances between the canal side properties in the proposal and the residences on The Island site.

·        Members questioned whether the existing motor repairs garage on site would be retained, due to its Art Deco style. Though the officer confirmed the applicant’s intention to retain some of the south west facing facades along Commerce Road, it was unclear whether the building in question merited retention.

·        Members asked about the location of proposed residential units within the scheme.

·        Members queried whether the proposed bus depot to the south west corner of the site would be developed before any of the residential units were occupied to minimise any negative impact that development might have.

·        The level and distribution of proposed affordable housing within the scheme was questioned. Members requested that where possible the affordable housing was spread across the development to allow families from low and middle incomes to be part of the development and not be confined to one area. 

·        Members asked whether local schools would be able to cope with the influx of families anticipated as a result of this and other developments in the local area.

·        Concern was raised at the current proposed level of amenity space and members noted a preference for more open space to the incorporated into the scheme on the canal side. It was suggested that the proposed development was too crowded together.

·        Members queried the level of flood risk to the site, acknowledging that a response had not yet been submitted by the Environment Agency.

 

It was proposed that the application come back to this Area Committee in January for further comment when those members not able to be present at this meeting would have the opportunity to comment on the proposals.

 

Resolved:

That members’ comments be noted and that the application be brought back before the next Isleworth and Brentford Area Planning Committee for further member comment.

80.

Haverfield Estate, Brentford - CCTV and Lighting pdf icon PDF 88 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

Councillor Collins declared an interest in this item, on grounds that he was a resident of the estate and that he had campaigned for the proposed improvements. The Chair confirmed that he could stay in the room but would not be able to speak during the discussion on the item.

 

Following the introduction of the report Councillor Ellar sought information on how significant the crime problem had been to warrant additional CCTV. Although the Planning Officer was unable to comment on the local crime levels he confirmed that these proposals had been community driven and that they also provided increased levels of lighting. He added that the CCTV images would be fed into two buildings on the estate and monitored by estate management.

 

Councillor Sampson moved approval of the officer’s recommendation, seconded by Councillor Ellar.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors Bains, Sampson, O’Reilly, Carey and Ellar.

Against:          None.

Abstained:     Councillor Collins.

 

Resolved:

That the application number (00377/T/S2) (P/2010/2620) for the replacement of 5 lighting columns with new columns that have lights and CCTV cameras attached. Removal of 9 obsolete CCTV columns and installation of 12 new CCTV columns be approved, subject to the safeguarding conditions in the report.

81.

Centaurs Business Park, Harlequin Avenue, Brentford - Gatehouse and barrier pdf icon PDF 88 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 6. Additional information was also submitted via an Addendum Report, Agenda Item 12.

 

Planning Officer, Sunny Desai, informed members that a further condition requiring that the application for a stopping up order for the closure of this part of Harlequin Avenue is approved prior to development commencing could be added to any approved planning permission.

 

Councillor Collins moved approval of the officer’s recommendation subject to the additional condition, seconded by Councillor O’Reilly.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors Bains, Collins, Sampson, O’Reilly, Carey and Ellar.

Against:          None.

Abstained:     None.

 

Resolved:

That the application number (00588/A/P36) (P/2010/1489) for the erection of a single storey gate house and barrier system be approved, subject to the safeguarding conditions in the report, the corrected informative contained with the Addendum report and the addition of a condition/informative requiring that the application for a stopping up order for the closure of this part of Harlequin Avenue is approved prior to development commencing. 

82.

35 Parkwood Road, Isleworth pdf icon PDF 82 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 7.

 

Following the introduction of the report, Councillor Ellar sought clarification on the current outhouse structure in terms of its location and dimensions in comparison to the proposals.

 

Although it was acknowledged that any change of use to the proposed building would require a separate application, Councillor O’Reilly requested that the informative be changed to a condition of the planning permission. She raised concerns amongst local residents that the presence of existing access gates to the rear of the garden would facilitate the future change of use to a separate residential or business unit.

 

Councillor Carey moved approval, subject to the conditions in the report and the amendment of the informative to a condition stating that the building should only be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling, seconded by Councillor Ellar.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors Bains, Collins, Sampson, O’Reilly, Carey and Ellar.

Against:          None.

Abstained:     None.

 

Resolved:

That the application number (00865/35/P5) (P/2010/2832) for the erection of detached outbuilding in the rear garden for use as a recreation and store room with shower facilities be approved, subject to the safeguarding conditions within the report and the amendment of the informative to a condition stating that the building should only be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling. 

83.

Redlees Under 5s Centre, Twickenham Road, Isleworth pdf icon PDF 91 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

See report from the Director of Environment, Agenda Item 8. Additional information was provided via an Addendum Report, Agenda Item 12.

 

The Planning Officer introduced the submitted reports and confirmed that the applicant was the London Borough of Hounslow. Councillor Ellar moved the officer’s recommendation.

 

There followed some discussion on whether the current users of the site, The One O’clock Club, would have to move from the site should the planning application be granted. There were some concerns amongst parents of children using this facility that the adventure playground may not be suitable for very young children and may therefore alienate some current users from continuing to take their children to the site.

 

A local resident, whose family attended the Club, was invited to address the meeting. He queried whether there was a covenant attached to the site requiring that it only be used for provision of services to the under fives. The Planning Officer advised members that any covenant on the site would not affect the planning application and would be something for colleagues in the Legal Department to review.

 

Councillor Sampson asked whether the application included a separate secure outdoor area for the under fives, suggesting that it was not ideal to have very young children playing together with older children (see 4.5 of the report). Sunny Desai suggested that, should members be minded to approve the application, a landscaping condition could be imposed requiring details to be submitted before any development commenced. If this condition was not met, then officers could bring the matter back to this Area Committee.

 

Councillor Collins seconded Councillor Ellar’s motion to move the officer’s recommendation, subject to the inclusion of the landscaping condition proposed by Mr Desai.

 

Voting Record:

For:                 Councillors Bains, Collins, Sampson, O’Reilly, Carey and Ellar.

Against:          None.

Abstained:     None.

 

Resolved:

That the application number (01252/Y/S1) (P/2010/2710) for the installation of adventure playground and log cabin be approved, subject to the safeguarding conditions in the report and the addition of a landscaping condition requiring the submission of details for the area used by the under fives before any development commenced.

84.

Delegated Decisions pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved:

That the report be noted

85.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.

86.

Addendum Report pdf icon PDF 87 KB

09.12.10 – Addendum report added to the electronic agenda pack and circulated to members prior to the meeting.

Minutes:

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

 

Resolved:

That the submitted Addendum Report be noted.