Minutes for Central Hounslow Area Committee (Planning) meeting, Mar 19 2009, 7.30PM official page

Item 6: 77 Kingsley Road, Hounslow

Councillors P. Grewal, A. Grewal and Malik advised that they had businesses in Kingsley Road, but no personal interest in the application.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2009 (agenda item 2) were agreed with the following amendments:

a)     Councillor D. Grewal did not live on North Drive, as stated in the minutes (item 85, page 2 refers).

b)     Councillor L. Davies advised that the house had been No. 98 and not No. 2 Elmer Gardens (item 93, page 6 refers).

c)      Councillor L. Davies advised that the rat run was in Essex Avenue and not Worton Road (item 93, page 7 refers).

Matters Arising

Mr Coomber, Area Planning Manager, advised that the Council’s consultant had examined the tree and both he and the owner’s tree consultant had agreed that the tree was not a problem. The owner had asked a tree surgeon to provide proposals for the tree to be pruned and the Council was currently awaiting an application to be submitted. The Tree Preservation Order was still in effect, so there was no immediate urgency for action to be taken (item 87, page 2 refers).

The Chair advised that she had agreed to take an urgent item about barriers in Kingsley Road because the current situation was considered to be dangerous. A briefing note had been provided by traffic officers, following a site inspection.

Councillor P. Grewal explained that there was a problem of children from the school gathering together in large groups towards the High Street end of Kingsley Road, opposite the bus station. This was causing the footpath to be blocked and creating a nuisance for local shops. Councillor P. Grewal had met with Inspector Huw Evans and shopkeepers to discuss the problem. Guard rails were being proposed, although it would not be possible to put these along the whole length of the road between Cecil Road and the High Street because the footway was too narrow.

In addition to the installation of a short guard rail, Councillor P. Grewal also suggested that the Head Teacher at Hounslow Manor School be contacted to see what measures the school could take to prevent large groups of children from congregating outside the fast food outlets in Kingsley Road. He suggested a staggered release time at the end of the school day or possibly, the supervision of children outside the school grounds, which had been done by other schools. He advised that the area co-ordinator was looking into S.106 funding for the barriers and would produce a report for the next meeting.

Inspector Evans advised that the problem had developed over the past two years, possibly because the school had used to exit from Prince Regent Road until the Blenheim Centre had been built and was now exiting from Cecil Road, creating a bottle neck of students leaving at the same time.

Temporary barriers had been set up, which had worked when officers had been present to direct pupils across the road, but a permanent barrier with gaps was needed for the longer term.

Inspector Evans advised that he would be working with the school in connection with the behaviour of the pupils and he felt that staff could supervise pupils in Cecil Road and that the police could deal with any problems in Kingsley Road.

Councillor P.E. Fisher asked if the footway would be wide enough with barriers installed to allow a wheelchair or buggy to get through. Inspector Evans advised that there was one short section, which would be too narrow for a wheelchair or buggy if barriers were installed. If the pavement was being blocked, it would be a highway obstruction and could be dealt with by the police. The problem was mainly outside the fast food outlets, which were attracting groups of children.

Benita Edwards, Legal Officer, advised that, although it was not her area of expertise, there may be issues concerning the increase in teacher’s duties or liabilities, which could prevent them from supervising pupils after school hours and outside the school grounds.

Councillor Connelly felt that it would be difficult for the school to stagger the leaving hours because it would affect their timetable for lessons and the school would be unable to have a single assembly. He also felt that a short staggered time period would have no affect because the pupils let out first would wait for their friends to join them.

Councillor Sharma felt that the school would fully co-operate. Inspector Evans confirmed that he was working with the school and had met with the Head and Deputy Head Teachers. He pointed out that the problems on Kingsley Road were the responsibility of the police and the Local Authority to deal with. He advised that he would report back to the next monitoring meeting.

Resolved:

That a report containing options for barriers in Kingsley Road, including costings and identification of any S.106 monies, which could be spent, be provided to the next monitoring meeting.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 5)

Mr Coomber advised that there was an existing enforcement notice served on the development. An appeal against the notice had been lost. The current proposal left a reasonable separation from the neighbours of 21m to the houses to the south and 20m to the rear and it was considered that the scheme satisfactorily addressed the previous reasons for refusal.

Mr Coomber recommended an additional condition requiring the removal of the middle roof light, which was agreed by the Committee.

In response to Councillor B. Fisher’s questions about the enforcement notice, Mr Coomber advised that the appeal had been lost in September 2008 and the applicant had until March 2009 to comply. The applicant was, therefore, still within the compliance period and Mr Coomber advised that it was always open for the owner to apply for planning permission to retain or provide an alternative proposal. He advised that it was possible to specify the order in which work on the development should be carried out to ensure that the rear loft extension was reduced first.

Councillor P. E. Fisher felt that the development spoilt the street scene. She compared the development to the house on the opposite side of the street, where a large blank wall could be seen from the street. She felt that the development had changed the street scene because the other houses were generally not as big and that neither of the two large houses resembled the originals.

Mr Coomber advised that there would be windows on the side, so that there would not be a blank wall. There was a hipped roof, which would mirror the style of the terrace. The view shown to someone driving down the street would be the rear of the development. 

Councillor P. E. Fisher still felt that it looked very different to the other houses in the road and that, in allowing the development, the Council was compounding an existing error. Mr Coomber acknowledged that it was different in character and that there were some bad examples of extensions, which had been allowed in the past. He pointed out, however, that the house had been designed to mirror the terrace.

Councillor L. Davies asked whether the extension on the roof would be taken down or retained. Mr Coomber advised that it would be reduced in size. At present, it was the full width and height of the roof and it would be brought down to be more subservient to the roof. Under the new legislation, the roof extension would be allowed without planning permission from the Council with minor alterations. The Council had more control over the roof extension in the report because there was an existing enforcement notice. The recommended roof extension was, therefore, better and more in compliance with the Council’s design guidelines than what the law would allow.

In response to further questions, Mr Coomber advised that the Council did not ask individual houses to provide refuse storage. Condition No. 4 removed permitted development rights, which meant that the applicant would need to apply to the Council for further works, although he did acknowledge that the law would allow the owner to knock the two houses into one.

The garage was not currently being used for anything unlawful, but any future concerns would be investigated.

Mr Coomber advised that he was happy to include an additional condition about working hours.

Members voted on the officer’s recommendation, as follows:

For -               Councillors L.Bath, J. Connelly, S.Dhaliwal, A. Dhillon, A. Grewal, D. Grewal, P. Grewal, N. Malik and J. Sharma

Against -       Councillors L. Davies, B. Fisher and P. E. Fisher

Abstain -       None

Resolved:

That planning application 00401/51/P11 for the erection of an attached three-bedroom, two-storey house, together with the retention of a side roof extension and the retention and reduction of a rear dormer roof extension at 51 Elmer Gardens, Isleworth be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the following additional conditions:

a)     An additional condition for the removal of the middle roof light.

b)     The order of works specified to ensure that the dormer was reduced first.

c)      An additional condition restricting working hours.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 6)

Mr Coomber advised that, in response to the Committee’s previous concerns about additional litter, which could be created by hot food takeaways, a S.106 agreement had been drafted to mitigate any impact from the proposals.

Litter picking would be carried out for 100m down the two side roads and outside the premises. A proper storage area would be concealed on the site and the market stall would be removed.

Councillor L. Bath supported the proposals, but wanted to ensure that the area was monitored because of existing litter problems in Kingsley Road. The Committee requested that officers note the terms of the S.106 agreement and monitor the area to ensure that litter was being removed. Councillor P. Grewal noted that there used to be a three-man environment team monitoring litter and that they had provided a good and effective service.

Councillor Bath asked if the weekly collection could be increased to cope with excessive volumes of litter. Mr Coomber stated that the recommended condition on refuse storage required the applicants to monitor the refuse storage and introduce other conditions if rubbish was accumulating outside the storage facilities.

Members requested that information about limitations on the number of takeaways near schools be provided in the future. Mr Coomber advised that over-concentration of use was a potential reason for refusal if evidence could be produced to support that view. Councillor Connelly warned that the Committee needed to take a consistent approach if it was minded to refuse planning applications because of over-concentration. Mr Coomber advised that a distinction needed to be made and backed up with evidence in each case.

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation.

Resolved:

a)     That authorisation for the Director of Environment to grant planning permission for application 0667/77/P9 for the change of use from A1 (retail) to A5 (takeaway) to 77 Kingsley Road, Hounslow, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the securing of the following planning obligations, by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and/or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Environment Department, on the advice of the Borough Solicitor, be approved.

i)                    A financial contribution to secure the provision and serving (for one year) of four on-street litter bins at £350 each, giving a total cost of £1400.

ii)                  An obligation that the operator will carry out litter picking on a daily (one person for half an hour at closing time) in the surrounding streets.

iii)                Payment of the Council’s costs of implementing and monitoring the agreement.

b)     That the satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking, outline above, shall be completed and planning permission issued by 19/05/09, or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Environment Department or the Borough Solicitor.

c)      That, if the legal agreement is not completed by the date specified above (or any agreed extended period), authorisation for the Director of Environment or Divisional Head of Regulatory & Development Services to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal should include planning obligations required to make the development acceptable in planning terms in accordance with Circular 05/05, relevant policies in the development plan and the Planning Obligations SPD, be approved.

d)     That, if planning permission is refused (for the reasons set out above), authorisation for the Director of Environment or Divisional Head of Regulatory & Development Services (in consultation with the Chair of the Central Hounslow Area Committee (Planning) to approve any further application for planning permission validated within 12 months of the date of refusal of planning permission, provided that it duplicates the planning application, that there has not been any material change in the circumstances of the relevant planning considerations and that a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the above obligations is completed within any specified period of time, be approved.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 7)

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation.

Resolved:

a)     That enforcement action for the removal of the single storey rear extension, removal of the rear roof extension and the removal of all resultant debris or the building of the roof extensions to the approved planning permission 0215/84/P1, the building of the single storey rear extension to the approved planning permission 00215/84/P1 and removal of all resultant debris to 84 Catherine Gardens, Hounslow be approved for the reasons set out in the report.

b)     That 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 be approved.

c)      That 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, be approved.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 8)

Mr Coomber advised that he had received an email representation from the owner and highlighted the points, which he had raised. The owner had asked for the Committee not to take action, to allow him to reduce the detached outbuilding and apply for a certificate of lawfulness. Mr Coomber advised that, if the Committee approved enforcement action, officers could allow the owner some leeway to make the necessary alterations.

Members voted unanimously in favour of the officer’s recommendation.

Resolved:

a)     That enforcement action for the demolition of the detached outbuilding and the removal of all resultant debris to 5A St Stephen’s Road, Hounslow be approved for the reasons set out in the report.

b)     That 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 be approved.

c)     That 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, be approved.

Councillor B. Fisher referred to an item raised at the last Area Committee monitoring meeting about Whitton Dene allotments. He advised that there was £3k left in the budget from the works because there had been no slow worms found on the site. He suggested that the money be reallocated for the installation of benches and bins.

Resolved:

That the reallocation of £3,000 funding for slow worms, which was no longer needed, to the installation of benches and bins at Whitton Dene allotments be approved in principle and agreed under Chair’s Delegated Authority.