Minutes for Central Hounslow Area Committee (Planning) meeting, Mar 4 2010, 7.30PM official page

Item 9: 12 Lampton Road, Hounslow

All Members had received correspondence in connection with this item and Councillor Connelly declared that he had attended a pre-planning meeting with the applicant.

Item 10: Mecca Bingo Site

Councillors Ajmer and Pritam Grewal declared that they lived on North Drive.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2010 (agenda item 2) were agreed.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 12)

Jay Gopal, Traffic Engineer, highlighted the main points in the report.

In response to a query from Councillor Connelly, Mr Gopal agreed that the report was incorrect in referring to vehicles travelling from west to east along Balfour Road and should be amended to state vehicles travelling from east to west.

Members welcomed the proposals, but raised some concerns over the amount of time it had taken for the proposals to be put before the Committee and asked for a timescale.

Mr Gopal advised that the works could begin within 6 – 8 weeks, subject to the contractor’s work programme and that there were no known contentious issues likely to cause a delay in the completion of the works.

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

Resolved:

a)     That measures to improve safety at the junction of Balfour Road and Montague Road, comprising of kerb buildouts on the south side of Balfour Road to the east and west of the junction with Montague Road and the removal of two parking bays to the east of the junction with Montague Road, at a cost of £20,000, be approved.

b)     That the use of funds for the scheme from a S.106 contribution be approved.

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

Robert Coomber, Area Planning Manager, advised that this item had been withdrawn because the applicant had failed to provide details of improvements for refuse facilities.

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

Mr Coomber advised that he was seeking authority for planning permission to be granted, subject to the submission of a revised drawing showing that the front bedroom window had been re-positioned centrally and the apex had been removed from the porch roof. The submission of a revised drawing would save the applicant the need to provide a revised application and Mr Coomber advised that the applicant’s architect had been agreeable to the proposed changes.

Councillor Connelly raised concerns about the retention of the open aspect on the frontage of the properties and suggested that a condition be attached to prevent fencing being erected. Mr Coomber advised that the condition would only apply to the application on the table because other properties in the road could not be restricted and he did not feel that it would be necessary.

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

Resolved:

That planning application 01370/6/P3 for the erection of a first floor side and a single storey rear extension to 6 Brompton Close, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the submission of a revised drawing showing that the front bedroom window has been re-positioned centrally and the apex has been removed from the porch roof.

See report by the Director of Environment (agenda item 7) and the Addendum Report.

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

Resolved:

That planning application 01254/292/P4 for the construction of a new hipped roof with dormer windows and roof lights to the existing bungalow at 292 Hanworth Road, Hounslow be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

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

Mr Coomber explained that the application for 110-112 Hanworth Road had been withdrawn because the owner had indicated that the issues causing the application to be recommended for refusal could be resolved. He advised that the owner would be given a timescale in which to resolve these.

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

Members made the following comments:

• The proposals would improve the street scene.
• The site was close to the Town Centre and many people would be going past the site. Members felt, therefore, that the design was important and could be improved because it currently lacked character.
• Members acknowledged that the current proposals were an improvement on previous applications and welcomed improvements to the quality of the hotel.
• Members welcomed the employment opportunities, which the proposals would bring to the area.
• Members welcomed the principle of a hotel on the site.
• Concerns were raised over the different and multi-coloured cladding materials and the wide palette of materials.
• Concerns were raised that, although the height of the hotel would be slightly lower, there would be more rooms of smaller sizes.
• Members raised concerns that officers had given advice to the developer about the design and appearance of the building, which they felt should be a matter for local people to decide rather than a decision for officers to make.
• Members raised concerns about other multi-coloured buildings in the area and felt that a building close to the Town Centre should not be too ‘garish’.
• Members felt that the building should be inspirational.

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

Members made the following comments:

• Screening was needed around the communal roof terrace to protect the neighbours from overlooking.
• Although occupiers of the flats should not be eligible for parking permits within the controlled parking zone and there was no on-site parking provision, Members felt that the issue of parking permits had been difficult to monitor in the past and occupiers were still likely to have cars.
• The roads surrounding the site were already congested with parked cars.
• Members raised concerns about social housing in car free developments, in terms of the limited choice available to those being offered social housing and felt that the policy should be firmer.
• Members noted that the retail unit below the flats had flexible consent and felt that usage should be restricted to ensure that the unit was not occupied by a facility either open late or noisy, for example, a night club, although it was suggested that a cinema may be an option because there was not one in Hounslow. It was also suggested that the luncheon club opposite may be a potential occupier.
• Members felt that not enough S.106 funding was provided to mitigate the impact on health.

See report by the Divisional Head of Regulatory and Development Services (agenda item 11)

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

Resolved:

a)     That enforcement action for the cessation of use of the house as three self-contained residential units, the removal of the kitchen facilities from all but one of the self-contained residential units, the restoration of the property to a single dwelling and the removal of all resultant debris to 2 Tennyson 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.

a)     Councillor B. Fisher questioned why the application for 110-112 Hanworth Road had been withdrawn from the agenda; he noted that the Inspector had upheld the enforcement notice on appeal and asked why the matter had not been resolved. Mr Coomber advised that the application for 110-112 Hanworth Road was withdrawn because the owner had indicated that the issues could be resolved. He explained that a fresh deadline had been given for enforcement action after the Council had won the appeal. The applicant had been told that enforcement action would still be going ahead, but Mr Coomber felt that there was still some scope left for discussion on the planning application.

b)     Members noted that there was not a delegated decision report on the agenda. Mr Coomber advised that one would be provided to the next meeting.