Hounslow Council

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Rooms 1 & 2, Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow. View directions

Contact: Bill Lee on 020 8583 2068 or email  william.lee@hounslow.gov.uk or  CHAF@hounslow.gov.uk 

No. Item


Apologies for Absence, Declarations of Interest and any other Communications from Members




Apologies for absence were received for Cllrs Banda Chopra and Corinna Smart.




Minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2015 and Matters Arising pdf icon PDF 98 KB


Area Participation Officer Joan Conlon advised that the final paragraph of minute 125 (page 9) was incorrect, and the first sentence should be amended to state that there was £2,000 in the Engagement Fund, not £3,000 as stated, as Members had approved two allocations of £500 for the Christmas Party and £500 for the Tea Party.


The minutes of the meeting  held on 24 September 2015 were agreed as an otherwise true and accurate record and signed by the Chair.


Minute 122 – Bath Road Improvements:


Cllr Mukesh Malhotra gave an update. He advised that he and Christopher Deakins had walked from Standard Road (not part of the plans) to the site of the new school. The officer noted the damage done to guard rails by vehicles and saw the point Cllr Malhotra had made in the previous meeting. They visited the car wash and the entrance to Morrison’s from Earl Haig Road and witnessed an HGV attempting to turn into the road by Hounslow West tube station; the driver was unable to carry out the manoeuvre because of parked cars and problems were caused. He advised that Mr Deakins had recognised the need for double yellow lines. In the car park area Mr Deakins had advised that the pavement was to be replaced by blocks and the existing trees would be either tidied or replanted. Areas of paving were however the property of local shops and so although the paving would be replaced as one area, agreement would be needed from the shop owners to pay for the maintenance of their sections. Business owners would need to be advised of this as many were unaware. Cllr Malhotra stated that he had spent a full half day with Mr Deakins who had recognised the needs that had been highlighted, especially for the disabled.




Parking Response

Melanie Gadd will respond to members’ questions.



Following an invitation made at the 24 September meeting of the Area Forum Melanie Gadd, Head of Supplier Performance and Steve Steane, Interim Enforcement Manager attended to answer questions from Members regarding parking enforcement in the central Hounslow area.


Ms Gadd advised that following the passing of the Deregulation Act at the end of March 2015 the council could no longer use a number of its enforcement cameras and so had to rely on Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) in many areas. These officers were not deployed 24 hours a day seven days a week and so 24/7 parking enforcement, which some people appeared to be calling for, was not possible. If there was demand for enforcement in certain areas at certain times then officers would comply but in many cases it had been found that the demand did not exist.


Cllr Mukesh Malhotra stated that members had highlighted concerns, especially around the parade of shops at Hounslow West, that there weren’t enough CEOs to enforce restrictions adequately.  The bays permitting 30 minutes free parking were a boon to businesses but the entrance to the parade’s parking area was frequently blocked, which resulted in vehicles queuing out on the street which in turn caused traffic to back up along Bath Road. CEOs were not sufficiently active between 8 am and 7 pm to move drivers on and Cllr Malhotra was among people who had written to the Council about this problem for some time, seemingly to no avail. Ms Gadd acknowledged that there was a problem in the area. Cllr Malhotra urged that CEOs be rotated so that those working in the area did not become familiar with motorists and asked what could be done by the police to deal with the issue.  Inspector Andrew Morrow, who was attending the meeting to present the police report, advised that while officers could deal with some incidents parking enforcement was the job of CEOs.


Cllr Jagdish Sharma advised that there was a particular problem surrounding rugby matches at Twickenham which could possibly be helped if alternative routes were publicised. Ms Gadd stated that officers met with the RFU and would tell them of the members’ concerns. Mr Steane advised that officers were aware of complaints about the parade entrance getting blocked and he would raise the matter with the Enforcement Team. One CEO patrolled the area daily but he had a large area to cover. Mr Steane said that he would ask the CEOs why vehicles were not being moved on; there should also be visits by the mobile camera. Cllr Malhotra cautioned against moving the problem along the road into a residential area as that may make it even worse. Ward Councillors had been working with Mark Frost to find solutions to issues on Staines Road around junctions with Bath Road and Wellington Road. Guard rails had been damaged, mainly by coaches and similar vehicles turning round during the recent Rugby World Cup. Requests had been made to Hounslow Highways to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.



A representative will respond to members’ questions.


Following an invitation made at the 24 September meeting of the Area Forum Melanie Gadd, Head of Supplier Performance, Cindy Gardener, Contract Manager and David Horgan, Carillion arboricultural specialist, attended to answer questions from Members regarding Carillion’s contract for the maintenance of trees and parks within the Borough.


Cllr Jagdish Sharma stated that there appeared to be a lack of public spirit on the part of the contractor, citing an example of neglect along Ravendale Road, where a one metre wide strip of grass was now knee high. He had written to Carillion about it during the summer but nothing had been done. Ms Gadd advised that she knew the area referred to and stated that when Hounslow Highways outsourced maintenance to Carillion a number of locations were missed out. These areas were now looked after on an ad-hoc basis as they do not form part of the contract. Officers were currently looking at each of these areas to determine which contract they should come under as it was essential to know who was responsible for what.


Cllr Mukesh Malhotra said that it could take up to a year to obtain a response and even then it was not always satisfactory, for example the company would say it could find no information. It had taken the Councillor six months to get Carillion to cut a hedge in Frampton Road as no one seemed to be prepared to take ownership. There were numerous incidences of overgrown shrubbery obstructing footpaths and he had received an email response advising that contractors were unable to find the right materials to repair a fence. Cllr Malhotra strongly believed that such maintenance should be part of the contract and so should be carried out as a matter of course rather than the present situation, where Members and the public had to continually ask. He called on officers to remedy the issue.


Cllr Colin Ellar asked if the fungal disease ash dieback was having an impact and if Japanese knotweed was a problem in the borough. Mr Horgan acknowledged that he wasn’t best qualified to discuss Japanese knotweed but he advised that Carillion had outsourced the task and there was a three year plan to deal with the issue. He looked for symptoms of ash dieback when he inspected trees but was yet to see any in the borough and it in fact had very little impact in London to date. Cllr Bob Whatley asked about damage done by overzealous strimming in parks, particularly the Gainsborough Gardens open space. He understood that workers had been spoken to and attempts were being made to address the problem but asked for an update along with information on what progress, if any, had been made towards the replacement of trees that had been killed. Mr Horgan accepted that considerable damage had been done by strimming and advised that 150 standard trees and 1,000 whips (a young unbranched seedling of a metre height or less) were to be planted. Six  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.


Police Reports pdf icon PDF 43 KB

Presented by Inspector Andrew Morrow.

Additional documents:


Please see the police reports (agenda item 3).


Inspector Andrew Morrow attended to present the reports.


Cllr Colin Ellar commented that there had been a rise in burglaries over the previous month. Insp Morrow said that burglaries had risen by 30.2% in Hounslow Heath in September to October while figures for all other crimes had fallen, giving rise to concern. Some of the offences were targeting Asian homes for jewellery while vehicle theft was also a motive. There was a correlation between burglary level and low level anti-social behaviour (ASB) and vandalism.  Acknowledging it to be a thorny issue without proof that there was a direct connection, Insp Morrow advised that there was a group of homeless people living in tents in the area and burglaries had increased after they moved in. Police were working with Immigration Services and, indirectly, with St Mungo’s who were trying to get the people housed.


Cllr Jagdish Sharma raised an issue that an elderly resident’s car had been vandalised in the early hours around five weeks previously; Insp Morrow advised that he would look into the matter. Cllr Mukesh Malhotra asked for an update on the future of PCSOs in the face of the expected cuts to the Metropolitan Police’s budget. Insp Morrow stated that he was awaiting news and cuts would be announced the following week, however there was a rumour that PCSOs would be retained. Cllr Malhotra felt that community policing, including PCSOs, would go a long way to allay fears within communities following the attacks in Paris at the weekend. Insp Morrow advised that his officers had carried out regular high visibility patrols for some time to deter violent crime and ASB and wanted to continue to give out the reassurance that such patrols provided, however it may not be possible to do so in future because of constrained resources.


The presentation was noted by members.



Standard Road CPZ Consultation Results. pdf icon PDF 89 KB

Additional documents:


Please see the report by Andrew Nye, Parking & Developments (agenda item 4).


Chris Deakins, Team Leader, Capital Projects & Network Management presented the briefing. He advised that there had been some apparent discrepancy as a petition had been received against the proposal, however on examination it had been found that several of the petition’s signatories had said they were in favour during the consultation. Cllr Jagdish Sharma moved to accept the officer’s recommendations, seconded by Cllr Mukesh Malhotra.




That Members considered the outcome of the consultation and agree that:


(a)  The CPZ proposals shall be advanced to formal (statutory) consultation for the making of a Traffic Management Order (TMO) and implementation thereafter of the CPZ in Standard Road subject to there being no unresolved objections;


(b)  where possible, officers shall resolve any objections received to the formal (statutory) consultation and implement the scheme and, in the event of any objections remaining unresolved, that the Chair of the Area Forum shall be given delegated authority to determine these objections in consultation with the Ward Councillors; and


(c)  that residents shall be informed of the Forum’s decision.



Voting to accept officers’ recommendations: Councillors Tom Bruce, Colin Ellar, Mukesh Malhotra, Shaida Mehrban, Jagdish Sharma and Bob Whatley.


Voting to refuse officers’ recommendations: None.




Staines Road Cycle Track pdf icon PDF 100 KB

Presented by Christopher Deakins

Additional documents:


Please see the report by Chris Deakins, Team Leader, Capital Projects & Network Management (agenda item 5).


Mr Deakins presented the briefing and displayed plans using a visualiser.  


Cllr Colin Ellar welcomed the report and said that the proposals for the Hobbledown development on the Heath would cause the golf course entrance to be dramatically revised. Mr Deakins advised that the Council were working on securing land from the developers to place the facility, using s106 funding. Cllr Ellar felt that the scheme generally offered improved safety for cyclists but Baber Bridge was dark and narrow; he asked if there were future plans to make it safer. Mr Deakins stated that the scheme involved multi-million pound funding and a bid for Baber Bridge would be made.


Cllr Mukesh Malhotra asked how the scheme would cope with cyclists using the path alongside the mosque on Fridays and holy days, when there was very significant congestion. Mr Deakins advised that the footways along Staines Road were very wide and cyclists would occupy a separate track, not a shared path, so he did not anticipate concerns. Area participation Officer Joan Conlon stated that the Islamic Integration Community Centre had responded to the consultation  and had requested four disabled parking bays, which was being looked into. Mr Deakins said that the request could be facilitated and officers would look into the plans in greater detail; he noted the request.


Cllr Colin Ellar moved to accept the officer’s recommendations, seconded by Cllr Tom Bruce.




That Members delegated authority:

1.    to the Executive Director for Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment (REDe) to undertake detailed design for the proposals set out in Appendix A;

2.    to the Executive Director for REDe to carry out the required statutory consultation on the proposals;

3.    to the Executive Director for REDe to resolve where possible any objections received to the statutory consultation;

4.    to the Chair of the Area Forum to determine any objections received that remain unresolved in consultation with the Ward Councillors; and that

5.    to the Executive Director for REDe to implement the scheme if no objections are received or once any objections received are resolved.


Voting to accept officers’ recommendations: Councillors Tom Bruce, Colin Ellar, Mukesh Malhotra, Shaida Mehrban, Jagdish Sharma and Bob Whatley.


Voting to refuse officers’ recommendations: None.





Lampton Road Public Realm Improvements pdf icon PDF 122 KB

Additional documents:


Please see the report by Chris Deakins, Team Leader, Capital Projects & Network Management (agenda item 6).


Mr Deakins presented the briefing and displayed plans using a visualiser.


Cllr Colin Ellar referred to the cross roads of Lampton Road and Bulstrode Road, where a raised table was proposed. He stated that there was currently a lot of pedestrian activity with people crossing the roads haphazardly, dodging through traffic, which he felt was an accident waiting to happen and he asked if there were any plans to make this junction safer.  Mr Deakins advised that it was not possible to fit a pedestrian island into the crossing and so a combination of a raised table and a 20 mph zone was proposed to improve safety.   Cllr Ellar believed that an island would be much better, reminding members that the pelican crossing had been installed outside Hounslow Central tube station after a fatal accident. Mr Deakins noted members’ concerns but repeated that an island could not be fitted in, however there were two controlled crossings within 50 metres.


Cllr Jagdish Sharma welcomed the report and asked if improvements to Hounslow Central tube station were proposed and if the Council had liaised with the Mayor of London on the plans. Mr Deakins stated that funding from the Mayor and the GLA was being obtained  for shop frontages and so he intended to take comments on the station environment to them. Cllr Malhotra advised that TfL had paid for work in Greenford to improve the station and install a lift. It had been his belief that Hounslow Central would be improved in a similar way to Hounslow East. He personally found using the station difficult as he walked with a stick and he wondered how bad it must be for people with more severe disabilities, and asked for consideration of a lift. Mr Deakins advised that the Council were not putting proposals forward regarding the station but would make a representation on members’ behalf.


Cllr Malhotra said that while it was possible to turn left onto Balfour Road from Lampton Road people waiting to turn right into Bulstrode Road met frequent difficulty, causing congestion. He asked if a solution was possible. Mr Deakins stated that the same issue had been raised at the Heston and Cranford Area Forum the previous week and the comments were noted. Cllr Ellar felt there were safety issues surrounding motorists overtaking on the inside in the face of people turning right from the opposite direction and asked if the left hand lane could be made straight ahead and left instead of left turn only, so that the manoeuvre could be controlled. Mr Deakins said that the idea would be investigated and tested in modelling. 


Cllr Colin Ellar moved to accept the officer’s recommendations, seconded by Cllr Tom Bruce.




That Members delegated authority:

1.    to the Executive Director for Regeneration, Economic Development & Environment (REDe) to undertake detailed design for the proposals set out in Appendix A;

2.    to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.


Small Grant Applications pdf icon PDF 127 KB

Additional documents:


See the report of the Third Sector Partnerships Manager (agenda item 7).


Following presentation of the report by Area Participation Officer Joan Conlon members discussed the application and made the following decision:




That £500 be granted to the Cultural Exchange Programme for the purposes indicated in the report.


Cllr Mukesh Malhotra asked if there was a set timeline for receipt of small grant funding. He had been told that cheques could take a long time to arrive and felt that a deadline of 14 days should be applied. Ms Conlon advised that officers were equally keen that grants should be paid quickly once agreed and said that awards were only delayed when sufficient details were not supplied by applicants. Cllr Malhotra stated that groups had complained to him that they had supplied all necessary details but funding had still not been released. Ms Conlon advised that she would pass the comments on to the relevant officers and would report results back to the Chair.


Open Forum for Questions from the Public (Maximum of 30 Minutes)


There were no questions from the public.


Kingsley Academy Planning Application


A presentation with slides of the proposal to develop the Kingsley Academy site was given by Edwin Sutton, Associate Director of developer Bowmer & Kirkland, the main contractor on behalf of the Department for Education.


Mr Sutton advised that replacement of the existing buildings had been funded by the government following a survey that found them in poor condition. The contractor was to build a new main block at the rear of the site and a new sports block at the front; work progress would be limited to an extent by the need to keep the existing buildings in use during construction of the new. Access would remain as current, with pupil access from Cecil Road. Most of the site would be secure during the school day but would be available for community use in the evenings. The main block would be a four storey building based on the DfE “superblock” design, where classrooms were arranged around a large central space on each floor which would be used for assembly halls, the canteen etc. Pupil capacity was between 1,000 and 1,400 and it was expected that 70% would travel to school on foot and 20% by bus, with very little car travel. The site was very well served by public transport links. The developer would remove as few parking spaces as possible during the works and would reinstate them all as soon as practicable afterwards; there was more work to be done on this subject but discussions had shown support in principle.


Cllr Colin Ellar asked how long work was predicted to take and expressed concern regarding safety if the school was to remain open during construction. Mr Sutton advised that it was intended to segregate both the site and access routes and while it was an ambitious project he was confident of success; the company had a great deal of experience. Cllr Bob Whatley asked if both blocks would be built separately and was advised that work would be concurrent.  Including demolition of existing buildings the complete programme was to take 110 weeks. Ideally the buildings would be constructed one at a time but the DfE funding did not permit that. Cllr Mukesh Malhotra asked about lighting and the need to clear debris from the road, particularly with regard to the youth centre behind the school. Mr Sutton advised that the contractor would work with the youth centre regarding access and that adequate lighting for both access and security needs would be installed, however he reminded the Area Forum that floodlit sites also generated complaints so there was a need to strike a balance.


Cllr Malhotra asked if funds were to be released for infrastructure. Mr Sutton advised that the project was financed by the Education Funding Agency on the basis of square metres of floor space built and was very tightly controlled, with no provision for any work off site. Existing car parks and footpaths would not therefore be replaced as there was no funding to do so.


Area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.


Wellington Road Planning Application pdf icon PDF 182 KB

Planning application called in by Cllr Colin Ellar.


Please see the report by Matthew Rees (agenda item 10).


The application was called in by Cllr Colin Ellar who spoke to the call in. Robert Coomber, Central Area Manager, REDe, answered questions regarding the proposed development.


Cllr Ellar said that he was familiar with the site but the information submitted was inadequate to make an informed judgement. The map was very small and it was not possible to tell what buildings were to be placed where. Mr Coomber advised that the protocol according to the Terms of Reference when the Area Planning function was abolished was that the Member who called the application in should speak to the case to enable the Area Forum to decide if the application should go to Planning Committee. Cllr Ellar stated that his point was that insufficient information had been provided to enable an informed decision to be made. He wanted to recommend that the application be brought to Committee but without knowing the details of the proposal he was unable to speak to it. For example he wanted to know why five houses were a potential safety hazard when there was a working MoT station nearby. Cllr Jagdish Sharma asked if the Area Forum could agree in principle and Cllr Tom Bruce stated that he was prepared to put his faith in the Planning Committee to make the appropriate decision.


Mr Coomber displayed the plans on the large screen. He advised that officers felt that the application was for too many houses for the size and shape of the site. If the applicants had approached planning officers first they would have discussed the matter and asked them to submit an amended plan. Cllr Ellar asked if such a discussion could still be facilitated and Mr Coomber hoped that was so. Cllr Mukesh Malhotra expressed agreement with Cllr Ellar. He said that the area already had issues with refuse vehicles being unable to access  and a change of use may resolve the problem for residents.




That the application should be determined by the Planning Committee.


Voting to bring the application to Planning Committee: Councillors Tom Bruce, Colin Ellar, Mukesh Malhotra, Shaida Mehrban, Jagdish Sharma and Bob Whatley.


Voting that the application be determined by officers under delegated authority: None.



Draft Leisure & Culture Strategy 2015-2020 – Consultation pdf icon PDF 187 KB

Presented by Imran Choudhury


Please see agenda item 11. The item was presented by Imran Choudhury, Director of Public Health.


Mr Choudhury apologised for the fact that due to the scheduling of the Area Forum meeting he was only able to make the presentation the day before the consultation was to close. He advised that £2.3 million of the large savings the Council had to make were to be taken from his department. As a result the authority had to consider different ways of achieving its goals; officers had ideas but very much wished to engage with the public rather than simply present a detailed finished plan.  A very high level strategy had been produced and a consultation launched to ask the public whether they agreed with the general approach being proposed.


The four main themes were to:

         modernise the library service;

         enhance the borough’s parks and open spaces;

         give support for residents to be more active; and to

         celebrate Hounslow’s people, place, heritage and culture.


Starting with libraries, Mr Choudhury advised than there were 11 in the borough which received a total of 1.4 million visits a year, however they were not used as they had been and visits had fallen by 20%. Surveys had shown that the facilities were well used by young families but then usage tended to tail off. It was proposed to make sure that libraries were up to date and as digital as possible, well supplied with e-books and similar. Secondly, libraries should be made as attractive as possible, with other services in addition to books. Finally there was a need to make buildings fit for purpose as some were dated, for example without adequate electrical points.


With regard to parks and open spaces Mr Choudhury stated that there were around 208 such areas within the borough and although there was funding from section 106 contributions and Public Health there was no budget for their maintenance. As a result there was a need to reduce maintenance and maximise community involvement, perhaps including community management. Mr Choudhury said there was a need to carefully consider where capital was spent and his view was that it should be primarily spent in the less privileged parts of the borough. Maintenance was the biggest source of public complaints about parks and open spaces and so there was a need to manage public expectation. Mr Choudhury advised that the Council needed to reflect responses to the consultation in the development of a parks and open spaces strategy. Cllr Bob Whatley expressed agreement with the idea of engaging with local communities and “self-management”. He felt that there was a real need to talk to park friends groups, noting that their members tended to be sceptical about the council and he felt they often had good reason. They put a great deal of time and effort into their work and didn’t always receive the cooperation from the local authority they should expect. Cllr Whatley was confident that these groups would give  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.


Citizen Engagement pdf icon PDF 73 KB

Presented by Robert Coomber and Stephen Hissett.



Please see the report by Cllr Theo Denison, Lead Member for Finance and Citizen Engagement (agenda item 12). 


Robert Coomber, Central Area Manager, REDe, presented the report. He advised that Cllr Denison wished to replace the current call in system with a more community focussed process. Currently Area Forums decided if a called in item would be brought to the Planning Committee and Forum members were not supposed to comment, however the practice was that members’ comments were passed on to Planning Committee.  The new report had been approved by Borough Council on 15 September 2015 although a change to the Constitution was required to formally amend the process. It would no longer be necessary for the Area Forum to decide whether a called in application was to be dealt with under officers’ delegated powers or was to go to Planning Committee; instead Ward Forums could be set up by the Chair of the Area Forum.


Cllr Colin Ellar asked the officer to clarify that this meant that, for example, an application for Hounslow Heath would be decided by the three Hounslow Heath Councillors if the Chair of the Area Forum agreed. Mr Coomber advised that the Area Forum had the power to decide how to proceed, for instance Chiswick Area Forum had decided to carry on with the present system of deciding call ins through the entire Area Forum whereas Heston & Cranford had decided to use Ward Forums. It would also be possible for one Ward to hold Ward Forums while the rest of the Area Forum carried on as before. Mr Coomber stated that if Members and a recognised amenity group had strong feelings about an application they could arrange a meeting with planning officers. If an agreement couldn’t be reached the application would go to Planning Committee. In response to a question from Cllr Ellar Mr Coomber clarified that amenity groups could call in an item and that if a residents’ group didn’t agree, even if everyone else did, the matter would go to Committee. Cllr Ellar welcomed the proposal as he found that residents often got frustrated with the lack of a voice and Councillors were held responsible, however he expressed concern at the prospect of some groups who may challenge every application. Cllr Bob Whatley called for clarification from the Lead Member as he believed Cllr Denison had previously explained his proposals as meaning that Members could refuse amenity groups’ calls for a call in, but that did not now appear to be the case. Cllr Tom Bruce said that his understanding was that community groups could call in applications but it was up to Councillors to decide the way forward.


Mr Coomber advised that the Enforcement Sub-Committee no longer existed  and enforcement was now overseen by Cllr Elizabeth Hughes under delegated powers. Highway matters were also covered and there was extra stress placed on the need for developers to put forward early consultation.


The report and presentation was noted by members.



Any other business the Chair wishes to take on the grounds of urgency.


The date of the next scheduled meeting is 28 January 2016.


Protocol for Speaking


i)             Members of the public or applicants should contact the Committee Administrator, Bill Lee, on 020 8583 2068 with details of the proposed submission as soon as practicable and no later than two working days before the meeting.  The Chair will decide whether or not to grant the request to speak and notification will be given of the decision.

ii)            For all highways matters, if there are members of the public with opposing views regarding the proposal the chair will allow both sides to speak. Generally, speakers will only be allowed to speak on issues where funding is available.

iii)           Each party will be given no more than 5 minutes to speak.  The time allotted could be reduced if, for example, the chair wishes to accommodate several speakers on the same item.

iv)           The Area Committee will consider submissions on up to 3 items per meeting.

v)            Written submissions should be made to the Committee Administrator no later than 4pm on the day of the meeting. 


Important information on planning applications called-in to Area Forum:

The Area Forum is no longer the decision making body for planning applications, following changes to the planning procedure agreed at Borough Council on 19th June 2012.  

Planning applications can be called-in by members of the Area Forum for the purpose of agreeing whether the application should be decided by officers under delegated powers or by members at the Planning Committee.

Speakers will not be permitted to address the Area Forum on planning applications, but can submit any representations they may have on the particular application to the relevant planning case officer.  They can also apply to speak at the Planning Committee, should a report be taken to that meeting for decision.