Minutes for Central Hounslow Area Committee (Planning) meeting, Jan 14 2010, 7.30PM official page

Item 5: 105 St Stephen’s Road

All Members had received a communication concerning this item.

Item 7: 74 & 76 Wellington Road North

Councillors B. Fisher, P. Fisher, Davies, Sharma, A. Grewal, D. Grewal and P. Grewal had received a communication concerning this item. Councillor Bath had seen the applicant at her surgery.

Item 8: Rear of 77-79 Whitton Road

Councillors B. Fisher, P. Fisher and Davies had received a communication concerning this item.

Item 9: Hounslow Social Club

Councillors Bath, A. Grewal, D. Grewal and P. Grewal had received a communication concerning this item.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2009 (agenda item 2) were agreed.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 5) and the Addendum Report.

With the permission of the Chair, Mr Sandhu, the applicant, advised that the application had been deferred at the previous meeting and changes had been made, in consultation with planning officers, to improve the application. He felt that the application satisfied all of the planning requirements and that the proposals would be an improvement, compared to the current building on the site.

With the permission of the Chair, Mr Packford spoke on behalf of St Stephen’s Residents Association. He advised that, following a meeting of the Residents Association, they were requesting that the application be passed to the Sustainable Development Committee for determination for the following reasons:

• The residents of St Stephen’s Road were totally opposed to the demolition of a unique Edwardian family house in the conservation area and their position was supported by a petition with over 100 signatures.
• The residents felt that no justification had been made for demolition and noted that there appeared to be no major structural defects in the property to justify the action.
• The residents felt that such a demolition would set a precedent in the conservation area and other conservation areas throughout the Borough.

In response to Members’ questions, Robert Coomber, Area Planning Manager, advised that the Committee’s powers to make local planning decisions were delegated to the Committee by the Sustainable Development Committee and that it was for the Committee to decide whether they wished to refer a particular decision, where they had planning reasons not to take the decision and surrender those powers back to the Sustainable Development Committee. Following some discussion, the Committee concluded that there were insufficient reasons to justify the surrender of those powers.

Mr Coomber went on to explain that the Conservation Officer had been actively involved in discussions with the Case Officer about the planning application and was in agreement with the Planning Officer’s report.

He advised that the purpose of designating an area as a conservation area was to preserve and enhance the appearance of the area and not necessarily individual buildings within that area and to regulate appropriately, not prevent change. The existing building had a two-storey flat roof extension, inferior brickwork and stone cladding on the front of the building. He did not feel that the demolition of the existing building would set a precedent because there was no reason for the building to be retained and the proposals were considered to be a satisfactory replacement.

Councillor P. Fisher noted that 146 residents had signed a petition against the proposals and felt that the Committee should take into consideration the strong opposition to the application from many of the road’s residents. Philip Cunliffe-Jones, Legal Adviser, advised that the residents’ petition was a factor for the Committee to take into account and that the preservation and enhancement of the conservation area was the issue for Members to decide. He noted that there was a sharp division between the officer’s professional view and that of residents and advised Members that they should weigh this up when formulating their decision.

In response to further questions, Mr Coomber advised that planning permission would be required to convert the property into flats and enforcement action could be taken if the owner was to carry out such a conversion. It was not necessary to include a condition about conversion because the law prevented the property from being converted.

Councillor Bath advised that she had seen the existing property. She felt that it was an eyesore and should be replaced with the proposed two family dwellings rather than retained.

Councillor B. Fisher noted that there were five bathrooms, including a shower on the ground floor and raised concerns that the property could easily be turned into a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). He was also concerned that any breach in the law would take a considerable amount of time to enforce against. Mr Coomber advised that the Lifetime Homes standards required a shower facility to be provided on the ground floor to provide access for anyone wheelchair bound. It would be possible for the Council to take enforcement action if the property was to become an HMO.

Councillor Connelly noted that, as a Planning Committee, Members were heavily constrained to consider planning reasons only when determining a planning application and that the future use of a property was not a factor, which could be taken into consideration. He did not feel that there was an argument to oppose demolition of the building and suggested that the issue for consideration was whether the replacement was acceptable.

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

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

Against -       Councillors L. Davies, S. Dhaliwal, B. Fisher and P. Fisher.

Abstain -       None

Resolved:

a)     That planning application 00992/105/P9 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a pair of semi-detached houses, with associated parking and amenity space at 105 St Stephens Road, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

b)     That conservation area consent 00992/105/CA1 for the demolition of the existing dwelling at 105 St Stephens Road, Hounslow be approved.

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

The Committee noted that the applicant had declined the invitation to address the Committee in support of his application.

With the permission of the Chair, Mr Nugent spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the residents in Lanigan Drive. He acknowledged that a previous planning application had been rejected by the Committee, but subsequently overturned on an appeal. The inspector had stipulated various requirements in connection with the proposals, but Mr Nugent advised that none of those requirements had been met. There were on-going issues with contamination, safety and lorries blocking the drive, causing residents to move their cars. He also had concerns that further properties would be built. Mr Nugent requested that the planning application be deferred to allow for the inspector to reinstate his requirements.

Mr Coomber advised that officers had replicated the planning inspector’s restrictions as well as adding further restrictions of their own. Although this represented part of it, in this proposal there was no change to the scheme allowed on appeal.

Councillor B. Fisher suggested that lorries entering the site be restricted to using the driveway between the shops in Whitton Road. Mr Coomber felt that the driveway would be too long and narrow for lorries to use, but offered to consult with traffic officers over the possibility. He also drew Members’ attention to condition 21 in the report, which required details of parking for the site and loading/unloading of plant and materials to be submitted and approved before commencement of the scheme.

Mr Coomber pointed out that discussions were still taking place with the developer concerning sustainable on-site energy generation and asked that the Committee authorise officers to grant consent, subject to energy generation details, if they were minded to approve the application.

In response to further questions, Mr Coomber advised that further applications could be made for more properties on the site because six properties had been approved, in principle.

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

Resolved:

a)     That planning application 01670/77-79/P1 for the construction of two three-storey semi-detached houses with integral garages at the rear of 77 – 79 Whitton Road, with access off Lanigan Drive be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the satisfactory provision for sustainable on-site energy generation, which officers were authorised to approve.

b)     That lorries entering the site be restricted to using the driveway between the shops in Whitton Road, subject to the agreement by traffic officers that the access is suitable.

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

This item was withdrawn to allow for a further assessment to be made of the impact of the proposals on a neighbouring property.

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

Councillor Bath advised that the applicant had seemed keen to put forward a suitable application, when he had visited her surgery. Mr Coomber advised that the applicant had not approached officers for their views.

Members were unanimous that the applicant should be invited to withdraw the current application and re-submit a new application after seeking advice from officers about an acceptable proposal.

Resolved:

a)     That the applicant for planning application 01180/74 – 76/P3 for the erection of a single storey detached building to the rear for use as an MOT testing station be invited to withdraw the application and re-submit a new application after seeking advice from officers about an acceptable proposal.

b)     That the application be refused if it is not withdrawn by the applicant for the reasons set out in the report.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 9) and the Addendum Report.

Members made the following comments:

• There was no public amenity space provided.
• The proposal did not include affordable housing.
• The design was overbearing and did not scale down towards the junction of Bell Road and Grove Road in line with other buildings.
• The design was of a poor quality and lacked modelling.
• The site was inappropriate for large family units and small family units were also inappropriate because of the lack of amenity space.
• It would be more appropriate to have a small budget hotel above a social club, rather than housing, which would also remove the need for amenity space.
• The social club appeared to be used by the community and run in a responsible manner.
• Parking spaces for the club users had been reduced from 25 to 2 and it was felt that this could lead to the flats car park being used by the club.
• Some of the flats overlooked the car park and some units were adjacent to a side alley, which could cause security issues.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 10)

The report was noted.

The Chair advised that the planning meeting due to be held on 4 February 2010 was cancelled due to lack of business.