Central & South Planning Committee - · PDF fileCentral & South Planning Committee ... U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Uxbridge underground station, ... Planning Act

Central & South Planning Committee

Meeting date: TUESDAY 20TH SEPTEMBER 2005

Time: 7.30PM

Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 5, CIVIC CENTRE HIGH S

To Members on the Planning Committee

Councillors Conservation Area AdvisoHenry Higgins (Chairman) John Hensley (Vice-Chairman) Geoff Courtenay Alf Langley

Mo Khursheed Janet Duncan Dave Allam

Dr Robin Wakelin (GreenRalph Chenery / Michael Dale Venn/Beryl Lakin (HDouglas Adams/Frank Ha

Substitute Councillors Bruce Baker Ann Banks Josephine Barrett David Bishop Brian Crowe

George Cooper Catherine Dann Shirley Harper-O’Neill Albert Kanjee Scott Seaman-Digby Michael White

Norman NDavid HorTony BurleLee GriffinPeter Curl

Further information

For information about the planning applications please telephone 018

This agenda was published 12th September 2005. If you would like fuabout the meeting please call Gill Brice in Hillingdon’s Cabinet Officeemail [email protected] or visit the Council’s website www.hil

Involving the Public in the way we do business… The Public have a right to petition and speak at this committee, but must notify the Cabinet Office beforehand on 01895 250693.

Members of the Public and Press are very welcome to attend this meeting. Free parking is available via the entrance to the Civic Centre in the High Street. Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Uxbridge underground station, with the Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines, is a short walk away.

Please enter from the Council’s main reception where you will be directed to the Committee Room. Please switch off your mobile phone when entering the room and note that the Council operates a no-smoking policy in its offices.

TREET, UXBRIDGE

ry Panel Members way/Cowley Church) Hirst (Canal Locks) illingdon Village) rris (Old Uxbridge)

unn-Price ne s ing

95 250400.

rther information on 01895 250693, lingdon.gov.uk

This agenda is available in large print

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/

Agenda

1. Apologies for Absence

2. Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

3. To confirm that the items of business marked Part I will be considered in Public and

that the items marked Part 2 will be considered in private.

4. Consideration of the reports from the Head of Planning (detailed below)

Reports - Part 1 – Members, Public and the Press Items are normally marked in the order that they will be considered, though the Chairman may vary this. Reports are split into ‘major’ and ‘non-major’ applications. The name of the local ward area is also given in addition to the address of the premises or land concerned.

Other Major Applications

Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page1 Units 1 and 2,

Silverdale Industrial

Centre,

Silverdale Road,

Hayes

Botwell Change of use from retail (furniture and

ancillary products) to flexible use Class

B1(C) (Light Industrial), B2 (General

Industrial) and B8 (Storage and

Distribution)

Recommendation : Approval

1

2 Part of Thorn EMI

Site,

Blyth Road,

Hayes

Botwell Stopping Up of the public right of way

known as ‘Gramophone Lane’ under

Section 257 of the Town and Country

Planning Act 1990.

Recommendation : To agree to make the

stopping up order.

12

Non-Major Application with Petitions Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 3 11, Festival Close,

Hillingdon

Hillingdon

East

Erection of a two storey side extension

and conversion of roof space to habitable

accommodation incorporating installation

of a rear dormer window.

Recommendation : Refusal

21

Other Non-Major Applications Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page

4 4, Orchard Drive,

Uxbridge

Uxbridge

South

Erection of a single storey rear infill

conservatory, first floor full width rear

extension and conversion of the roof

space involving the increase in the height

of the roof and the installation of 3 front

and 3 rear rooflights.


28

5 Ansell Garden

Centre,

Holloway Lane,

Harmondsworth

Heathrow

Villages

Alterations to elevations and erection of

a first floor extension with external

staircase to south and east elevation and

extension to existing greenhouse.


35

6 10, Kilpatrick Way,

Hayes

Yeading Conversion of roof space to habitable

accommodation involving reduction in

size of the existing rear facing dormer

window.


44

7 Aviation House,

Southern

perimeter Road,

Heathrow Airport

Heathrow

Villages

Installation of 6 pole mounted antennas,

2 equipment cabinets and anciallry

development on the roof of Aviation

House (Consultation under Schedule 2,

Part 24 of the Town and Country

50

Planning (General permitted

development) Order 1995 as amended.

Recommendation : Prior Approval of

siting and design is not required.

8 Terminal 5,

Western

Perimeter Road,

Heathrow Airport

Heathrow

Villages

Details of information and identification of

land and accommodation within the

airport boundary available for airport use

and development in compliance with

Condition A77 of planning permission ref.

47853/APP/2002/1882 dated 27.1.2003;

for the development of an additional

passenger terminal complex at Heathrow

Airport (Terminal 5), to include the

provision of airport aprons, taxiways and

associated facilities, infrastructure for

aircraft maintenance, a hotel, offices, car

parking, rail and underground stations,

road connections to airport and public

highway networks, air traffic visual

control room and landscaping.

Recommendation : Note report and add

informative.

55

9 Land at Bardon

Aggregates,

Thorney Mill

Road,

West Drayton

West

Drayton

Installation of a 19.7 m high monopole

phone mast, ground based equipment

cabinet, fenced compound and ancillary

development


67

10 Charter Place,

Vine Street,

Uxbridge

Uxbridge

South

A. Alterations to south and north

entrances of office block; involving the

replacement of doors with show room

windows, and the replacement of gates

with 5 retractable bollards respectively.


74

B. Installation and / or replacement of

several internally illuminated and non-

illuminated signs on the south and north

entrances to the office block

(Advertisement Consent)


11 Land forming part

of 24, Chestnut

Close,

Hayes

Botwell Erection of a two-storey three-bedroom

attached dwelling house with associated

parking and widening of existing

vehicular crossover at Walnut Close


83

12 10, Angle Close,

Hillingdon

Uxbridge

North

Unauthorised use of land for the storage,

display and sale of motor vehicles.

Recommendation : Enforcement Action

89

13 2, Eighth Avenue,

Hayes

Townfield Unauthorised erection of two-storey side

and part single-storey side extension.

Recommendation : Enforcement Action

95

14 New Appeals and Appeals Decisions 100

15 Bi-Monthly Progress Report on Breaches of Planning Control 106

Part 2 – Members Only 16 Bi-Monthly Progress Report on Breaches of Planning Control 122 The report above in Part 2 is not made public because it contains exempt information as

defined by law in the Local Government (Access to Information Act 1985). This is because:

The report contains information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the

authority proposes –

(a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements

are imposed on a person; or

(b) to make an order or direction under any enactment

(paragraph 13 of the Schedule to the Act).

Central & South Planning Committee – 20 September 2005 Page 1

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 20 SEPTEMBER 2005 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (CENTRAL & SOUTH) OF PLANNING AND

TRANSPORTATION

A Item No. 1 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: UNITS 1 AND 2, SILVERDALE INDUSTRIAL CENTRE,

SILVERDALE ROAD, HAYES Development: CHANGE OF USE FROM RETAIL (FURNITURE AND

ANCILLARY PRODUCTS) TO USE CLASSES B1(C) (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL), B2 (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) AND B8 (STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION)

LBH Ref Nos: 28282/APP/2005/1945 Drawing Nos: 1:1250 Site plan, 457/P/03h, 457/P/04e, Transport Assessment

prepared by Mouchel Parkman dated July 2005, received 07/07/05

Date of receipt: 07/07/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 Units 1 and 2 of Silverdale Industrial Centre, Silverdale Road, Hayes form part

of a larger commercial and industrial estate, which is located within an Industrial and Business Area (IBA) as designated by the Unitary Development Plan. The site is also located within the Hayes/West Drayton Corridor.

1.2 The proposal to convert the units to industrial use is considered appropriate to

the IBA designation of the site and wider area. The proposed uses would be compatible with the character of the area. Existing access provisions will be retained and sufficient car and cycle parking can be provided on site. On site refuse storage is considered adequate subject to conditions.

1.3 No letters of objection have been received. 1.4 The application is recommended for approval. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:- 1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (MCD10) Refuse facilities 2. (MCD1) Standard 3. (OM1) Development in

accordance with approved plans 3. (OM1) Standard

4. The development shall not be occupied until a total of 37 car parking spaces are marked out

4. To ensure the provision of suitable parking facilities for the proposed use, in accordance



and made available for use by employees and visitors to Units 1 and 2 only. No less than 4 of the said spaces shall be designed to accommodate wheelchair-disabled persons. All car parking spaces should accord with the standards contained within The London Borough of Hillingdon Revised Parking Polices and Standards (2001). The car parking spaces shall thereafter be permanently retained and used for no other purpose.

with Policy AM14.

5. The development shall not be occupied until a total of 20 covered, secure, Sheffield stand cycle spaces are provided on site within the redundant car parking spaces. The cycle parking spaces shall thereafter be permanently retained and used for no other purpose.

5. To ensure the provision of sufficient bicycle parking facilities in accordance with Policy AM9.

INFORMATIVES 1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to

the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: OE1, OE2, OE13, LE1, LE2, LE3, LE7, AM1, AM2, AM7, AM14, AM15

2. Your attention is drawn to condition 2 which must be discharged prior to the commencement of works. You will be in breach of planning control should you commence these works prior to the discharge of this/these condition(s). For further information and advice contact – Planning and Transportation Group, Civic Centre, Uxbridge (Tel: 01895 250400).

3. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works required to convert the units from retail to use classes B1, B2 and B8 to ensure no damage occurs to the verge or footpaths during construction. Vehicles delivering materials to this development shall not override or cause damage to the public footway. Any damage will require to be made good to the satisfaction of the Council and at the applicant’s expense. For further information and advice contact: Highways Maintenance Operations, Central Depot – Block K, Harlington Road Depot, 128 Harlington Road, Hillingdon, Middlesex, UB8 3EU (Tel: 01895 277524).

4. Written notification of the conversion of the units from retail to use classes B1, B2 and B8 shall be sent to the Hillingdon London Borough Council, Planning & Transportation Group, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW, at least seven days before the works hereby approved are



commenced. 5. (14) Installation of plant and machinery 6. (16) Directional signage 7. (18) Storage and collection of refuse 8. (19) Sewerage connection, water pollution etc 9. (34) Access to buildings and facilities for persons with disabilities 10. (47) Damage to the road verge 11. (48) Refuse/storage areas 3.0 CONSIDERATIONS Site and Locality 3.1 The application pertains to two adjoining commercial units, known as Units 1

and 2, Silverdale Industrial Centre, Silverdale Road, Hayes.

3.2 The units, which are utilitarian in design, were previously occupied by a furniture retailer. They have a total floor area of 2,412m² spread over two levels, of which 2167.8m² (located at ground floor level) was previously used for retail sales, and 244.2m² (located at the first floor level) was used for ancillary offices.

3.3 The Silverdale Industrial Centre comprises a total of 9 units located on an irregularly shaped site. Vehicular access is provided from two crossings onto Silverdale Road, both of which are shared with adjoining properties. A total of 192 car parking spaces are available within the Silverdale Industrial Centre, of which 42 parking spaces and 1 loading space are allocated to Units 1 and 2. There is currently no provision for cycle parking in association with the two units. No vegetation is located on the site.

3.4 The site is located within an Industrial and Business Area (IBA) as defined by the Adopted Unitary Development Plan, and also the Hayes/West Drayton Corridor. Land to the north, east and south is industrial in character. The residential suburb of Hayes is located some 250m north east of the site. Benlow Works, a Grade II listed building, abuts the Silverdale Industrial Centre to the north west of Units 1 and 2.

Scheme 3.5 Planning permission is sought for the flexible use of Units 1 and 2 for uses

falling within use classes B1(c) (light industrial), B2 (general industrial) and/or B8 (storage and distribution).



3.6 Internal floor space would be used as follows:

Unit 1 Ground Floor B1(c), B2 or B8 use

721.4m²

1st Floor Ancillary offices 100m²

Unit 2 Ground Floor B1(c), B2 or B8 use

1446.4m²

1st Floor Ancillary office 144.2m²

3.7 In effect, the proposal involves the conversion of 2167.8m² of ground floor

space, previously used for retail activities, to industrial use. The total floor space used as ancillary offices (244.2m² located exclusively at first floor level) would remain the same. No internal or external alterations are proposed.

3.8 A total of 37 parking spaces will be provided for use by the two units, of which 4 (equating to 10%) will be provided exclusively for disabled drivers. 1 loading space is proposed. Bicycle parking spaces are to be accommodated within 5 redundant car parking spaces. Refuse and recycling facilities will be accommodated within stores located within the units.

3.9 The applicant has also submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment in support of the proposal. This assesses the surrounding road network, the existing traffic environment and parking provision, and the impacts of the previous retail activity on this environment. The report contrasts this ‘baseline’ environment with the proposed land use options, concluding that the use of the site for B1 light industrial uses would create an additional 34 vehicle movements in the AM peak and 14 during the PM peak. The use of the site for B8 warehousing activities would result in an increase of 3 vehicle movements during the AM peak and a reduction of 3 during the PM peak. Traffic flows associated with B2 (general industry) uses would fall between these two extremes. The report also concludes that the surrounding junctions as capable of accommodating the additional volumes created by the proposal.

Planning History

3.10 Silverdale Industrial Centre was constructed in the late 1970’s. Units 1 and 2 were originally allocated for warehousing activities but were subsequently used for retail activities contrary to the conditions of the original approval. Retrospective planning permission (ref. 28282/C/84/0905) was issued in November 1984 for the continued use of Units 1 and 2 for retail purposes, and specifically the sale of furniture and ancillary products. A subsequent planning approval (ref. 28282/E/85/0196) was issued in April 1985 for extensions totalling 3851m² to Units 1 and 2.

UDP Designation: Industrial & Business Area Hayes/West Drayton Corridor



Planning Policies and Standards

The following UDP polices are considered relevant to the application:- Part 1 Policies:

Pt1.23 To encourage industry and warehousing to locate within existing Industrial and Business areas and offices and other business uses, shops and public buildings employing or attracting large numbers of people to located within town centres or other areas identified for such purposes.

Pt1.24 To reserve designated Industrial and Business Areas as the

preferred locations for industry and warehousing.

Pt1.25 To encourage the provision of small industrial, warehousing and business units within designated Industrial and Business Areas.

Pt1.26 To encourage economic and urban regeneration in the

Hayes/West Drayton Corridor, designated Industrial and Business Areas (IBA’s) and other appropriate locations.

Part 2 Policies:

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding

properties and the local area OE2 Assessment of environmental impact of proposed development OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate

sites

THE LOCAL ECONOMY LE1 Proposals for industry, warehousing and business development LE2 Development in designated Industrial and Business Areas LE3 Provision of small units in designated Industrial and Business

Areas LE7 Provision of planning benefits from industry, warehousing and

business development

ACCESSIBILITY AND MOVEMENT AM1 Developments which serve or draw upon more than a walking

distance based catchment area - public transport accessibility and capacity considerations

AM2 Development proposals - assessment of traffic generation, impact on congestion and public transport availability and capacity

AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments AM14 New development and car parking standards AM15 Provision of reserved parking spaces for disabled persons



Other relevant documents include:

(a) The London Plan (b) Policy Planning Guidance 4 – Industrial, commercial and small firms (c) Policy Planning Guidance 13 – Transport (d) Policy Planning Guidance 24 – Planning and Noise (e) Revised Parking Polices and Standards (2001) (f) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Residential Layouts and House

Design (g) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Air Quality

Consultations

The application was advertised under Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) as major development. A sign was erected on the site and a public notice was placed in the local paper on 27th July 2005. 11 adjoining businesses were directly notified via letter. No responses have been received.

Internal Consultees

Policy & Environmental Planning

The main policy issue is the suitability of the proposed uses for this site, located within an Industrial and Business Area (IBA). Policy LE2 states that business, industrial and warehousing uses (classes B1-B8) are appropriate within IBA’s. Accordingly, the change of use is consistent with Policy LE2. Current Parking Standards recommend a maximum of 25 spaces allocated on site for these two units. A total of 192 spaces are available on site for the whole of the Silverdale Industrial Centre. The existing overprovision of parking spares is considered acceptable, as there will be no overall increase in parking spaces on the site. Provision should be made for covered and secure bicycle parking on site. PEP has no objection in principle to this proposal.

Environmental Protection Unit

No objections raised.

Traffic Engineer The use of the site for B1 (light industrial) would create the highest level of additional



traffic generation, above that associated with the existing retail use. The Transport Assessment demonstrates that even with B1 activities operating from the site, the existing junctions of Silverdale Road/Site access, Pump Lane / Silverdale Road and the Pump Lane / Bolton Road roundabout will operate well within capacity. In line with our current parking standards a maximum of 25 parking spaces would be required. Within the Transport Assessment it is stated that 37 spaces are provided for the proposal. Although, this is in excess of our standards it is less than the current provision of 42 parking spaces. The proposed development will therefore be closer to UDP parking standards. A total of 20 secure bicycle parking spaces would be sufficient to service the proposed use. No objections raised.

Waste Strategy Team

No objections raised subject to the provision of separate bin store provision for waste and recycling, in accordance with standard advice.

Main Planning Issues 3.11 The main issues are considered to be:

(i) Principle of the use (ii) Noise and Air Quality Impacts, and Waste Disposal (iii) Traffic, access, car parking and cycle storage (i) Principle of the use

3.12 The application site is contained within an Industrial and Business Area (IBA)

where Policy LE2 of the UDP requires land to be used for business, industrial and warehousing purposes (Use Classes B1-B8).

3.13 The application seeks approval for the flexible use of the site for B1(c), B2 and B8 uses. The proposal is considered acceptable in principle and is consistent with the site’s location within an Industrial and Business Area.



3.14 With no external alterations, the proposal does not affect the setting is a listed building.

(ii) Noise and Air Quality Impacts and Waste Disposal 3.15 The application site is located within an Industrial and Business Area. The

character and amenities of the surrounding area reflect the types of activities carried out within such an area. Impacts resulting from the proposed activities would be consistent with the character of the area. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies OE1, OE3 and OE6.

3.16 The Council’s Environmental Protection Unit has raised no objections to the proposal in respect of noise or air quality.

3.17 The applicant has advised that separate provision will be made for refuse and recycling, and that all waste will be accommodated within the buildings. As such, the proposal is considered to be consistent with Policy OE13, subject to a condition requiring details of refuse provisions prior to occupation of the buildings. No objection has been raised by the Waste Strategy Team, subject to this condition.

(iii) Traffic, access, car parking and cycle storage 3.18 A total of 192 car parking spaces are available on site, of which 42 are

allocated to the two units. One lorry parking bay is available for use. There is currently no provision for cycle parking associated with Units 1 and 2.

3.19 It is proposed to reduce the total number of car parking spaces available for units 1 and 2 to 37. While this exceeds the maximum set by the Council’s parking standards by 12 spaces, it is less than the current provision. The proposed development will therefore be more consistent with the UDP parking standards, and would not significantly breach Policy AM14.

3.20 The applicant has proposed 10 cycle spaces on the application site, to be accommodated within the redundant car parking spaces. This is less than the 34 maximum required in association with B1(c) and B2 uses. The Council’s Highways Engineer has advised that the provision of 20 bicycle parking spaces would satisfy demand. As such a condition is recommended, requiring the provision of 20 covered, secure bicycle spaces (using Sheffield stands) prior to occupation.

Comments on Public Consultations 3.21 No issues have been raised through public consultation.

4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor 4.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant

planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning



considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.

4.2 In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998)

makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

4.3 Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are

followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. 4.4 Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and

infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.

4.5 Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without

discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.

5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance 5.1 As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations

have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Planning & Transportation Directorate and the wider Council.

6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 The proposal to convert Units 1 and 2 to industrial use is considered

appropriate to the IBA designation of the site and wider area. The proposed uses would be compatible with the character of the area. Sufficient car and cycle parking can be provided on site, and access and waste provisions are considered adequate, subject to conditions. Furthermore, no letters of



objection have been received. As such, the application is recommended for approval.

Reference Documents: (a) The London Plan (b) Policy Planning Guidance 4 – Industrial, commercial and small firms (c) Policy Planning Guidance 13 – Transport (d) Policy Planning Guidance 24 – Planning and Noise (e) Revised Parking Polices and Standards (2001) (f) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Residential Layouts and House Design (g) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Air Quality Contact Officer: REBECCA STOCKLEY Telephone No: 01895 250 840





B

Item No. 2 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: PART OF THORN EMI SITE, BLYTH ROAD, HAYES Development: THE STOPPING UP OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY

KNOWN AS ‘GRAMOPHONE LANE’ UNDER SECTION 257 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990.

LBH Ref Nos: 51588/APP/2000/1418 Drawing Nos: None 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 To seek approval for the making of a Stopping Up Order to extinguish the

public right of way known as “Gramophone Lane” that links Blyth Road to Dawley Road, Hayes, being no. H55 in the Borough of Hillingdon. This is to enable development to occur for which planning permission was granted by the Hayes and Harlington Planning Sub-Committee on the 26 October 2000.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION:- That the Authority agrees to make the stopping up order (see draft

order at Appendix A to public footpath no. H55). 3.0 KEY PLANNING ISSUES

Background 3.1 Planning permission (ref. 51588/APP/2000/1827) was granted at the Hayes

and Harlington Planning Sub-Committee meeting on 26 October 2000 for alterations to external appearance and extensions to Vulcan house, Mercury House and Phoenix House. Planning permission (ref: 51588/APP/2000/1418) was also approved for the same site at the same meeting for alterations to the parking layout, including landscaping works, involving selective demolition of buildings and extinguishment of the existing public footpath at Gramophone Lane, the installation of lighting and CCTV at the Former EMI Site, Blyth Road Hayes. This permission is subject to a Section 106 Agreement, to secure (amongst other obligations) the following benefits:

• A contribution of £100,000 towards the funding of environmental improvements, including improvements in pedestrian safety, in Dawley Road;

• the funding of costs associated with the stopping up of Gramophone Lane.



3.2 The Committee report for both the aforementioned applications stated that the reasons that the proposed stopping up of Gramophone Lane (being the subject of application 51588/APP/2000/1418) should be approved were the following:

• The existing footpath was noted as being poorly used. The main deterrents were quoted as being a flight of steps leading up to Bournes Bridge and a right-angled ‘blind’ corner. In general this was observed as a poorly lit route.

• The Metropolitan Police advised that the path should be closed.

• Even if it were upgraded to make it safer to use, the developer pointed out that the security of the development could not be maintained. This in itself would probably intimidate people and may stop them from using the path.

• It will be noted that as part of Application 51588/APP/2000/1827, it was proposed to upgrade the footpath along Dawley Road.

• In addition the applicants proposed to provide a gate entrance from Dawley Road to the development for employees at the Thorn-EMI site (whom historically have probably comprised a large proportion of those using Gramophone Lane).

3.3 It is noted that there is a planning permission (application ref.

51588/APP/2000/366) on the site for an identical development as described for application ref. 51588/APP/2000/1418 mentioned above except for the stopping-up of Gramophone Lane plus the installation of lighting and CCTV. This provides the developer the option to exercise one or other of the permissions, i.e. allowing the development with or without the stopping up of Gramophone Lane, the installation of lighting and CCTV.

3.4 To date, part of the development has been completed including landscaping

and car-parking up to the western boundary of Gramophone Lane. In order to develop the rest of the site subject to the planning permission (application ref. 51588/APP/2000/1418), it is necessary for the lane to be stopped up. The development could then be wholly completed and carried out in accordance with the planning permission.

3.5 The Committee resolutions which authorised the planning permission, did not

authorise a stopping up order for Gramophone Lane. The planning application description in the committee report included a reference to 'extinguishment of existing public footpath' but authority for a stopping up order was not actually resolved by the Committee. Therefore this matter is being referred back to Committee for specific authorisation for the Stopping Up Order to be made under s257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Planning Legislation and Policies

3.6 Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that before

the making of an order to stop up a public footpath, the authority must be satisfied that is it necessary to do so in order to enable development to be



carried out. In relation to such orders, the Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority is the relevant Authority and considers such applications.

3.7 UDP Policy LE7 requires planning benefits appropriate to the scale and

nature of the development should be provided. 3.8 Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations states that compensatory measures

can be secured that are necessary to approve the development.

Consultations 3.9 No external consultations have been carried out to date. 3.10 Before making an order to stop up a footpath under the above provision, the

Authority is required to carry out wide consultations with the owners and occupiers of the affected footpath, path user groups, statutory undertakers and any other relevant Local Authority.

3.11 The legal procedure for this is as follows.

a) A draft order is submitted with this report for authorisation by Central and South Planning Committee (see Appendix A).

b) If the Committee resolves to issue the order, the Borough Solicitor advises

the statutory undertakers and other interested parties, that an order has been authorised by Committee. Therefore, the statutory undertakers and interested parties receive informal notice in advance that the Council will be making the order.

c) The order is made when the Council seals it. Once made, as required

under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a formal notice of the order is served on statutory undertakers and interested parties and the order is advertised. The statutory undertakers and interested parties have 28 days to respond to the Council with objections to the order.

d) If the Council receives objections, which are not withdrawn, the order is

referred to the Secretary of State for a public inquiry to be held and a decision made on the order.

e) If the Council receives no objections, a report is made to Committee

recommending that the order be confirmed. f) The order is be confirmed by having it sealed a second time.

Internal Consultees

Traffic Engineer – Planning & Transportation

No objection to the stopping up of Gramophone Lane.



Highways Inspector – Public Rights Of Way

Request the following to be noted - the legal test which the Council must consider when deciding to make the order under this legislation is:- Is it necessary to extinguish the footpath in order for the development to be carried out?

Main Planning Issues

3.12 As mentioned above, the committee report for 51588/APP/2000/1418 stated

the reasons for approval of the proposed stopping up of Gramophone Lane. Subsequent pedestrian surveys undertaken on behalf of the developer, indicated that 25 separate trips utilise the Alley on each week day. Given the contribution to enhance Dawley Road, the existing stairs preventing disabled access and the small net increase in walking distance (approximately 300m), the Council's Traffic Engineer – has not raised an objection to the proposed stopping up.

3.13 The stopping up of the footpath would not appear to be significantly less

convenient for users. It would add marginally to the distance of the route, requiring users to take the footway in Dawley Road in a North Westerly direction for approximately 288 metres then turn right into Blyth Road in a South Easterly direction for approximately 278 metres, ending 10 metres past Trevor Road.

3.14 For the reasons listed above and on the basis that appropriate compensatory

pedestrian measures along the Dawley Road are to be secured through the developer’s contribution it appears reasonable to allow the proposed stopping up of Gramophone Lane.

4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor 4.1 Before making an Order, the Authority must be satisfied that it is necessary to

do so in order to enable development to be carried out in accordance with planning permission that has been granted by the Authority.

4.2 Planning permission was granted for alterations to the parking layout,

including landscaping works, involving selective demolition of buildings and extinguishment of the existing public footpath at Gramophone Lane, the installation of lighting and CCTV at the Former EMI Site, Blyth Road Hayes. It is therefore necessary for the Order to be made to enable development to be carried out.

4.3 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant

planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their



decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.

5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance 5.1 The report indicates that the costs of the development have been met by the

developer via a Section 106 contribution to the Council. The developer will also meet the reasonable costs of the Council in the implementation of Environmental Improvements on Dawley Road, Hayes, also via a section 106 contribution secured by an existing S106 agreement. Consequently, there are no financial implications for this Planning Committee or the Council.

6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 The principle of stopping up the proposed public footpath is acceptable and

there are satisfactory grounds for making the Order. Reference Documents: (a) ODPM Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations (b) The UDP (c) Hayes & Harlington Planning Sub-Committee Agenda – Report for application

references 51588/APP/2000/1418 & 51588/APP/2000/1827 Contact Officer: TIM CATLEY Telephone No: 01895 250327



APPENDIX A

PUBLIC PATH STOPPING UP ORDER

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, SECTION 257

STOPPING UP ORDER

This order is made by London Borough of Hillingdon under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 because it is satisfied that it is necessary to stop up the footpath to which this order relates in order to enable development to be carried out (in accordance with planning permission granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) namely: Alterations to the parking layout, including landscaping works, formation of three access and egress points to Blyth Road and extinguishment of the existing public footpath at Gramophone Alley, plus the installation of lighting and CCTV and lighting (involving selective demolition of buildings) at part of Thorn EMI Site, Blyth Road, Hayes. BY THIS ORDER: 1. The footpath over the land shown by a bold black line on the attached map and described in the Schedule to this order shall be stopped up as provided below. 2. The stopping up of the footpath shall have effect on the confirmation of this order. 3. Where immediately before the date on which the footpath is stopped up there is apparatus under, in, on, over, along or across it belonging to statutory undertakers for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking, the undertakers shall continue to have the same rights in respect of the apparatus as they then had.



SCHEDULE

Public Footpath No. H55, Gramophone Lane, Uxbridge, Middlesex. The footpath to be stopped up runs from the eastern highway boundary of Dawley Road, at a point marked A on the attached map just north of Bournes Bridge, down two flights of stairs in a south-easterly direction and then in an easterly direction for 9 metres then down a further flight of stairs. The footpath then continues in an easterly direction along the northern side of the railway lines for 82 metres to point B on the attached map before turning in a north-easterly direction for 159 metres terminating at the southern highway boundary of Blyth Road at point C on the attached map. The footpath varies in width from 1.4 metres to 1.9 metres, except at a point where it changes direction from easterly to north-easterly direction where it widens out locally to a maximum of 5 metres.

THE COMMON SEAL of the MAYOR AND BURGESSES of the LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON was hereunto affixed in the presence of:- Member of Council Authorised Officer DATED this day of 2005



BLOCK PLAN NOT AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORM





B

Item No. 3 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: 11 FESTIVAL CLOSE, HILLINGDON. Development: ERECTION OF A TWO-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND

INSTALLATION OF A REAR DORMER WINDOW TO FACILITATE A LOFT CONVERSION.

LBH Ref Nos: 60395/APP/2005/1846 Drawing Nos: 1:1250 Location Plan; 393/AA/01; 02; 03, received 27/06/05 Date of receipt: 27/06/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: 8 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. A petition with 21 signatures has been received from the’ Residents of Festival Close’ making the following comments: (i) The building works would harm the residential amenity of the six bungalows

for elderly residents at the end of the Close. (ii) The proposal would result in a loss of light to the kitchen at 10 Festival Close (iii) Vehicles associated with the building works would obstruct emergency and

meals on wheels vehicles (iv) The development would cause extreme hardship to the residents in Festival

Close. KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The application site is located on the eastern side of Festival Close,

Hillingdon, and consists of a two-storey semi-detached house with an existing detached side garage converted into living accommodation. The application site backs onto a service road leading from Burleigh Road. The surrounding area is characterised by similar two-storey semi-detached properties opposite and to the south of the application site, whilst the head of the Close consists of 6 semi-detached bungalows. The application site lies within the ‘developed area’ as designated by the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

2. Planning permission was refused in May 2005 for the erection of a two-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension, involving the demolition of the existing detached single storey side extension. The side extension measured 3.2m wide and extended in line with the front of the house at ground floor with a 1m setback at first floor. The two-storey component extended in line with the rear wall of the house, while the 2m deep single-storey rear extension extended for the full width of the existing house and the



side extension, 8.6m wide. That application was refused for the following reasons:

“1. The proposal would result in inadequate provision for car-parking which would likely to cause on-street parking to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies AM7(ii) and AM14 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.”

“2. The proposal would not retain an adequate amount of private usable amenity space for the occupiers of the house. Accordingly, the development is contrary to Policy BE23 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.”

3. This current application attempts to overcome the previous reasons for refusal

by omitting the rear extension, and providing front and rear parking spaces. It proposes a two-storey side extension measuring 3.2m wide extending in line with the front of the house at ground floor with a 1m setback at first floor. The two-storey component extends to the depth of the rear wall of the house and would be finished with a gable end pitched roof set 400mm from the ridge of the main roof. The rear dormer window measures 4.2m wide and 1.9m high. It maintains a 600mm gap to the eaves, sides and ridge of the main roof. Two parking spaces, measuring 2.4m by 4.8m, are proposed, one at the front and one to the rear.

4. Policy BE22 of the adopted UDP and Design Principle B2 of the Design Guide

“Residential Extensions” requires buildings of two or more storeys to be setback 1m from the side boundary for the full height of the building. The proposed side extension would retain a 1m gap to the side boundary with 10 Festival Close and therefore complies with Policy BE22 of the UDP and meets the requirements of Design Principle B2.

5. The proposed two-storey side extension is considered to be subordinate to the main house because it would be set back from the front elevation of the front wall and set below the ridge, of the main house. It is not considered that the proposed extension would adversely affect the appearance of the main house or the visual amenities of the street scene. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and would meet the requirements of Design Principles A3, A5 and B2.

6. 10 Festival Close is 7m to the north of the application site, This distance is considered to be sufficient to ensure that the proposal would not be overdominant or be visually intrusive on the neighbouring property. The proposal will result in a degree of overshadowing on that property, particularly in the afternoon. Presently a kitchen window faces the application site and this appears to be a secondary window. However, this overshadowing is not considered to be so detrimental to no.10 to justify refusal of planning permission. No windows are proposed facing that property. The other neighbour at 12 Festival Close lies to the south of the application site. The proposal would not result in any overshadowing or a loss of amenity by



reason of overdominance and overlooking to that property. As such, the proposal would comply with Policies BE20 and BE24 of the UDP.

7. The rear dormer window would comply with Design Principle B4 as it would maintain a 600mm gap to the eaves, sides and ridge of the roof. It is considered to be subordinate to the main roof and similar to other dormers approved and implemented at nos.12 and 14. The proposed dormer window, given its subordinate appearance, is not considered to result in a visually intrusive form of development. This is considered to comply with policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and design principle B4.

8. The scheme previously refused resulted in a reduced rear garden area of

50m2. This was considered to be insufficient for a 3-bedroom house. The omission of the rear extension would retain 60.4m2 (excluding the rear parking space) of amenity area. This is now considered to be sufficient for a 3-bedroom house, in accordance with Policy BE23 of the UDP. The proposal is therefore considered to overcome the first reason for refusal of the previous scheme.

9. The Council’s car parking standards require a maximum of 2 spaces per

dwelling. Two parking spaces are proposed, however the parallel parking space can only be accessed by manoeuvring over part of the pedestrian footpath. This would result in a pedestrian conflict. The rear parking space fails to retain sufficient manoeuvring space at the front accessing the service road to ensure that vehicles can safely manoeuvre in and out of the parking space. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal fails to comply with Policies AM7(ii) and AM14 of the UDP. The application therefore fails to overcome the second reason for refusal of the previous scheme.

10. With regard to the third part comments, point (ii) is addressed in the report.

On points (i) (iii) and (iv), the building works would be incidental to the grant of planning permission.

11. This application is recommended for refusal. Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for



private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or Enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL, for the following reasons:- 1. The proposal would require use of part of the footpath to allow vehicles

to access and exit the front parking space, resulting in pedestrian conflict detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to Policies AM7(ii) and AM14 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed rear parking space would not provide sufficient manoeuvring space for access and egress resulting in inadequate provision for car-parking which is likely to cause on-street parking congestion to the detriment of highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to Policies AM7(ii) and AM14 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVES

1. The decision to refuse planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE13 New development to harmonise with the existing street scene. BE15 Extensions to harmonise with the scale, form, architectural

composition and proportions of the original building.



BE19 New development to complement and improve the amenity and character of the area.

BE20 Ensure adequate daylight and sunlight can penetrate into and between buildings and the amenities of existing houses are safeguarded.

BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys BE23 Sufficient external amenity space BE24 Design to protect privacy of occupiers and neighbours AM7 Impact on the capacity and function of existing road network AM14 Car parking standards SPG: Residential Extensions – A3: Impact of mass bulk and overlooking. A5: Design of extensions / materials. B2: Side Extensions and Distances from side boundary B4: Dormer windows

2. The decision to refuse planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

Contact Officer: SONIA BOWEN Telephone No: 07985 731898








B

Item No. 4 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: 4 ORCHARD DRIVE, UXBRIDGE Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY REAR INFILL

CONSERVATORY, FIRST FLOOR FULL WIDTH REAR EXTENSION AND CONVERSION OF THE ROOF SPACE INVOLVING THE INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF AND THE INSTALLATION OF 3 FRONT AND 3 REAR ROOFLIGHTS

LBH Ref Nos: 1396/APP/2005/1787 Drawing Nos: B828-L-001 (1:1250 Location Plan), B828-L-002 (1:500 Block

Plan), B828-S-001 (Existing Ground/First Floor) received 22/06/05, B828-S-001A (Proposed Ground/First Floor), B828-L-002A (Proposed Second Floor), B828-L-003A (Proposed Rear Elevation), B828-L-004A (Front and End Elevations, Existing and Proposed), received 06/07/05

Date of receipt: 22/06/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 06/07/05 Councillor Routledge Requests that this application is reported to the (Ward Councillor) Planning Committee for determination CONSULTATIONS: 7 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. 1 letter of objection has been received making the following comments: (i) The proposal would make the house out of proportion with the adjacent

houses. The house would be significantly higher and much larger than adjacent houses. This contravenes Design Guide 3.3 and 3.4 of the Design Guide: Residential Layouts and House Designs and Design Principle A3 of the Design Guide: Residential Extensions;

(ii) The proposal would result in a loss of privacy, sunlight and outlook from 2 Orchard Drive. The second floor windows would overlook 2 Orchard Drive resulting in a loss of privacy;

(iii) 4 Orchard Drive is one of the original “Try-built” cottage style properties in the area. The conversion would result in the loss of this cottage style;

(iv) There is a need for 3/4 bedroom houses not 5 bedroom houses; (v) The proposal would project substantially beyond the rear building line of

2 Orchard Drive; (vi) The new design does not harmonise with the existing design of the house or

other houses in the neighbourhood, in particular, the raising of the roof is



contrary to Design Principle A5.4; the roof line is higher at the rear than at the front and shows a disproportionate difference in the depth from the roof eaves to the first floor windows at front and rear; when viewed from the street. The roof is disproportionately large with respect to the ground and first floor levels; the flat section of the roof is not in keeping with other houses in the street;

(vii) The proposed extensions would exceed permitted development rights; (viii) This area is under consideration as an area of special character; (ix) The building works would cause noise nuisance. KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The application site is located on the west side of Orchard Drive to the east of

Field Way. It comprises a detached two-storey house with a single storey side and rear extension along the side boundary with 2 Orchard Drive and a single storey rear extension adjacent to the side boundary with 6 Orchard Drive. Orchard Drive comprises a mix of detached and semi-detached houses and the application site lies within the ‘developed area’, as designated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

2. This application is before the Planning Committee for determination at the request of the Ward Councillor. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey infill conservatory, a rear first floor extension and the conversion of the roof space involving the increase in the height of the roof and the installation of 6 roof lights, 3 at the front and 3 at the rear.

3. The proposed ground floor conservatory would be located between the existing rear extensions, measuring 1.5m deep, 5m wide and 3.3m high finished with a glazed elevation and pitched roof.

4. The originally submitted application proposed a first floor rear extension 1.5m deep and 9.5m wide. The amended scheme proposes a full width rear first floor extension (1.7m deep and 10.8m wide). The first floor rear extension would be 2.5m high, increasing the height of the eaves by 0.8m. At this point a new 45-degree pitched roof is proposed increasing the ridge of the roof by 0.5m and creating a flat roof element with hip ends. The roof ridge would be increased from 7.2m wide to 8m wide.

5. The proposed infill conservatory is considered to be subordinate to the main house, as it is set between, and would not project beyond, two existing rear extensions. This aspect of the proposal would not impact upon adjoining properties, and be in accordance with Policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP.

6. The existing house has an attractive “cottage” style appearance and the roof makes an important contribution to its style, by reason of its shape and height. The proposed first floor rear extension and roof alterations would substantially increase the bulk of the main house. At present, the two rear extensions are similar in proportion, although one has a higher roof, creating a relatively balanced appearance. The proposed first floor rear extension would result in a reduction in the height of the existing single storey rear extension adjacent to



6 Orchard Drive, accentuating this difference in height. The main roof eaves to the rear would also be higher than the height of the existing front eaves. The proposed alterations are considered to result in a development that would unbalance the appearance of the house to the rear.

7. The proposed increase in the height of the main roof is considered to result in a disproportionate change in the appearance of the house. The new roof height, coupled with the flat roof element, is considered to be overdominant and visually intrusive in the street scene and surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and Design Principles A4 and A5 of the Design Guide: Residential Extensions.

8. As 6 Orchard Drive is located to the south of and is 6m from the application site, the proposal would not result in an increase in overshadowing or in an overdominant form of development when viewed from that property. 2 Orchard Drive is 9m from the application site. This distance is considered to be sufficient to prevent the proposal from having an overdominant and visually intrusive impact on that property. The proposed increase in overshadowing on 2 Orchard Drive is not considered to be so significant over and above the existing situation and complies with Policy BE20 of the UDP.

9. The proposed roof lights would overlook the street and the rear garden of the application site. They would not overlook the private amenity space of the adjoining properties and therefore would not result in overlooking. As such the proposal is considered to comply with Policies BE21, and BE24 of the UDP.

10. Sufficient amenity space would be retained and the proposal would not affect off-street parking.

11. With regard to the third party comments, points (i), (ii), (iii) and (vi) have been addressed in the report.

(iv) The Council’s policies relating to housing mix relate to new housing schemes and not to existing houses.

(v) The proposal would not project beyond the depth of 2 Orchard Drive

(vii) The proposal does exceed permitted development rights, hence the submission of this planning application.

(viii) Officers are carrying out a review of the area with a view to proposing this area as an Area of Special Local Character.

(ix) Noise from building works is incidental to the grant of planning permission.

12. This application is recommended for refusal.



Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or Enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL – for the following reasons:- 1. The proposal by reason of its mass and scale would result in a visual

imbalance of this detached property, detrimental to the character of the main house and adversely affecting the appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE15 and BE19 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and Design Principles A4 and A5 of the Council’s design guide “Residential Extensions”.



2. The proposed roof alteration by reason of its overall size and height, would result in an overdominant / visually obtrusive form of development detracting from the appearance of the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy BE13 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan, and Design Principles A4 and A5 of the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.

INFORMATIVES 1. The decision to refuse planning permission has been taken having regard

to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE13 New development to harmonise with the existing street scene. BE15 Extensions to harmonise with the scale, form, architectural

composition and proportions of the original building. BE19 New development to complement and improve the amenity and

character of the area. BE20 Ensure adequate daylight and sunlight can penetrate into and

between buildings and the amenities of existing houses are safeguarded.

BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of extensions not to result in a significant loss of residential amenity.

BE24 Design to protect privacy of occupiers and neighbours SPG: Residential Extensions – A3: Impact of mass bulk and overlooking. A4: Visual impact of a development A5: Design of extensions / materials.

2. The decision to refuse planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

Contact Officer: SONIA BOWEN Telephone No: 07985 731898








B

Item No. 5 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: ANSELL GARDEN CENTRE, HOLLOWAY LANE,

HARMONDSWORTH. Development: ALTERATIONS TO ELEVATIONS AND ERECTION OF A

FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION WITH EXTERNAL STAIRCASE TO SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATION AND EXTENSION TO EXISTING GREENHOUSE.

LBH Ref Nos: 1114/APP/2005/2151 Drawing Nos: 1:1250 scale site location plan, RWT/06/01,

RWT/06/02RWT/08/02, RWT/06/04, DS0044 Rev C and 1 x A4 sheet (parking summary) received 08/08/05.

Date of receipt: 08/08/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: 2 neighbouring properties have been consulted. No letters have been received. BAA Safeguarding Team The proposed development has been examined from

an aerodrome safeguarding perspective and could conflict with safeguarding criteria unless any planning permission granted is subject to the condition detailed below: Flat Roofs: The flat / shallow pitched roof shall be constructed to allow access to all areas by foot using permanent fixed access stairs, ladders or similar. The owner / occupier shall not allow gulls, to nest, roost or loaf on the building. Checks shall be made weekly during breeding season. Outside of the breeding season gull activity shall be monitored and the roof shall be checked regularly to ensure that gulls do not utilise the roof. Any gulls found nesting, roosting or loafing shall be dispersed by the owner/occupier when detected or when requested by BAA Airfield Operations staff. The owner / occupier shall remove any nests or eggs found on the roof. Reason: To avoid endangering the safe operation of aircraft through the attraction of birds. The breeding season for gulls typically runs from



March to June. The owner/occupier shall hold appropriate Defra licences before the removal of nests and eggs. Cranes Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane may be required during its construction. We would, therefore, draw the applicant’s attention to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in the attached Advice Note 4, ‘Cranes and Other Construction Issues’. Future Airport Boundary (Heathrow) We have reviewed this planning application and can confirm that the location of the site falls within both the indicative map published by the Department for Transport in the White Paper and falls within the interim land boundary for a three runway development that BAA Heathrow has published in its Draft Interim Masterplan. We believe that the request from the Department for Transport, for BAA to safeguard land for a third runway requires us to make both the Local Planning Authority and the owner of the site aware of the potential implications for the development should a third runway proposal proceed. If the runway proposal does proceed, it is likely that BAA would seek to compulsory purchase the site. At this stage however, no policy decision has been taken by BAA as to whether a planning application will be brought forward for a third runway at Heathrow Airport. We therefore have no aerodrome safeguarding objection to this proposal provided that the above condition is applied to any planning permission.

Heathrow Airport Limited Planning & Environment

No response received.

Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents’ Association

No response received.

Environmental Protection The only significant environmental protection issue



Unit (EPU) raised is caused by the close proximity of the site to old landfills. This suggests that a landfill gas condition would be appropriate and the following is recommended: Before any part of this development is commenced a site survey to determine the presence or absence of landfill gas tests within the survey shall be taken beneath the proposed footprint of any new buildings. If landfill gas is found the applicant shall install remediation measures to prevent gas ingress to any buildings on the development site to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The Council’s records show that the development site is within 250 metres of a landfill site. A gas survey is required to clarify that there is no gas migration from the landfill to the new development site. Advice on this condition can be obtained from the Environmental Protection Unit on 01895 277 440.

Policy & Environmental Planning

London Plan Issues: The London Plan seeks to maintain and protect London’s Green Belt land. Regarding new development, the plan notes that there is a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. (Policy 3D.8) Main Policy Issues: There is a general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt, and the main policy issue in relation to this development is the principle of additional development within the Green Belt and its impact on the character and appearance of the Green Belt. However, the site has an established commercial use and no change of use is proposed. Policy OL1 defines the types of development that are considered acceptable within the Green Belt including agriculture, horticulture, forestry, nature conservation together with outdoor recreational facilities and cemeteries. The proposal does not conform to these types of development. However Policy OL4 will permit the extension of buildings within the Green Belt if the development



would not result in a disproportionate change to the bulk and character of the original building and would not be of detriment to the visual amenities of the Green Belt. The threshold used is the size of the building in 1948 or as first constructed if after 1948 and the consideration of a 50% increase as a maximum. According to the applicant’s plans, the ground floor area of the original dwelling amounts to 1,784m2. The scheme’s extension proposes an additional 618m2 of floor space over the original building size. If this were the case, then the total extension floor area would amount to 2,402m2 or an extra 35% of additional floorspace. Where the increase in floorspace is considered acceptable, the height of the existing extension (6.5m) proposes an extra increase of height to 7.3m. With regard to increases in ridge heights in the Green Belt, there should be no increase in the ridge height. With regard to the information provided, PEP considers the enlargement to be an unacceptable addition to the existing built form on site contrary with Policy OL4. PEP considers that the proposal would be inconsistent with Policy OL4 and would object to this application being recommended for approval.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The application site is located on the southern side of Holloway Lane and

comprises a Garden Centre, which consists of a part single storey, part two storey building, open nursery area and associated parking. Thick vegetation aligns the boundaries of the site so that the existing buildings on the site are not readily visible from Holloway Lane. The application site is located within the Green Belt and is surrounded by open Green Belt land as designated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). There are no residential properties nearby.

2. Planning permission is sought for a two storey rear and first floor side

extension, conversion of a gable roof to a flat roof, installation of an external staircase and extension of the existing greenhouse. The first floor extension to the garden centre would be 23.5m wide, 7m deep and 4.1 high. The two storey rear extension would be 7.2m wide, 6.7m deep and 7.4 high. The extensions to the greenhouse would be 9.85m wide, 39.7m deep and 4.8m high.



3. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 2: Green Belt and Policy OL1 of the UDP

make a general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt, unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. The only acceptable uses in the Green Belt are agricultural related uses, open-air recreation uses and cemeteries. The application site is an established Garden Centre. As no change of use is proposed ‘very special circumstances’ are not required to justify the proposed extensions.

4. Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG 2): Green Belt and Policy OL4 aim to

keep the number and scale of buildings in the Green Belt to a minimum in order to protect the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt. Planning application ref: 1114z/87/2338 granted approval for the extension of the floorspace of the existing garden centre by 15%. The current proposal would involve the erection of a first floor extension and new greenhouse building and would increase the floor area of the site from 1784m2 to 2402m2 which is equivalent to a 35% increase. Thus in total the existing extensions and proposed extensions would equate to a 50% increase in floorspace.

5. The advice on new buildings and building extensions in the Green Belt is well

established in terms of case law and the key test is that there should not be a disproportionate change in the bulk and character of the original buildings on the site. It is normally held that anything in excess of a 50% enlargement in floor space constitutes a disproportionate addition. This approach is supported by appeal decisions against refusals of planning permission for proposals that resulted in a 52% increase in floorspace. The proposal would result in an increase of 50% of floorspace and would substantially alter the appearance of the existing buildings on the site as the height and shape of the building would be altered. The proposal therefore constitutes an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt as it would increase the built up appearance of the site and would harm the visual amenities of the Green Belt contrary to Policy OL4 of the UDP.

6. Policy OL6 states that proposals for extensions to existing garden centres will

not normally be permitted in the Green Belt. Where, exceptionally, proposals are considered acceptable, the application must demonstrate that a significant proportion of the goods are produced onsite, there would not be an unacceptable impact on the local road network, adequate parking is provided, sufficient landscaping is provided and that the proposal complies with other appropriate policies in the UDP. The plans show that a substantial proportion of the garden centre would be used as a restaurant and for the sale of retail goods such as prints and pictures, cards, books, silk plants and craft. These would not be produced onsite and would thus impact on the surrounding area through increased numbers of deliveries to the site. Further to this there is no history of planning permission being granted for the part use of the site as a restaurant however during a site inspection it was noted that the restaurant was in operation. This matter has been referred to Council’s Planning Enforcement team for further investigation. The proposal is contrary to Policy OL6.



7. Policy OE1 seeks to ensure that new development protects the residential

amenities of existing dwellings in terms of siting, appearance, noise and vibration. There are no residential properties in the vicinity of the application site and as such there will not be any impacts on residential amenity. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies OE1, BE19 and BE24 of the UDP.

8. As the Garden Centre is a Sui Generis Use (i.e. Does not fall within of the use

classes specified in the Use Classes Order 1987), Council’s Interim Parking Standards require 1 space to be provided for every 50m2. As the extension will result in a floor area of 2400m2, 48 parking spaces are required. The site currently provides in excess of this and as such there should not be any detrimental impacts such as generation of on-street parking. The proposal is considered to be compliant with Policy AM14 of the UDP.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.



Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL – for the following reasons:- 1. The proposal would represent an unacceptable increase in the built up

appearance of the site harming the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt, contrary to Policy OL1 and OL4 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposal represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt, prejudicing the visual amenities, openness and purpose of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies OL4 and OL6 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3D.8 of the London Plan.

INFORMATIVES: 1. The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having

regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination)

2. The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: OL1 Green Belt – acceptable open land uses and restrictions on new development OL4 Green Belt – retention and improvement of existing landscape OL6 Nurseries and garden centres within the Green Belt BE19 New Development within residential areas – complementing and improving amenity and character of the area BE24 Design of new buildings – protection of privacy AM14 New development and car parking standards

3. Standard Refusal Contact Officer: JENNIE MASSON Telephone No: 01895 277825








B

Item No. 6 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: 10 KILPATRICK WAY, HAYES Development: CONVERSION OF ROOF SPACE TO HABITABLE

ACCOMMODATION INVOLVING REDUCTION IN SIZE OF THE EXISTING REAR FACING DORMER WINDOW.

LBH Ref Nos: 51127/APP/2004/1830 Drawing Nos: Location plan, 01, 02, 03 & 05 – dated 17/06/04 Date of receipt: 2/7/04 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: 2 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. No letters have been received. KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. This application relates to a two storey detached house located on the

northern side of Kilpatrick Way, Hayes. Directly behind the site is a public footpath which provides access to the Green Belt public open space and the Grand Union Canal. None of the housing in the vicinity has rear roof extensions. The site lies within the ‘developed area’ as designated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

2. A planning application (51127/APP/2000/373) for a rear dormer extension

was refused in May 2000 as it was considered that the dormer extension would be uncharacteristic of the pattern of surrounding development when viewed from the adjoining Green Belt land. The rear dormer extension was constructed as unauthorised development. An Enforcement Notice was issued in March 2001 requiring the removal of the dormer extension within 6 months. The occupiers claimed that the builder did not tell them of the risk of enforcement action and believed that the Council had granted planning permission for similar roof extensions nearby.

3. To overcome the breach in planning control, a subsequent application was

submitted for the erection of three pitched roof gable end dormer windows. That application was approved in November 2002 (ref: 51127/APP/2002/1702) as it was considered that the three individual dormer windows would soften the mass and bulk of the development.

4. The existing dormer extension is 6.85m wide, 2m deep, 1.9m high and is set

approximately 850mm below the main ridgeline. This application proposes to reduce the width of the dormer extension by 1 metre, thus creating 1.5m side



setbacks. It is considered that with the proposed design amendment, the resulting rear dormer extension would be preferable to the three-dormer scheme for the following reasons.

5. The ‘Design Guide Residential Extensions’ B4 states that rear dormers should

be set in the middle third of the roof slope or a minimum of 600mm below the main ridgeline and above the eaves where the former is not possible. The existing dormer extension is set approximately 850mm below the main ridgeline and thus complies with this requirement. However, the three-dormer scheme would only be set 100mm below the ridgeline, thus having a greater impact on the roof form.

6. Design Principle B4.3 states that dormer windows should be subordinate to

the existing roof and where possible should follow the vertical lines of the existing doors and windows. The proposed dormer follows the lines and proportions of the existing doors and windows in the rear elevation and once reduced in width, it will appear as a less bulky, more subordinate extension. The three-dormer extension also follows the lines and proportions of the existing house, however that scheme does not comply with the Design Guide. It is therefore considered that as the proposed scheme meets the requirements of the Design Guide, and would have no greater impact on the appearance of the house or the adjoining Green Belt land than that of the previously approved scheme. The present proposal is considered acceptable and compliant with Policy OL5.

7. There will be no undue privacy impacts associated with the proposed rear

dormer window as both adjoining detached houses are set slightly beyond the rear elevation of the application site and the proposed window will have the same outlook as existing windows at first floor level. The proposal is therefore compliant with Policy BE24 of the UDP.

8. On balance, it is considered that the proposed reduction in width of the

existing rear dormer will improve the visual appearance of the dormer extension resulting in a design that is preferable to the 3-dormer scheme approved in 2002. The proposed rear dormer will be less bulky, is adequately set below the main ridgeline of the house, aligns with the existing vertical proportions of the house and will not cause any adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining neighbours or harm the visual amenity of the adjoining Green Belt land.

9. As such the development complies with Policies BE13, BE15, BE19, BE24

and OL5 of the UDP and is recommended for approval.



Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Planning Committee or the Council. The Officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the council’s financial resources, and associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions: 1. (T1) Time Limit – Full Planning

Application 1. (T1) Standard

2. (M2) External Surfaces to Match Existing Building

2. (M2) Standard

3. (OM1) Development in Accordance with Approved Plans

3. (OM1) Standard



INFORMATIVES 1. You are advised that the implementation of these works hereby approved

will enable the Local Planning Authority to consider the withdrawal of the enforcement notice issued in March 2001 ref: ENF/897.

2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

3. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: UDP: BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE15 Alterations and extensions to existing buildings BE19 New development within residential areas – complementing and

improving amenity and character of the area BE24 New development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to

neighbours OL5 New development conspicuous from or adjacent to the green belt

should not injure the visual amenities of the green belt by reason of the siting materials or design.

Design Guide “Residential Extensions” A.5 Design of extensions B4.2 & B4.3 Dormer windows and roof extensions

4. (3) Building Regulations 5. (4) Neighbourly Consideration 6. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work. 7. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works

hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts

8. (47) No damage to verge 9. (51) Notification of Commencement of Works Contact Officer: JENNIE MASSON Telephone No: 01895 277825








B

Item No. 7 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: AVIATION HOUSE, SOUTHERN PERIMETER ROAD,

HEATHROW AIRPORT Development: INSTALLATION OF 6 POLE MOUNTED ANTENNAS, 2

EQUIPMENT CABINETS AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT ON THE ROOF OF AVIATION HOUSE (CONSUTLATION UNDER SCHEDULE 2, PART 24 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995 AS AMENDED).

LBH Ref Nos: 60951/APP/2005/2067 Drawing Nos: 1169/466/001 A Date of receipt: 28/07/05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: Site notice posted. No response has been received. BAA (Safeguarding)

No objection subject to informative regarding cranes

National Air Traffic Services No objection

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The proposed installation would be located on the side of the metal clad plant

room of a 3 storey brick built, flat roofed office building (Aviation House), which is located on the north side of the Southern Perimeter Road to the east of Terminal 4. The Southern Perimeter Road fronts the site and aircraft stands lie to the rear. The site is designated as ‘Heathrow Airport’ in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed installation does not exceed the limits set out in Part 24 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (As Amended). It is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, such as a conservation area where more restrictive criteria are applicable. Accordingly the proposal constitutes permitted development.

3. The application seeks to determine whether prior approval is required for the installation of six antennas attached to the walls of the plant room of Aviation House. Two antennas would be on the south west facing corner, two on the



south east facing corner and two on the north east facing corner. The antennas would be below the height of the existing plant room, and would be colour coded to match the grey walls of the plant room. Three equipment cabinets would be located on the roof just to the west of the plant room, with dimensions of 1.30m x 0.71m x 1.642m high, 1.20m x 0.80m x 1.30m high and 0.60m x 0.50m x 1.235m high. A 0.6m high handrail would be erected along the southern, north west and north east facing edges of the roof. There are four existing large satellite dishes on the roof but these are screened from view by being set back from the edge of the roof around which runs a small parapet wall 0.5m high.

4. In accordance with Part 24 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (As Amended) T-Mobile (UK) Ltd is required to apply to the Local Planning Authority for a determination as to whether prior approval of the details of siting and design is required and, if so, to either approve or refuse those details.

5. The application has been assessed against Policy BE37 of the Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications. Both seek to find solutions which minimise the impact of telecommunications development on the appearance of the surrounding area. Policies A4 and BE17 of the Unitary Development Plan, which both deal with applications at Heathrow Airport, are also relevant.

6. Aviation House is a 3-storey office building located within the boundary of Heathrow Airport. The nearest residential properties are located approximately 250m away to the south east, in Feltham. The Southern Perimeter Road, Great South West Road and associated landscaped areas provide a very significant boundary between these properties and the proposed site.

7. The installation has been designed to have minimal visual impact on the surrounding area. The equipment cabinets would be located towards the rear of the roof to limit any views of them from users of the Southern Perimeter Road. It is not considered that the handrail around the edge of the roof would look out of place on a building of this size located in a commercial area. The proposal is therefore considered to be fully in accord with telecommunications policy and will have negligible visual impact.

8. In terms of potential health concerns, the applicant has confirmed that the proposed installation complies with the ICNIRP (International Commission for Non Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines. Accordingly, in terms of Government policy advice, there is not considered to be any direct health impact.

9. The proposal is consistent with advice in Policy BE37 of the Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 and visual impacts are considered minimal. No objections have been received. Approval is recommended.



Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION: (A) That prior approval of siting and design is not required Contact Officer: JOHANNA HARFOOT Telephone No:01895 277580








A Item No. 8 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: TERMINAL 5, WESTERN PERIMETER ROAD, HEATHROW

AIRPORT Development: DETAILS OF INFORMATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF LAND

AND ACCOMMODATION WITHIN THE AIRPORT BOUNDARY AVAILABLE FOR AIRPORT USE AND DEVELOPMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION A77 OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF 47853/APP/2002/1882 DATED 27/01/2003: FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL PASSENGER TERMINAL COMPLEX AT HEATHROW AIRPORT (TERMINAL 5), TO INCLUDE THE PROVISION OF AIRPORT APRONS, TAXIWAYS AND ASSOCIATED F``ACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, A HOTEL, OFFICES, CAR PARKING, RAIL AND UNDERGROUND STATIONS, ROAD CONNECTIONS TO AIRPORT AND PUBLIC HIGHWAY NETWORKS, AIR TRAFFIC VISUAL CONTROL ROOM AND LANDSCAPING.

LBH Ref No: 47853/APP/2002/1465 Drawing Nos: ARD version1.0 received 24/06/02, & HDS received15/3/05 Date of receipt: 24/06/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 15/03/05 1.0 SUMMARY 1.1 Under Condition A77 of the main T5 outline planning consent BAA is required

to submit, every 5 years, details of airport development land, including an assessment of future supply and demand.

1.2 Also submitted alongside this information is the Heathrow Development

Strategy, produced in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding agreed at the T5 Inquiry by all relevant parties, including LB Hillingdon. This Development Strategy has be produced by BAA with input from a working group comprising officers from LB Hounslow, Spelthorne BC, Slough BC and LB Hillingdon. The Strategy contains forecasts for airport related development including information on development outside the airport. It compares with similar forecasts produced at the time of the T5 Inquiry in 1995.

1.3 Overall, the figures show that adequate identified sites on-airport are available

to meet forecast demand up to 2016. Also, there are currently significant levels of appropriate vacant land and buildings in the area surrounding the airport, indicating that the release of further land outside the airport for airport related development is not required.



2.0 RECOMMENDATION – that the contents of this report be noted subject

to the following informative:

INFORMATIVE:

1. BAA is advised that the methodology used for assessing the forecast growth in on-airport freight forwarding floorspace should take account of the approximate 20,000m2 on-airport floorspace lost due to redevelopment.

3.0 CONSIDERATIONS

Site and Locality 3.1 Condition A77 of the main T5 consent relates to the whole of Heathrow

Airport. The Heathrow Development Strategy also covers the whole airport and includes information on commercial developments within the surrounding areas of Hillingdon, Hounslow, Slough and Spelthorne.

Scheme

3.2 BAA has submitted details required by condition A77 of the planning

permission for Terminal 5. It provides information on and identifies land and accommodation within the airport boundary available for airport related development. Also submitted is the Heathrow Development Strategy for Airport Related Development. This has been produced in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding jointly submitted to the T5 Inquiry in respect of airport related development.

3.3 The Strategy has been produced by BAA in consultation with a working group

of the four surrounding authorities of Hillingdon, Hounslow, Spelthorne and Slough and will be updated on a quinquennial (5 year) basis in perpetuity. The information forecasts contained within the strategy relate to the anticipated growth of a five terminal, 2 runway Heathrow only.

3.4 In more detail, Condition A76 of the Terminal 5 permission provides for the

safeguarding of identified sites on airport for airport related uses. These sites are identified on T5 /Cond/Plan12 submitted to the T5 Inquiry and referred to in the condition. The condition also defined airport related development as any use or development that falls within the following categories: • Offices • Air cargo transit sheds • Car hire facilities • Flight catering • Freight forwarding; and • Airport industry and warehousing



3.5 Condition A77 requires BAA to submit to the local planning authority: • A plan identifying all sites, the area of each site and its capacity to

accommodate airport related development; • A list of all vacant accommodation on airport; and • An assessment of future land utilisation and floorspace requirements for

each category of airport related development. 3.6 This information is required to be submitted to the local planning authority

every 5 years.

3.7 At the T5 Inquiry a Joint Data Group was established comprising representatives from BAA, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Spelthorne and Slough to consider future land requirements for airport related development up to 2016 and the supply of land both on and off airport suitable for such purposes. In addition to the above categories, hotels were also considered by consultants. The Group largely agreed most information and signed up to a Memorandum of Understanding committing the local authorities to assemble information on available land, vacant premises, and outstanding planning consents, which could be used for airport, related development. BAA committed to collating and presenting the information in the form of the Heathrow Development Strategy.

3.8 The whole approach was endorsed by the T5 Inspector who also reached his

own conclusions on calculating disputed growth assumption methodologies to 2016. He also deemed that the 5 yearly reviews should not end in 2016 but continue indefinitely.

3.9 The purpose of the Heathrow Development Strategy is to review the

safeguarding of sites within the airport boundary suitable for accommodating the forecast growth in airport related development. This includes the need to assess current provision for development, supply of land and vacant floorspace, demand for additional development and the utilisation of on airport sites to accommodate such demand.

3.10 Because of the concerns of the local authorities that the growth of the airport

could add to development pressure in the area, particularly in the Green Belt outside the airport boundary, the Strategy also seeks to identify available land and premises off airport that might be suitable for airport related development.

3.11 The objective of the Strategy is therefore to identify and accommodate the

demand for airport related development from a five terminal airport, so far as is possible, within the current airport boundary.

3.12 The Heathrow Development Strategy is split into sections covering:

• Summary of information collected by the local authorities in respect of land

and floorspace availability in the vicinity of the airport that could be suitable to accommodate airport related development.



• Details of BAA’s forecasts for off-airport offices, freight forwarding and flight catering.

• Details of hotels including assessment of existing and future supply and a commentary.

• Summary of airport related development supply and demand compared with the inquiry (1995).

• A commentary on comparison of trends for each airport related development category and future growth implications.

• Consideration of the utilisation and allocation of available on airport land to accommodate the forecast future growth.

3.13 It will be noted that this submission was originally received in 2002. The

reason for the long delay in formally considering it has been due to the need to re-convene the Joint Data Group in order to obtain the necessary information about off-airport development from each of the four adjoining local authorities. This has involved a lot of data collection and collation. There has also been a need to resolve issues concerning the presentation and interpretation of the data and it will be noted that Spelthorne Borough Council has specifically recorded its objection to one outstanding matter. (See comments under External Consultees below).

Planning History

3.14 Terminal 5 was granted planning permission, subject to conditions, as part of

the wider Terminal 5 decision approved by the Secretary of State in November 2001 (Ref: 47853/93/246).

3.15 On 27.1.2003, a Section 73 application (ref: 47853/APP/2002/1882) was

approved for the T5 site. The permission altered the physical layout of the main site, although most planning conditions, including those relating to airport related development, were re-imposed unaltered.

Planning Policies and Standards No policies are relevant to this submission which is for information purposes only. Consultations This submission was not advertised. Officers from the adjoining local authorities listed below were involved in the submission via the reconvened Joint Data Group. Final comments are detailed below: External Consultees London Borough of Hounslow

No objections.

Slough Borough Council

No objections.

Spelthorne Borough Council No objections but disagree with the



methodology used for the forecasts for freight forwarding sites. This should be changed to account for the loss of all freight forwarding from the airport otherwise it distorts the figures artificially.

Main Planning Issues 3.16 The main planning issues relate to:

(i) Compliance with condition A77 (ii) Assessment of planning implications

(i) Compliance with Condition A77 3.17 Under the terms of condition A77 the Council can only receive BAA’s

submission under condition A77 together with the Heathrow Development Strategy, and has no powers to approve or refuse the details.

3.18 Although condition A77 only requires BAA to submit details of land availability

for airport related development, the Council, as evidenced by the Memorandum of Understanding, has a commitment to monitor and understand the wider implications of airport related development. This is because what happens at the airport affects what happens outside the airport. The complex operation of the commercial property market around Heathrow has implications for existing businesses and feeds into the wider planning system via the development plan preparation process as well as decisions made on individual planning applications.

3.19 The A77 submission and the Heathrow Development Strategy together

contain large amounts of data and there is not the space to reproduce it here. The following section is therefore a summary of the key trends identified in respect of each of the main categories of airport related development. Trends that are significantly different from previous forecasts are highlighted.

Flight Catering

1995 T5 Inquiry

Existing provision on-airport: 48,168m2 Existing provision off-airport: 26,334m2

Inspector’s 2016 forecast extra on-airport: 13,450m2 (based on 90 million passengers per annum)

2002 existing provision on-airport: 35,345m2 2002 existing provision off-airport: 31,140m2



BAA 2016 forecast extra on-airport: 5,587m2 BAA 2016 forecast extra off-airport: 1,531m2

3.20 The main change since 1995 has been the large reduction in on-airport provision, slight rise off airport and overall reduction of some 8,000m2 of flight catering floorspace despite increased passengers and flights. Four flight-catering units have been lost from the north side of the airport since the Inquiry – Alpha, El Al, Air Canada and American Airlines. The first two have relocated off-airport. Air Canada and American Airlines now outsource their catering and the growth of cost competition in the short hall market has increased replacement of hot meals with snacks thereby increasing catering efficiencies. BAA has raised its efficiency forecast from 1% per annum to 1.5% for on-airport flight catering floorspace.

3.21 BAA now consider that only 5,587m2 extra on-airport floorspace and 1,531m2

off-airport floorspace will be needed for a 90million passenger throughput. BAA advise that there is land allocated in the Hatton Cross redevelopment area that is available to meet this requirement.

Airport Offices

1995 T5 Inquiry

Existing provision on-airport: 72,439m2 Existing provision off-airport: 22,692m2 (1991 estimate)

Inspector’s 2016 forecast extra on-airport: 11,650m2 (based on 480,000 air transport movements)

2002 existing provision on-airport: 75,883m2


3.22 There has been a modest increase of 3,444m2 in office floorspace since the T5 Inquiry, which is in line with the steady growth in flights over this period. However, this figure disguises the fact that much old airport stock has been replaced by new office developments such as the World Business Centre development. At the time of the Inquiry BAA predicted a negligible need for more off-airport office floorspace and although the revised figure of 4,278 is higher it is very minor in relation to the very high levels of both vacant and unimplemented office consents identified by the four local authorities both in locations around Heathrow and in other locations such as Uxbridge Town Centre.

3.23 BAA wish to see any on-airport office floorspace provided on vacant land in

the Hatton Cross redevelopment area or potentially within a redeveloped Central Terminal Area.



N.B. The definition of airport offices relates to those directly involved with the operation of the airport – not those such as international company offices at e.g. Stockley Park that may choose to locate close to the airport for ease of access to international flights.

Freight Forwarding

1995 T5 Inquiry

Existing provision on-airport: 39,919m2 Existing provision off-airport: 118,500m2 (1991 estimate)

2002 existing provision on-airport: 0m2


3.24 Since the T5 Inquiry 20,541m2 on-airport freight forwarding floorspace has been displaced by redevelopment of old buildings following the redevelopment of the old Southampton House site which is now occupied by warehousing. However, 19,000m2 on the Haselmere Estate (now Heathrow Estate) was previously incorrectly counted as on-airport when in fact it is not. However, this site is still occupied by freight forwarders.

3.25 It is important to remember that not all Heathrow based freight forwarders

handle only Heathrow cargo/freight as a proportion of such companies based near Heathrow predominantly serve non-airport markets.

3.26 BAA has allocated a site at the rear of the Whiskey Stands near Terminal 4 for

26,381m2 of freight forwarding floorspace but they advise there has been no demand for it. BAA points to the figures from the four surrounding local authorities that show around 700,000m2 of vacant and outstanding commercial floorspace and over 12ha of development allocations for B1(b), (c), B2 and B8 uses, suggesting that there will be no difficulty accommodating requirements off-airport.

3.27 Whilst this is not disputed, it is considered that the forecasts for on-airport

sites should be changed to incorporate the loss of all freight forwarding from the airport. This is a matter of specific concern to Spelthorne Borough Council and it is recommended that an Informative be provided for BAA.

3.28 This matter does raise a wider issue of whether BAA may be pricing itself out

of certain markets such as freight forwarding perhaps due to its monopoly position as owner of the airport; low rent levels available; or the difficulties in dealing with the many small businesses involved in certain sectors. Because the airport itself is generally the most sustainable location for such directly related airport businesses it is considered appropriate to continue to apply policy A4 of the Unitary Development Plan which seeks to locate directly related airport development within the airport and not to allow non-directly



related development onto the airport which would subsequently limit the supply of available airport sites.

Car Hire 1995 T5 Inquiry Existing provision on-airport: 6.2ha Existing provision off-airport: 2.7ha 2002 existing provision on-airport: 6.3ha BAA 2016 forecast extra on-airport: 2.03ha

3.29 Since 2002 the on-airport Budget Rent-A-Car site has closed and Hertz has

gained planning permission for a decked parking area that has yet to be implemented.

3.30 BAA has identified land near the ex-Budget site which, together with some

provision within the T5 site, may prove sufficient for future requirements. Any further provision is likely to take the form of decking above existing surface level car hire sites.

3.31 Existing off-airport car hire sites often involve small sites operating within hotel

car parks. Planning policies should continue to prevent any future permissions being granted for off-airport car hire.

Airport Industry/Warehousing 1995 T5 Inquiry Existing provision on-airport: 53,794m2 Existing provision off-airport: not considered. 2002 existing provision on-airport: 57,019m2 BAA 2016 forecast extra on-airport: 5,426m2 (using Inspector’s assumptions)

3.32 Provision appears to be in line with forecast demand with land at the Hatton

Cross redevelopment area allocated to meet requirements.

Cargo Transit Sheds 1995 T5 Inquiry Existing provision on-airport: 63,223m2 Existing provision off-airport: not considered. 2002 existing provision on-airport: 74,829m2



BAA 2016 forecast extra on-airport: 0m2 to 1,625m2

3.33 The original formula for cargo transit shed floorspace requirements was based

on a cargo throughput of 12 tonnes per m2 but improved efficiency throughputs of around 16t/m2 are achievable from newer developments such as BA’s World Cargo Centre once they have built up initial throughput volumes. Accordingly BAA considers between 0m2 and 1,625m2 of extra cargo transit shed floorspace may be required by 2016 dependent on efficiencies.

Hotels

3.34 Hotels are not classed as directly related airport development and the T5

Inquiry therefore assessed them differently.

3.35 At the time of the T5 Inquiry there were 6,000 hotel bedrooms in 18 hotels (1996) with a further 1,300 having planning permission.

3.36 The T5 Inspector concluded that, with the addition of the 600 bed Terminal 5

hotel, no further specific hotel provision was needed to facilitate T5.

3.37 The 2002 picture shows 30 hotels providing 8,712 bedrooms with some 2,559 further bedrooms with planning permission. Much of this high level of growth has been in the budget market with Travel Inn, Travelodge, Premier Lodge and Novotel entering the Heathrow market. But growth of 4 star hotels (Marriot and Holiday Inn) continues with the Arora Hotel catering for the airline crew market.

3.38 BAA has provided an analysis of market trends which highlights:

• New efficiencies in modular hotel construction • Creation of new demand by budget pricing • Corporate clients moving from upmarket to budget hotels • Increased use of Heathrow hotels by local businesses rather than

passengers • New hotels e.g. in Feltham Town Centre and further a field that are mainly

local but still add to the Heathrow supply, particularly when airport demand is high.

3.39 Whatever the factors stimulating the growth in the total supply of hotel

bedrooms it is clear that this growth has been significant, shows no obvious recent signs of lessening, and has been provided well in advance of the opening of T5. (45% increase in rooms from 1996 to 2002 and 95% increase in outstanding consents from 1996 to 2002).

3.40 Given the level of outstanding permissions for new hotel bedrooms it is

possible that market saturation is approaching. Future analysis of the



Heathrow hotel market will be important to assess likely implications including the prospects for a hotel at the Hayes Station site.

Comments on Public Consultations

3.41 No public consultations undertaken. 4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor 4.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant

planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.

4.2 In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998)

makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

4.3 Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are

followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. 4.4 Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and

infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.

4.5 Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without

discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.

5.0 Observations of Director of Finance 5.1 As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations

have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council.



6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 BAA’s submission, using revised forecasts, has forecast a demand for a

cumulative total of 87,692m2 of floorspace for directly related airport development up to 2016. A forecast 92,425m2 of floorspace is available to meet this demand via the development of available land on-airport leaving a surplus of 47,545m2 which could be available for firms that are currently off-airport to move back on-airport.

6.2 Theoretically, all additional identified airport development demand up to 2016,

including that generated by T5, should be capable of being accommodated within the airport. There are of course very many variables applying to such forecasts which therefore need to be treated cautiously.

6.3 Many operators will continue to choose to locate elsewhere off-airport for a

variety of commercial and operational reasons and it is clear from the significant amounts of appropriate land and vacant premises in surrounding local authority areas that there is no shortage of commercial sites available. In most instances it is not be necessary for existing on-airport operators to obtain planning permission to occupy off-airport premises that benefit from B1, B2 or B8 consents.

6.4 The data also provides important background information that will be useful in

helping to resist any inappropriate airport related development in the Green Belt in any of the surrounding local authority areas.

6.5 It is recommended that the contents of this submission be noted and that BAA

be advised of the suggested Informative. Reference Documents: (a) LB Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan, September 1998 (b) The Heathrow Terminal 5 and Associated Public Inquiries Inspectors Report,

21/11/00 (c) Applications, Schemes and Orders Relating to a Proposed Fifth Terminal at

Heathrow Airport, Secretary of State’s Decision Letter, 20/11/01 Contact Officer: TIM JURDON Telephone No: 01895 250610





B

Item No. 9 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: LAND AT BARDON AGGREGATES, THORNEY MILL ROAD,

WEST DRAYTON Development: INSTALLATION OF A 19.7M HIGH MONOPOLE MOBILE

PHONE MAST, GROUND BASED EQUIPMENT CABINET, FENCED COMPOUND AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT

LBH Ref Nos: 60984/APP/2005/2150 Drawing Nos: 104316-01 A – received 05/08/05 Date of receipt: 05/08/2005 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: External Consultees Consultation letters were sent to 7 local properties, St Catherine’s RC Primary School some 450 metres from the site, the West Drayton Residents’ Association and a site notice was posted. To date no letters of objection have been received. South Bucks District Council National Air Traffic Services BAA Safeguarding

Awaiting full response Awaiting response Awaiting response

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The application site is located adjacent to the western boundary of a privately

owned field, belonging to Bardon Aggregates (an aggregates processing plant), on the north side of Thorney Mill Road. Open land exists to the north, east and south of the site, and buildings and yards belonging to the adjacent industrial aggregates building are located to the west of the site, separated from it by the Bigley Ditch which forms the boundary with South Bucks District Council. Although the majority of land owned by Bardon Aggregates falls within the jurisdiction of South Bucks District Council, the field in which the proposed installation would be located, falls within the London Borough of Hillingdon and is accessed by a small bridge across the adjacent Bigley Ditch. The nearest residential properties are approximately 240m away to the east of the proposed site. The site falls within the Green Belt, the Colne Valley Regional Park and a Nature Conservation site of Metropolitan or Borough Grade 1 Importance as designated in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.



2. The telecommunications installation is proposed by T-Mobile (UK) Ltd in order to provide future 3G video coverage as part of its licence obligations. The main area of current deficiency is within the residential area of West Drayton centred around West Drayton Green Conservation Area. The applicant has searched the local area and concluded that there are no other more suitable locations available. In support of the application T-Mobile have supplied copies of technical details of their search/coverage area plans and justification for their site selection.

3. The installation would consist of a 19.7m high monopole mobile phone mast to incorporate three antennas. Two equipment cabinets would be located adjacent to the mast with dimensions of 1.20m x 0.80m x 1.30m high and 0.60m x 0.50m x 1.26m high. The mast and cabinets would be coloured grey. The installation would be enclosed within a 5.50m x 5.50m x 2.125m high close-boarded timber fence compound. Access to the site would be via the Bardon Aggregates site off Thorney Mill Road.

4. The application has been assessed against policy OL1 of the Unitary Development Plan, which seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. It has also been assessed against policy BE37 of the Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications. Both seek to find solutions, which minimise the impact of telecommunications development on the appearance of the surrounding area.

5. The proposed installation represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt and it is therefore necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that very special circumstances apply if an exception is to be made to established Green Belt policy.

6. The proposed mast would be sited approximately 175m to the north of Thorney Mill Lane. An industrial area exists to the west of the site, which consists of several large buildings including an 18.2m high aggregates building. The mast would be adjacent to the boundary between the aggregates site and the field, and would be partly screened by surrounding deciduous trees, the tallest of which is approximately 20m high. The mast should not be visible from Thorney Mill Road or from any residential properties. Any additional landscaping around the site would have negligible impact.

7. Planning policy seeks to minimise the visual impact of such structures by locating them in less sensitive locations including existing telecommunications sites and on buildings, particularly large commercial or industrial buildings. There are several large industrial buildings and chimneys to the west of the proposed site. However, the applicant has provided a letter from the landowner (Aggregate Industries UK Ltd), which confirms that the company is unwilling to allow T-Mobile to locate on any of its buildings or within the yard for operational reasons. This has been confirmed in discussions between the Estates Manager for Aggregate Industries and Council Planning Officers.



8. In total the applicant has provided details of 10 different sites, which have been investigated within the area, and provided reasons for discounting them. It is considered that sufficient information has been provided to show why the more obvious large aggregates building rooftop or adjacent industrial yard cannot be used to site the proposed antennas. Given the lack of availability of appropriate sites and the need to provide coverage for the residential area which lies to the east, it is considered that an installation in this location does amount to very special circumstances to justify an exception to Green Belt policy in this case.

9. It should be noted that the nearby residential area of West Drayton is almost all designated as a Conservation Area and is therefore visually sensitive. It does not contain obvious buildings where antennas could be located and a streetworks pole is likely to be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Any installation would also be in close proximity to residents. The nearest school in the Borough (St Catherine’s RC primary School) is some 450 metres to the north east of the proposal and this scheme has no impact on it.

10. In terms of potential health concerns, the applicant has confirmed that the proposed installation complies with the ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines. Accordingly, in terms of Government policy advice, there is not considered to be any direct health impact.

11. No letters of objection have been received.

12. It is considered that the proposed site for the installation, given the lack of more suitable alternative locations within the adjoining commercial site, or elsewhere in the locality amounts to a very special circumstance to permit the mast in this Green belt location. The mast would be positioned away from residential properties and out of sight of public areas. Approval is recommended.

13. Given the above considerations there is not considered to be any clear conflict with the objectives of the development plan and referral of the application to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan is not therefore considered necessary.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of



public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. (T1) Time Limit – Full planning

application 1. (T1) Standard

2. When the installation is no longer required for the purposes of telecommunications, it shall be removed and the site restored to its original state.

2. In the interests of visual amenity.

INFORMATIVE:

1. Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane

may be required during its construction. We would, therefore, draw the applicant’s attention to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome.



This is explained further in Advice Note 4, ‘Cranes and Other Construction Issues’ available at www.caa.co.uk/srg/aerodrome.

2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken on the basis

that there were no more appropriate sites available at the time of the application. Given the sensitive nature of the nearby residential area this site was considered to be the least worst option which would cause the least harm visually. Regard has been given to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan, namely policies pt1.11, OL1, BE13, BE37, OE1, and to all relevant considerations, including supplementary planning guidance.

Contact Officer: JOHANNA HARFOOT Telephone No: 01895 277580

http://www.caa.co.uk/srg/aerodrome








B

Item No. 10 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: CHARTER PLACE, VINE STREET, UXBRIDGE Development (A): ALTERATIONS TO SOUTH AND NORTH ENTRANCES OF

OFFICE BLOCK; INVOLVING THE REPLACEMENT OF DOORS WITH SHOW ROOM WINDOWS, AND THE REPLACEMENT OF GATES WITH 5 RETRACTABLE BOLLARDS RESPECTIVELY (PLANNING APPLICATION).

LBH Ref Nos: 30675/APP/2005/1788 Drawing Nos: Location Plan (1:1250), 8000/034-112, 8000/034-227, 8000/034-

300A, 8000/034-311, 8000/034/312, 8000/034-313, 8000/034-314, and 8000/034-401

Date of receipt: 22.06.05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None Development (B): INSTALLATION AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF SEVERAL

INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED AND NON-ILLUMINATED SIGNS ON THE SOUTH AND NORTH ENTRANCES TO THE OFFICE BLOCK (ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT APPLICATION).

LBH Ref Nos: 30675/ADV/2005/76 Drawing Nos: Location Plan (1:1250), 8000/034-112, 8000/034-227, 8000/034-

300A, 8000/034-311A, 8000/034/312A, 8000/034-313, 8000/034-314, and 8000/034-401A

Date of receipt: 22.06.05 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None CONSULTATIONS: 7 adjoining owner/occupiers have been consulted. A site notice has been placed and the application advertised as a development that affects the setting of a Listed Building and the character and appearance of a Conservation Area. No responses have been received. English Heritage

Notification not required.

Old Uxbridge Conservation Panel

No comment

Uxbridge Local History and Archive Society

No comment

Environmental Protection Unit No comment



Trees/Landscape

No comment

Urban Design/Conservation The south entrance lies outside the Conservation Area (CA) where the character of the area is essentially one of modern commercial buildings. In this respect the alterations to the south entrance are in keeping and if anything a slight improvement on what already exists. The north entrance gate towers lie just within the CA and accordingly the following Policies and Proposals are relevant: Local Plan Policy, BE10 - Protecting the setting of Listed Buildings, BE27 (1) & (ii) - Advertisements and visual amenity, BE4 - Preservation or enhancement within CA's Old Uxbridge Conservation Area Study Policy15 - Presumption in favour of advertisements designed to be compatible with the character of the building. And use of traditional materials. The courtyard entrance forms part of Windsor Street, which retains its medieval layout and is flanked by buildings of a traditional character and smaller in scale compared to Charter Place. Both St Margaret’s Church and the Market Building lie immediately opposite. It appears that the present entrance to the courtyard was carefully designed to form an appropriate link between the two distinct areas. Whilst some alteration is always possible I consider the change of colour to the framework and their infilling with white laminated glass is introducing large surfaces of inferior and bland quality to the detriment of the towers and the area. Similarly I do not consider the sign to be appropriate in this location. It would introduce an advertising feature into a prominent position within the street



scene to the detriment of the CA and the setting of the LB's. Up lighters within the towers could, with an alteration to the colour of the framework, improve their night time appearance. Objection.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The application site comprises an office block with a frontage onto Vine Street

and occupying the majority of the back-land with its main pedestrian access from Windsor Street, opposite St Margaret’s Church. The site falls within the ‘Developed Area’ as designated within the UDP, just outside the Old Uxbridge Conservation Area. The office block is home to several companies.

2. Planning permission is sought for alterations to the north (Windsor Street) and

south entrances (Vine Street). The works include the replacement of doors with show room windows, and the replacement of the gates with 5 retractable bollards with replacement glazing to the entrance towers. Advertisement consent is sought for the installation and/or replacement of several internally illuminated signs affecting the north and south entrances to the site. The site has a long and varied planning history but none are relevant to these applications.

3. The alterations sought under planning permission to the south elevation of

this building would involve the replacement of the existing doors excluding the main entrance door with showroom windows; the installation of brise soleil louver in white polyester coated steel added at high level above the new showroom windows and the main entrance, the installation of a white polyester coated louver positioned 0.3m in front of the existing glass façade above the main entrance; new planting around the south elevation of this building; the replacement of the main entrance doors on either side of the revolving door (main entrance) with full width toughened glazed doors, one of which to have automatic opening for disabled wheelchair access; and the replacement of the existing conical caps above each column with domed capping stones.

4. The alterations sought under advertisement consent to the south elevation of

this building would involve the installation of an internally illuminated fascia panel displaying individual lettering identifying the premises above the main entrance to the building. The existing freestanding tenants directory panels will be replaced with a non-illuminated brushed stainless steel (S/S) panel with tenants directory panel signage, to both sides of the main entrance and the existing high-level signage at 6th floor level will be removed.

5. The alterations sought under planning permission to the north entrance

involve the replacement of the gates with 5 x 1.1m high retractable bollards; the adaptation of the existing framework on the two towers to take white



laminated opal glass at the entrance to the site. Additional alterations to the building entrance include a brise soleil panel above the entrance doors and replacement of central doors with revolving doors.

6. The alterations sought under advertisement consent to the north elevation of

this building also includes an internally illuminated fascia panel above the entrance doors, similar to the south entrance, and the display of polished S/S box lettering mounted on a white polyester rail structure that will bridge the two entrance towers to the site at 5m above ground. This sign is to be externally illuminated by integral blue neon up lighting. The existing lettering on the two entrance towers will be removed.

7. The south entrance lies outside the Old Uxbridge Conservation Area where

the character of the area is essentially one of modern commercial buildings. In this respect the alterations sought under planning permission to the south entrance are in keeping and if anything a slight improvement on what already exists. These works would not affect the character of the Conservation Area and are considered to comply with policies BE4, BE13 and BE19 of the UDP.

8. The north entrance gate towers lie just within the Old Uxbridge Conservation

Area. This courtyard entrance forms part of Windsor Street, which retains its medieval layout and is flanked by buildings of a traditional character and smaller in scale compared to Charter Place. Both the St Margaret’s Church and the Market Building lie immediately opposite; the former a Grade B Listed Building, and the latter a Grade II Star Listed Building.

9. It is considered that the replacement of the gates with 5 retractable bollards

on the north elevation would not affect the visual amenities of the street, or the character and appearance of the conservation area. However, the adaptation of the existing framework on the two towers to take white laminated opal glass is considered to introduce large surfaces of inferior and bland quality materials to the detriment of the towers and the area, thus contrary to policies BE4, BE10, BE13 and BE19 of the UDP.

10. It is considered that the alterations sought under advertisement consent on

the north elevation would be detrimental to the setting of the above-mentioned listed buildings, which are less than 15m away. Particularly the introduction of polished S/S box letters mounted on a white polyester rail structure bridging between the two towers at 5m above ground, which is not considered appropriate in this location, as it would introduce an advertising feature into a prominent position within the street scene to the detriment of the Conservation Area and the setting of these Listed Buildings. For this reason it is considered that the advertisements on the north entrance would be contrary to policy BE4, BE10, BE13, BE19 and BE27 of the UDP. The Conservation Area Officer has objected on similar grounds.

11. The works sought under planning permission and advertisement consent both

on the south elevation and the north elevation are not considered to be



detrimental to residential amenities as the nearest properties in direct line of sight would be over 50m away.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the Council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION (A): REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION – for the following reason:- 1. The proposal by reason of the introduction of white laminated opal

glazing to the north entrance towers would introduce large surfaces of



inferior and bland quality materials to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Old Uxbridge Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II Star Listed Building (Market Building) and the Grade B Listed Building (St Margaret’s Church) immediately opposite. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE4, BE10, BE13 and BE19 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, and the requirements of Policy 15 of the Old Uxbridge Conservation Area Study.

INFORMATIVES

1. The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

2. The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having

regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE4 New development within or on the fringes of conservation areas BE10 Proposals detrimental to the setting of a listed building BE13 Layout and appearance of new development BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and

improving amenity and character of the area Supplementary Planning Guidance: Old Uxbridge Conservation Area Study

3. If you require further information concerning the reason why the Council

refused planning permission or would like to discuss possible revisions to the scheme, please contact the “Development Control Team” on 01895 250400. The policies referred to in the refusal notice are available for inspection in Planning Reception, Level 3 at The Civic Centre, Uxbridge.

RECOMMENDATION (B): REFUSE ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT – for the following reason:- 1. The proposal by reason of its introduction of polished stainless steel

box letters mounted on white polyester rail structure bridging the two towers at 5m above ground, is not considered appropriate in this location, as it would introduce a prominent advertising feature within the street scene. The proposal would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the Old Uxbridge Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy BE27 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and



design principle 7 of the design guide: Shopfronts and Advertisements within Conservation Areas.

INFORMATIVES 1. The decision to REFUSE advertisement consent has been taken having

regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

2. The decision to REFUSE advertisement consent has been taken having

regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE27 Advertisements requiring express consent - size, design and

location Supplementary Planning Guidance: Shopfronts and Advertisements within Conservation Areas

3. If you require further information concerning the reason why the Council

refused advertisement consent or would like to discuss possible revisions to the scheme, please contact the “Development Control Team” on 01895 250400. The policies referred to in the refusal notice are available for inspection in Planning Reception, Level 3 at The Civic Centre, Uxbridge.

Contact Officer: LUNGILE MNGADI Telephone No: 01895-277948








B

Item No. 11 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Address: LAND FORMING PART OF 24 CHESTNUT CLOSE, HAYES Development: ERECTION OF A TWO-STOREY THREE-BEDROOM

ATTACHED DWELLING HOUSE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND WIDENING OF EXISTING VEHICLULAR CROSSOVER AT WALNUT CLOSE.

LBH Ref Nos: 60501/APP/2005/1008 Drawing Nos: Site plan at scale 1:1250 and Drawing No. 515/01 and 515/03

received 05/04/05, Drawing No. 515/02A received 06/06/05 Date of receipt: 05/04/05 Date of amendment(s): 06/06/05 CONSULTATIONS: 14 neighbouring properties have been consulted. No responses have been received.

Highways Engineer No objections to the proposed development. The

proposed crossover will be slightly in excess of the Councils design standards. However, Walnut Close serves only a small number of units. It is therefore unlikely that increase in the width of the crossover will conflict with vehicle or pedestrian movements.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The application site is located on the southern side of Chestnut Close and

comprises a two-storey semi-detached house. The area is characterised by two-storey semi-detached and terraced properties. The site lies within the ‘Developed Area’ as designated in the Unitary Development Plan.

2. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey three-bedroom

attached dwelling house with associated parking and widening of vehicular crossover at Walnut Close.

3. The proposed house would measure 5.8m wide, 7.85m deep, 5.4m high to

the eaves and 8.9m high to the ridge. It would be setback between 1.25m (front) and 0.7m (rear) from the side boundary.

4. The design of the new house is considered to be in keeping with the

appearance of the existing house. The fenestration details would match those of the existing house and other properties in compliance with design principle



A5 of the Council’s design guidance “Residential Extensions” and Policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP.

5. The application site is located on the corner of Chestnut Close and Walnut

Close. As such the proposed extension would be built on currently open land. Design principle A.1 states that building lines and return building lines should be respected and side extensions that break the building line would not normally be accepted.

6. The erection of the proposed building to within 0.7m of the edge of the plot

would create a cramped appearance when seen from Chestnut Close and Almond Close opposite. The proposal would reduce the openness of the corner of Chestnut Close and Walnut Close, which contributes to the character of the area. The proposal would create an imbalance with the opposite corner property, which is in its original form without any side extensions. The impact of the proposal is considered to be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the character of the locality, contrary to policies BE13 and BE19 of the Unitary Development Plan.

7. A similar application for an attached house on the opposite corner at No.22

Chestnut Close (Ref: 56122/APP/2003/2014), was refused for the following reason in August 2003:

“The proposal by reason of its projection forward of the recognised established building line in Walnut Close represents an unduly intrusive/incongruous form of development detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE13 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principle A1 of the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”

8. An appeal was lodged against the refusal and the appeal dismissed in July

2004. The Inspector raised concern over the cumulative impact of this type of development within the area.

9. There are no windows within the flank wall at first floor level. As such, the

proposal is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the privacy of surrounding properties in accordance with policy BE24 of the UDP.

10. By virtue of its north facing orientation of the property the proposed house will

not result in excessive overshadowing of adjoining properties, and as such, would not impact on adjoining properties in accordance with policy BE20 of the UDP.

11. 56m2 of private rear amenity space is provided for the residents of the

proposed house. This is less than the 60m2 required by the Council’s design guidance “Residential Layouts and House Design” for 2-3 bedroom houses, however the 4m2 shortfall is not considered so significant as to warrant a reason for refusal of the application. The existing house would retain 84m2 of



private amenity space. The layout of the proposed amenity space is considered to be in accordance with policy BE23 of the UDP.

12. Two car parking spaces are provided for the existing and proposed houses in

accordance with Council’s adopted standards for a residential house. The proposal includes the widening of the existing crossover located on Walnut Close. The Highways Engineer raises no objection to the proposal.

13. The proposed house fails to comply with policies BE13 and BE19 of the UDP

and as such, refusal of the application is recommended. Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. Observations of the Director of Finance As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the Council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the Planning Committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls



upon the Council’s financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Council. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal by reason of its projection forward of the recognised

established return building line in Walnut Close represents an unduly intrusive/incongruous form of development detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE13 and BE19 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

INFORMATIVES: 1. The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having

regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

2. The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance: BE13 New development to harmonise with the existing street scene BE15 Extensions to harmonise with the scale, form, architectural

composition and proportions of the original building BE19 New development to complement and improve the amenity and

character of the area BE20 Acceptable layout to address daylight/sunlight issue BE23 Adequate external amenity space BE24 Design to protect privacy of occupiers and neighbours Supplementary Planning Design Guide “Residential Layouts and House Design”: Design Principles: (3) Elevational Treatment (4) Outlook and Over-domination (5) Privacy (7) Amenity Space

3. If you require further information concerning the reasons why the Council refused planning permission or would like to discuss possible revisions to the scheme, please contact the Development Control Team (Tel: 01895 250400). The policies referred to in the refusal notice are available for inspection in Planning Reception, Level 3 at The Civic Centre, Uxbridge.

Contact Officer: CAMERON STANLEY Telephone No: 07849471539








B

Item No. 12 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: 10 ANGLE CLOSE, HILLINGDON Development: UNAUTHORISED USE OF LAND FOR THE STORAGE,

DISPLAY AND SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLES LBH Ref Nos: ENF/04/2932 CONSULTATIONS Borough Solicitor The change in use might not be as marked as similar

Planning Inspectorate cases and it may be arguable that the current levels of commercial activity suggest that the use is not significant enough so as to constitute a material change-of-use. However there is a clear commercial use that is occurring and could not be said to be ancillary to the residential use. Further, if the Council does not act upon it now it does run the risk of the entire nature of the locality being affected in the future.

While the matter is essentially one for the Council,

I would consider that there is sufficient material to commence enforcement action.

Highways Engineer Given the number of vehicles and the amount of

vehicle trips resulting, there is unlikely to be any tangible impact on transportation grounds.

KEY PLANNING ENFORCEMENT ISSUES: 1. 10 Angle Close is situated on the north side of Angle Close at the end of this

cul-de-sac. The property comprises a two-story detached house with both a large rear and side garden and front forecourt. The surrounding area is characterized by similar two-storey detached residential properties. The site forms part of the ‘Developed Area’ as designated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

2. In response to concerns regarding the alleged sale of cars from the property,

the site has been inspected regularly by officers since August 2004. It has been observed that up to four cars are parked on the forecourt of the property at any one time. Although no signs advertising the sale of vehicles from the site have been observed during site inspections, investigations showed that some of these cars are owned by David Marley Car Sales (DMCS), a car sales operation based in London, and that some of these cars later changed hands to members of the public.



3. A reply to a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) served on the owner was

received from both the owner of the property and the owner of DMCS on 29/03/05. These replies stated that the property is used as a base for the inspection and test-driving of cars. According to the replies: − Cars from the yard are advertised in the Autotrader magazine and website; − Up to two cars from the yard are parked on the forecourt of the property at

any one time; − Customers arrive by appointment to inspect and test-drive the cars at a

rate of roughly once a week; − These activities commenced in June 2004.

4. Following the receipt of the PCN replies, the submission of monthly logs

detailing the display, test-driving and sale of cars at the property was requested from the owner. Also, officers have randomly monitored the property and information on car movements has been collected from a neighbour. A comparison of the log with the information from these other sources of information has generally verified the accuracy of the former. The logs show that the occurrence of inspections/test-drives increased from April to June from 1.75 to 3.27 per week, while the sales or the removal of cars by customers increased from 0.3 to 1.2 per week over the same period.

5. Observations of inspection and test-drives show that they would generally

involve a customer arriving in a vehicle, parking in the street, and inspecting the vehicle before it is driven around a circuit of Hillingdon. This process may take between 30 and 60 minutes. At times the inspected car is then removed by the customer.

6. Angle Close is a quiet cul-de-sac and even the relatively low volume of visits

has some impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. Taking into account Planning Inspectorate decisions in similar cases, it is considered that the activities could not be considered de minimis and are significant enough to constitute a material change of use. Furthermore, the display and sale of vehicles constitute activities that are considered incongruous with the residential nature of the surrounding area. It is therefore considered that the activities constitute a material change-of-use, that planning permission is required and that the Council may take enforcement action to bring about a cessation of the activities should it be considered expedient.

7. The forecourt of the property provides four car-parking spaces. While two cars

from DMCS are parked there, two spaces remain for the use of the householder, which accords with the Council’s car-parking standards for a residential property. Although inspections usually involve a customer’s car being parked in the street, given the small scale of the operation, there is no requirement for the provision of further car-parking spaces on the property under the Council’s car-parking standards. As the unauthorised use accords with these standards, there is no conflict with Policy AM14 of the UDP.



8. The storage and display of vehicles for sale on the forecourt of the property and the use of the site for the inspection and test-driving of these vehicles are, due to the quiet residential environment and the incongruous nature of these activities with this environment, considered to have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. As such the unauthorised use is considered to be contrary to Policy BE19 of the UDP.

9. Furthermore, if no enforcement action is taken and the activity continues for a

period of 10 years the activities may become lawful and immune to enforcement action. If this were to happen, it would then become difficult for the Council to control the activities and guard against any potential escalation in activities that would likely result in further harm to the amenity of the surrounding area.

10. It is considered that planning conditions will not overcome the harm caused by

the unauthorised use. Therefore, and in light of the foregoing, it is considered expedient and in the public interest to issue an Enforcement Notice to secure the cessation of the use.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached. Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.



The power to issue an Enforcement Notice is discretionary and should only be used where the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that there has been a breach or breaches of planning control. It must also be satisfied that it is expedient to issue the Notice having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and to any other material considerations. Consequently the Council must decide based on the particular circumstances of each individual case the question of expediency. The decision to take Enforcement action must be reasonable and not based on irrational factors or taken without proper consideration of the relevant facts and planning issues or based on non-planning grounds. Enforcement action should not be taken purely to regularise the situation. Observations of the Director of Finance The costs of issuing an Enforcement Notice are not significant, but costs of the order of £5,000 are likely if an appeal is made against the notice and a public enquiry results. The costs of an appeal to be heard by written representations or hearing are negligible. At the present time, there is satisfactory provision within the enforcement budget with which to fund these likely costs. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Members should consider the expediency of Enforcement Action under

section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, including the service of an Enforcement Notice.

2. That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to issue an Enforcement

Notice in respect of:

(i) The unauthorised use of the land for the storage, display and sale of motor vehicles.

3. That the Notice shall require the following steps to be taken to remedy

this breach of planning control:

(i) Cease the use of the land for the storage, display and sale of motor vehicles.

(ii) Remove from the land all vehicles for sale.

4. That the reason to be stated for the issue of the Notice be as follows:

The storage, display and sale of motor vehicles from the property, by reason of the incongruous nature of these activities with the surrounding residential environment are considered to detract from the character and amenity of the surrounding area. As such the unauthorised use is considered to be contrary to Policy BE19 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.



5. That the period of 28 days be given for compliance with the terms of the Enforcement Notice.

Contact Officer: JASON PENE Telephone No: 01895 250 845





B

Item No. 13 Report of the Director of Planning and Transportation Address: 2 EIGHTH AVENUE, HAYES, MIDDLESEX Development: UNAUTHORISED ERECTION OF TWO-STOREY SIDE AND

PART SINGLE-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION LBH Ref Nos: ENF/05/3543 KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 1. The site is located on the east side of Eighth Avenue at the junction with

Townfield Road and comprises a semi-detached property with 4 Eighth Avenue. The site is bordered to the east by 31 Townfield Road. This property is set at a right-angle to the site and has no habitable room window in its flank elevation facing the site. The site forms part of the “developed area” as designated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

2. A retrospective planning application (ref. 59756/APP/2005/349) was refused

on 29/03/05 by delegated decision for “the erection of two-storey side and part single storey side extension incorporating attached garage/store”.

3. At the time that application was submitted on 01/02/05 the extensions had

already been erected. The two-storey side extension is set back 0.5m from the southeastern boundary with 31 Townfield Road and some 12m from the boundary with Eighth Avenue. This extension runs flush with the front elevation of the house and has a pitched roof that extends to the height of the existing roof of the house. It measures 4.9m wide and 5.7m deep. The single-storey part side extension measures 2.7m wide and 4.2m deep. It has a pitched roof reaching 4.3m high at ridge level. This extension comprises a storeroom. The two-storey side extension has a living room at the ground floor level and a bedroom with en-suite at the first-floor level.

4. The two-storey side extension is set at a right-angle to 31 Townfield Road and

has been setback 0.5m from the side boundary with this property. Notwithstanding the angle of the two properties, the setback is less than the 1m recommended in policy BE22 of the UDP and design principle B2.1 of the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”, resulting in a narrowing of the visually open gap between the two properties and a cramped form of development. The development therefore fails to accord with policy BE22 and design principle B2.1.

5. The two-storey extension to this semi-detached dwelling is not setback from

the front elevation or roof of the existing house and is not subordinate to the scale, form and proportions of the existing house. It does not respect the character and appearance of the existing house and visually imbalances the



pair of semi-detached properties to the detriment of the appearance of the existing house and the amenities and character of the street scene. As such, the development fails to accord with policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and design principle A5 of the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.

6. It is considered that the extensions are positioned at a sufficient distance from

the neighbouring property at 31 Townfield Road not to give rise to any adverse impact upon the residential amenities of this property through dominance or loss of sunlight. The extensions respect the privacy of its occupiers and neighbours with only a non-habitable room window (with obscure glass) in the rear elevation. This aspect of the proposal meets the requirements of design principle A3 of the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions” and accords with policies BE20 and BE24 of the UDP.

7. The site accommodates two on-site car parking spaces and this is in

accordance AM14 of the UDP. 8. As the extensions are located to the side of the house, the existing external

amenity space available to the property is not compromised, in accordance with the requirements of policy BE23 of the UDP.

9. Despite complying with several policies of the UDP, the development does not

accord with other relevant polices and design guidance. It is also considered that planning conditions will not overcome the harm caused by the development. It is therefore considered expedient and in the public interest to pursue enforcement to secure the removal of the development.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application. In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.



Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective. Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'. The power to issue an Enforcement Notice is discretionary and should only be used where the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that there has been a breach or breaches of planning control. It must also be satisfied that it is expedient to issue the Notice having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and to any other material considerations. Consequently the Council must decide based on the particular circumstances of each individual case the question of expediency. The decision to take Enforcement action must be reasonable and not based on irrational factors or taken without proper consideration of the relevant facts and planning issues or based on non-planning grounds. Enforcement action should not be taken purely to regularise the situation. Observations of the Director of Finance The costs of issuing an Enforcement Notice are not significant, but costs of the order of £5,000 are likely if an appeal is made against the notice and a public enquiry results. The costs of an appeal to be heard by written representations or hearing are negligible. At the present time, there is satisfactory provision within the enforcement budget with which to fund these likely costs. RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Committee should consider the expediency of enforcement action

including the service of an enforcement notice under the appropriate section of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. That the Borough Solicitor be authorised to issue an Enforcement

Notice in respect of:

(i) The unauthorised erection of a two-storey side and part single-storey side extension at 2 Eighth Avenue, Hayes.

3. That the notice shall require the following steps to be taken to remedy

this breach of planning control:

(i) Demolish the two-storey side and part single-storey side extension;



(ii) Remove from the land all debris, rubble, roofing and all other materials resulting from the demolition; and

(iii) Reinstate the side elevation of the existing house and the garden area using materials to match existing.

4. That the reason to be stated for the issue of the notice be as follows:

(i) The development by reason of its overall size and design is not

subordinate to the scale, proportions and form of the original house and as such, does not harmonise with the architectural composition of the house. Furthermore, due to its overall size and design the development results in a visual imbalance of this pair of semi-detached properties. It is therefore detrimental to both the appearance of the property and character and appearance of the street scene. As such, the development is contrary to policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and design principle A5 of the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.

(ii) The development by reason of its overall size, design and

proximity to the side boundary has resulted in a closing of the visually open gap between the neighbouring property, giving rise to a cramped form of development, detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE13, BE19 and BE22 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and design principle B2.1 of the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.

5. That the period of 6 months be given for compliance with the terms of

the Enforcement Notice. Contact Officer: JASON PENE Telephone No: 01895 250 845

London Borough of Hillingdon

Amend to include Dom’s comments





Item No. 14

NEW APPEALS AND APPEAL DECISIONS 1 July 2005 to 31 July 2005 (A) NEW APPEALS 1. Site Property: Land to south of Bentinck Road Yiewsley Ward: Yiewsley Development:

Redevelopment of the site to provide 62 affordable housing units in a part four, part six storey building with associated access and car parking (involving demolition of existing Padcroft Works building and part of Globe House)

Application Ref. No: 45200/APP/2005/929 Appeal Ref. No: 5185 Start Date: 05.07.05 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Hearing Information: Committee refusal 9.6.05 2. Site Property: 3A Dorchester Waye Hayes Ward: Barnhill Development:

Conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation incorporating installation of rear dormer

Application Ref. No: 20934/APP/2004/2801 Appeal Ref. No: 5186 Start Date: 06.07.05 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 06.12.04



3. Site Property: Land at 18-24 Hercies Road, Hillingdon Ward: Uxbridge North Development:

Erection of a block of twenty-one residential flats with associated car parking and access (involving demolition of existing houses)(Outline Application)

Application Ref. No: 60045/APP/2005/900 Appeal Ref. No: 5187 Start Date: 08.07.05 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Committee overturn 28.06.05 4. Site Property: 51 Micawber Avenue, Hillingdon Ward: Brunel

Development:

Erection of single storey side extension incorporating first floor in roofspace with front and rear dormer windows and erection of single storey detached garage at the rear

Application Ref. No: 12099/APP/2004/3085 Appeal Ref. No: 5188 Start Date: 15.07.05 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 10.01.05 5. Site Property: Hillingdon Fire Station, Uxbridge Road, Hillingdon Ward: Brunel Development: Installation of a freestanding internally illuminated

sign Application Ref. No: 17118/ADV/2005/45 Appeal Ref. No: 5190 Start Date: 21.07.05 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 02.06.05



6. Site Property: 4 New Road Hillingdon Ward: Hillingdon East Development: Erection of a conservatory Application Ref. No: 30158/APP/2005/1193 Appeal Ref. No: 5192 Start Date: 22.07.05 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 15.06.05 7. Site Property: 2 Lynhurst Crescent Hillingdon Ward: Hillingdon East Development:

Erection of a single-storey side and rear conservatory (Appeal against enforcement notice; application for planning permission deemed to have been made pursuant to Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990)

Application Ref. No: 22827/APP/2005/2053 Appeal Ref. No: 5193 Start Date: 25.07.05 Basis for Appeal: Against enforcement notice Procedure: Written representations Information: Retrospective application refused 21.12.04 8. Site Property: 26 Bourne Avenue, Hayes Ward: Pinkwell Development: Front entrance porch and front canopy

(retrospective) Application Ref. No: 2579/APP/2004/3404 Appeal Ref. No: 5197 Start Date: 28.07.05 Basis for Appeal: Against refusal Procedure: Written representations Information: Delegated refusal 07.02.05



(B) APPEAL DECISIONS 1. Site Property: Land forming part of 79 Warley Road Hayes Ward: Barnhill Development: Erection of a two storey, 2-bedroom attached

dwelling Application Ref. No: 54329/APP/2004/1925 Appeal Ref. No: 5114 Appeal Decision Date: 04.07.05 Decision: Allowed Information: Delegated refusal 28.10.04 Inspector’s

conclusions

Proposal would breach existing building line but scale and design would not be visually prominent. Sufficient distance retained from boundary to maintain openness. Creates a sense of balance with similar extension on other corner of the road.

2. Site Property: 2 Norfolk Road Uxbridge Ward: Uxbridge North Development:

Erection of a two storey block of flats with rooms in roof space to provide 7, two-bedroom and 2, one-bedroom flats with associated parking (involving demolition of existing house) (Outline Application)

Application Ref. No: 2107/APP/2004/2548 Appeal Ref. No: 5101 Appeal Decision Date: 12.07.05 Decision: Dismissed Information: Delegated refusal 08.11.04

Inspector’s conclusions

Large site is suitable for re-development. Building lines retained and height and scale of scheme is broadly in keeping with area. Dormers are not a feature of the area and the unbroken monolithic form of the roof with the size & number of the dormers would appear dominant and have an excessive mass for this corner plot. Unreasonable overlooking from some dormer windows that could not be obscured. Overall scheme would be harmful to character of the area.



3. Site Property: 2 Norfolk Road Uxbridge Ward: Uxbridge North Development:

Erection of three storey block (incorporating a second floor with rooms in roofspace) to provide 6 two- bedroom and 3 one-bedroom self- contained flats with associated parking and landscaping (involving demolition of existing house)(Outline Application)

Application Ref. No: 2107/APP/2004/3411 Appeal Ref. No: 5133 Appeal Decision Date: 12.07.05 Decision: Allowed Information: Committee overturn 10.02.05 Inspector’s

conclusions

Large site is suitable for re-development. Building lines retained and height and scale of scheme is broadly in keeping with area. Roof would appear subordinate and in scale to the rest of the building. More variation in the elevational design, respecting character of existing residential properties in the area. Overlooking issue addressed with fewer, smaller, obscured glass windows. Over-dominance of adjacent property has been overcome. Car parking adequate. Appeal is acceptable form of development.



4. Site Property: 59 Silverdale Gardens Hayes Ward: Townfield Development:

Erection of a two storey side extension and conversion of semi-detached house (including extension) to 4 one-bedroom flats; amendment to planning permission ref.9914/app/2004/1011 dated 27/08/2004: erection of single storey side extension and conversion of house to 3 one-bedroom flats

Application Ref. No: 9914/APP/2004/3151 Appeal Ref. No: 5143 Appeal Decision Date: 19.07.05 Decision: Dismissed Information: Delegated refusal 22.12.04 Inspector’s

conclusions

Tandem parking spaces would not be acceptable for separate units and would result in on-street parking - which already results in parking on pavements. Privacy fence within 1 metre of windows is not acceptable in terms of impact on living conditions of occupants.

5. Site Property: 41 Hewens Road Hillingdon Ward: Hillingdon East Development:

Front porch replacement (Application for a Certificate of Lawfulness for a proposed use or development)

Application Ref. No: 59905/APP/2004/2424 Appeal Ref. No: 5102 Appeal Decision Date: 29.07.05 Decision: Dismissed Information: Delegated refusal 22.10.04 Inspector’s

conclusions Exceeds 3 square metres floor area and would be higher than 3 metres - therefore is not permitted development.



CONTACT OFFICER: JASON GROVE EXTENSION: 6767 Item No. 15 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND

TRANSPORTATION BI-MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT ON BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL (1) RECOMMENDATION That Members note the contents of this report. (2) INFORMATION

• The attached schedule provides information on progress with breaches of planning control where enforcement action has been authorised by Committee. It updates Members on progress since the last schedule was presented to them, and it includes new investigations as appropriate.

• This information is placed on Part 1 of the Agenda



Site/Property 1 Shaftesbury Waye, Hayes Ward Yeading Date Received November 2002 Breach(es) The breach involves the use of the rear garden for the storage of

building materials, vehicles and the erection of a store/out-building for an office.

Background Following investigations by Enforcement Officers, a retrospective

planning application was submitted in April 2003 for the “continued use of rear garden area for the storage of building materials, vehicles and store/out-building for office use”. This application was refused on 17 October 2003 and Enforcement action was subsequently authorised. An Enforcement Notice was served on 2 September 2004 requiring the owners to: 1) Cease the use of land as a builders’ yard, and, 2) Remove from the land all motor vehicles, building materials,

equipment, tools, plant machinery, skips, office furniture/equipment together with all other items and paraphernalia associated with the authorised use of the land

Update Site was inspected in March 2005 but unable to gain access.

However building materials/vehicles have been removed. The site will continue to be monitored.



Site/Property 222 Balmoral Drive, Hayes Ward Townfield Date Received June 2003 Breach(es) The breach involves the erection of a single storey rear

conservatory without Planning Permission. Background A retrospective planning application was however, refused on the

23 December 2003 and the Enforcement action subsequently authorised. An Enforcement Notice was served in March 2004 requiring the owners to demolish the single storey rear conservatory extension. The Notice was required to be complied with by 10 August 2004. After the mis-service of the Enforcement Notice with a change of ownership, the new owners were allowed the opportunity to submit an application to overcome the reasons for refusal.

Update Application (ref.: 57313/APP/2005/1420) for an alternative

conservatory was refused on 08/07/05. Instructions are with Legal Services for re-service of the notice.



Site/Property Donkey Lane, North West Corner, Car Spares

The Common, West Drayton Ward West Drayton Date Received August 2002 Breach(es) The breaches of Planning Control involve:

i) The change of use of the land from agricultural use to use for the parking, storage, valeting and servicing of motor vehicles and lorries in connection with a transport business, without planning permission, and,

ii) The erection of corrugated fencing and gates including the formation of a new access, and 2) the formation of a tarmacadam, stone, gravel, rubble and debris hardstanding, all without planning permission.

Background In May 2004 two Enforcement Notices were served requiring that

the owners: i) Cease the use of the land for the parking, storage, valeting and

servicing of motor vehicles in connection with a transport business, and,

ii) Remove the corrugated fencing and gates from the land and restore the land to its previous condition.

An appeal was dismissed on 24 February 2005 and the compliance date became 25 May 2005.

Update Visits to the site show that although the transport business has

moved from the site the fencing, gates and other equipment have not been removed. At the same time vehicles from the rest of the car spares site have been moved onto the property, preventing the re-fallowing of the land. The expediency of prosecution over non-compliance with the notices is to be considered.



Site/Property Wall Garden Farm, Sipson Lane, Sipson Ward Heathrow Villages Date Received May 2001 Breach(es) The breach involves the change of use of the land from residential

and agricultural use to a mixed use for residential use and use for the parking and storage of motor vehicles for the purpose of off-airport parking without Planning Permission.

Background In June 2004 an Enforcement Notice was served requiring the

owners to: i) Cease the use of the land for parking and storage of motor

vehicles for the purposes of off-airport parking, and, ii) Remove from the land all motor vehicles and lorries associated

with the unauthorised use of the land, and, iii) Remove from the land all portable buildings, fences, gates,

signs, land surfacing works, structures, equipment and other paraphernalia associated with the unauthorised use of the land.

Update Appeal was dismissed on 12.1.05. Three-month compliance period

expired on 12.4.05. Authority for prosecution for non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice was granted by Committee on 10 May 2005. Operator has confirmed use will cease by 22.7.05.

Site/Property Dudset Farm, Dudset Lane, Harlington Ward Heathrow Villages Date Received Spring 2003 Breach(es) The breaches of planning control involve:

i) Change of use of land from agricultural use to use for the siting of caravans, builders yard and storage of tyres.

ii) Formation of spoil bund. Background This Green Belt site is being used principally as a caravan site for

Terminal 5 construction workers with approximately 130 pitches, but site levels have been raised by the deposit of considerable amounts of spoil. i) In November 2003 two enforcement notices were served

requiring the owners to cease the unauthorised uses on the site and to remove the spoil, caravans, tyres etc.

Update Appeals dismissed on 17.5.05. Compliance periods expire on

17.8.05 (removal of bund, builders yard and tyres), 17.11.05 (removal of caravans) and 17.12.05 (removal of hard standing).



Site/Property 322 High Street, Harlington Ward Heathrow Village Date Received December 2001 Breach(es) The breaches of Planning Control involve:

i) Takeaway sales taking place in breach of condition 5 of planning permission 51047/APP/2001/2614 which restricted the use of the premises to the preparation of hot and cold food for home delivery only, and,

ii) Two projecting first-floor signs have not been removed in breach of an Enforcement Notice served in December 1997.

Background The above two matters were reported to the Hayes and Harlington

Planning Committee on 23 December 2003. Update To date:

i) The two unauthorised signs have been removed. ii) A prosecution statement is being drafted in connection with the

non-compliance with the breach of condition notice. Site/Property 11 & 12, Hillingdon Road, Uxbridge Ward Brunel Date Received June 2003 Breach(es) The breaches of Planning Control involve:

a) The change of use from hostel to three two-bedroom flats, three one-bedroom flats and one studio flat incorporating off-street parking without planning permission, and,

b) Internal and external alterations in connection with the change of use without Listed Building Consent.

Background A retrospective planning application was refused in July 2004 and

Enforcement action authorised together with Listed Building Enforcement action.

Update Applications for planning and Listed Building consent have been

submitted in January 2005 to rectify the breaches in planning control. Enforcement action is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of these applications.



Site/Property 46 Lothian Avenue, Hayes Ward Barnhill Date Received September 2003 Breach(es) The breach involves the erection of a two-storey side/rear extension

and single-storey rear extension without planning permission. Background A retrospective planning application was submitted and

subsequently refused on 15 June 2004 and Enforcement action authorised.

Update An appeal against the refusal of planning permission was dismissed

on 14 March 2005. A Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) was complied with. At the PCN meeting advice was sought and subsequently given as to an acceptable redesign. Planning application to be submitted by end June.



Site/Property 32 Lees Road, Hayes Ward Hillingdon East Date Received November 2004 Breach(es) The breach involves the erection of a single storey side and rear

extension. Background The unauthorised works were first brought to the Council’s attention

in November 2004. The site was inspected and it was found that a single storey side and rear extension was in the process of being constructed. The structure is flush with the front elevation of the north side of the bungalow and is 17.2m deep, 17.1m wide for the full width of the bungalow, 2.8m high and projects 4.3m from the existing rear extension. It is set 0.6m from the side boundary with 34 Lees Road and is partially constructed in block work with timber roof rafters. A report was presented to the Committee on 21 December 2004 recommending enforcement action as it was considered that the works by reason of its scale, bulk, flat roof design and depth of projection harms the appearance of the bungalow and the street scene. Furthermore, the side and rear extension prevents natural sunlight to and outlook from the rear ground floor bedroom window, creating a substandard form of accommodation for the future occupiers of the bungalow.

Update A planning application was submitted in January 2005 to rectify the

breach in planning control. This was refused by Committee on 10 May 2005. An Enforcement Notice was served 13/05/05 and will be effective 4/7/05.



Site/Property 222 & 224 Coldhabour Lane, Hillingdon Ward Townfield Date Received September 2004 Breach(es) The unauthorised conversion from residential to offices Background A retrospective planning application was submitted in September

2004 for the retention of offices. The change of use resulted in a loss of residential and no justification was put forward to outweigh the presumption in favour of residential. The application was refused and Enforcement action agreed at the Central/South Planning Committee in January 2005

Update Enforcement Notice issued on 2 March 2005. Invalid appeal

submitted but Planning Inspectorate (PI) granted extra time. PI finally dismissed appeal 8 July 2005, so that effective 8 November 2005.

Site/Property 2-4 Fairfield Road, Yiewsley Ward Yiewsley Date Received November 2004 Breach(es) Unauthorised change of use from retail to restaurant Background A retrospective planning application was received in November

2004 for the retention of a change of use from retail to restaurant use. The application was reported to the Central/South Planning Committee on 18 January 2005 with a recommendation to refuse planning permission as it is considered that the unauthorised use results in harm to the vitality of the Yiewsley/West Drayton Town Centre. Enforcement action was also recommended. Members agreed officer recommendations.

Update Legal Services have advised that the response from the Planning

Contravention Notice does not provide evidence of when the alleged unauthorised use commenced. Officers are gathering additional information to demonstrate that the alleged unauthorised use has not continued for 10 years.



Site/Property Texaco Petrol Station, Sipson Corner, Bath Road, Harlington Ward Heathrow Villages Date Received July 2004 Breach(es) Unauthorised erection of a free standing non-illuminated double

sided advertisement hoarding Background An application for advertisement consent was received in July 2004

for the retention of a freestanding non-illuminated double-sided advertisement hoarding. The application was reported to the Central/South Planning Committee on 8 February 2005 with a recommendation to refuse advertisement consent as it is considered that the unauthorised hoarding is detrimental to the visual amenities of the surrounding area. Prosecution was also recommended. Members agreed officer recommendations. Refusal was appealed in May 2005.

Update Appeal yet to be decided, prosecution held in abeyance pending

outcome. Site/Property 2 Denziloe Avenue, Hillingdon Ward Hillingdon East Date Received January 2002 Breach(es) The unauthorised erection of a side dormer window Background A planning application for the retention of a side dormer extension

at 2 Denziloe Avenue, Hillingdon was refused and Enforcement action authorised by the Uxbridge Planning Committee on the 23 January 2002. The Enforcement Notice was issued on the 21 November 2002 requiring the removal of the side dormer extension. An appeal was lodged against the Enforcement Notice and subsequently dismissed and the Enforcement Notice upheld without variation on the 29 April 2003. The Enforcement Notice required compliance by the 29 July 2003. A visit by a Planning Enforcement Officer on 19 November 2004 confirmed that the unauthorised side dormer extension has not been removed in breach of the Enforcement Notice.

Update A report was presented to the Central/South Planning Committee on

8 February 2005 recommending prosecution for the non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice. Members agreed officer recommendation. Draft prosecution statement sent to Legal Services in February 2005 and is likely to be served in July depending upon the Magistrates’ Court timetable.



Site/Property 305-309 Long Lane, Hillingdon Ward Uxbridge North Date Received November 2001 Breach(es) Unauthorised change of use from class A2 to class A3 and the

installation of an extraction flue Background A planning application was received in October 2002 for a change

of use of the ground floor from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A3 (Food and Drink) at 309 Long Lane, for use as a restaurant connected to 305-307 Long Lane and alterations to front and rear elevations including a new shopfront. It was considered that the proposal would cause significant harm to the vitality and viability of the Local Centre and that the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers would be significantly affected by the proposal. A report was presented to the Central/South Planning Committee on 8 February 2005 with a recommendation to refuse planning permission. In addition, enforcement action was recommended for the unauthorised installation of an extractor flue to the rear of the building and non-submission of noise insulation and ventilation scheme in compliance with Condition 3 of planning permission ref. 5292/APP/2000/2560 dated 30/5/2001.

Update Officers are negotiating the relocation of the external flue.

Enforcement action has been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the negotiations.

Site/Property 2 Lynhurst Crescent, Hillingdon Ward Hillingdon East Date Received February 2004 Breach(es) Unauthorised erection of side and rear conservatories Background A planning application was submitted in February 2004 for the

retention of side and rear conservatories. A report was presented to the Central/South Planning Committee on 21 December 2004 with a recommendation to grant planning permission. Members resolved to refuse planning permission as it was considered that the works harm the appearance of the existing house and the visual amenities of the street scene. Members agreed to take Enforcement action at the Central/South Planning Committee on 8 February 2005.

Update An Enforcement Notice was served 26/04/05 and appealed 7/6/05.

A start date from the PI is awaited.



Site/Property 52 Lynhurst Crescent Ward Hillingdon East Date Received April 1996 Breach(es) Unauthorised erection of a hip to gable end and installation of a rear

dormer window. Background It was brought to the Council’s attention in March 1996 that works

comprising the erection of an extension to the original hip roof to form a gable end extension and the erection of a rear dormer window were taking place at 52 Lynhurst Crescent without the benefit of planning permission. A retrospective planning application was submitted in April 1996 and subsequently refused in September 1996 and authority given for the service of an Enforcement Notice. The Enforcement Notice was served on 27th November 1996. An appeal was lodged against the Notice and was subsequently dismissed on 26th November 1997 with the period for compliance varied from 6 months to 12 months. Therefore, the Notice required compliance by the 26th November 1998. In November 2002 a further planning application was received to replace the unauthorised rear dormer and gable end with a half hip and a smaller flat roof dormer. That application was refused on the 17th December 2002. A site visit by the Enforcement Officer on 19th January 2005 confirmed that the unauthorised works had not been removed in breach of the Notice.

Update A report recommending prosecution for non-compliance with the

Enforcement Notice was reported to the Central/South Planning Committee on 8 February 2005. The case was adjourned 21/6/05 for trial on 4/8/05, when the defendants pleaded guilty. They were fined £3,500 jointly with £250 costs.



Site/Property 223 Long Lane, Hillingdon Ward Uxbridge North Date Received January 2003 Breach(es) Unauthorised erection of two car ports Background

It was brought to the Council’s attention in January 2003 that two car ports were erected in the front garden of 223 Long Lane without the benefit of planning permission. The site was inspected in March 2003 and it was found that two carports were erected on either side of the front entrance gates adjacent to the highway. Each structure has a brick base with open sides facing into the site. The sides facing the highway and the adjoining properties are enclosed by timber boarding, painted dark brown. The carport adjacent to the side boundary with 221 Long Lane measures approximately 5.5m wide, 6.1m long and 3.3m high. The carport adjacent to the side boundary with 225 Long Lane is slightly smaller in size and measures approximately 4m wide, 6m long and 2.9m high. The roofs are flat and finished in timber and covered in lead. A Planning Contravention Notice was issued in February 2004. A response was received which states that the structures were completed in March 2001.

Update An appeal was received on 8 April 2005 against the decision to

issue an Enforcement Notice. Enforcement action is held in abeyance pending the outcome of the appeal.



Site/Property 101 Bridge Road, Uxbridge Ward Uxbridge South Date Received November 2004 Breach(es) Unauthorised erection of a single storey detached outbuilding in the

rear garden and the use of 101 Bridge Road as a place of worship. Background A planning application for the retention of a single storey outbuilding

for use as a place of worship was submitted in November 2004. During consideration of the application it was brought to the Council’s attention that 101 Bridge Road was being used as a place of worship on certain days of the week. The planning application was presented to the Central/South Planning Committee with a recommendation to refuse planning permission as the structure was considered to be visually intrusive in the street scene and its use as a place of worship failed to provide sufficient parking spaces. Enforcement action was also recommended to secure the removal of the outbuilding and the cessation of the use of 101 Bridge Road as a place of worship.

Update Enforcement Notices were served on 10/3/05 with a compliance

date 25/07/05. A compliance check on 25/07/05 revelled that the notices had not been fully complied with. A warning letter was sent on 01/09/05 giving seven days to fully comply with the notices.

Site/Property 1 Queens Road, Hayes Ward Townfield Date Received April 2005 Breach Unauthorised residential extensions Background New complaint Update Aerial photographs show the outstanding possible breaches (front

extension and rear canopy extension) have likely been in place for more than 4 years and are likely to be immune from enforcement action.



Site/Property Hayes Gate House, 27 Uxbridge Road, Hayes Ward Townfield Date Received May 2005 Breach Unauthorised change-of-use (c-o-u) to entertainment venue Background Offices being advertised for event hire. Planning permission for

conversion to hotel unimplemented. Update PCN replies received and current unauthorised status of the hire

use confirmed. An application to being prepared for a new hotel proposal, it is now to include the current temporary use.

Site/Property 55 Micawber Avenue, Hillingdon Ward Brunel Date Received January 2005 Breach Unauthorised dormer windows Background Roof replacement/loft conversion not implemented in accordance

with plans. Planning permission (ref.: 11503/APP/2005/457) was granted on 28/06/05 for the inclusion of a rooflight. Enforcement action was also authorised for the lack of obscure glazing in the installed dormer windows.

Update A Breach of Condition Notice has been served, effective 15/08/05,

compliance due 15/09/05. Site/Property 77a Laburnum Road, Hayes Ward Pinkwell Date Received November 2004 Breach Unauthorised business use of residential premises Background Land untidy due to storage of building materials and skip

containing construction waste. Update Reply to PCN received, skip and majority of building materials

removed, and the property tidied. The use of property is no longer considered to be unauthorised.



Site/Property Bournes Bridge, Dawley Road, Hayes Ward Townfield Date Received May 2005 Breach Illegal advert hoarding Background New complaint. Update Letters under caution sent to advertiser and hoarding company.

Replies due 7/7/05. Chaser letters sent by Legal 25/08/05. Site/Property Old Coal Depot, Yiewsley Rail Sidings, Tavistock Road, Yiewsley Ward Yiewsley Date Received May 2005 Breach C-o-u to storage of aggregates and of commercial vehicles. Background This former British Coal Depot is leased long-term by EWS

Railway and used by Larfarge Aggregates for the storage of such and Eurostorage UK for the storage of a variety of heavy vehicles machinery and equipment.

Update All 3 replies were received to a PCN served on the above parties.

The storage of aggregates is likely to be considered permitted development under Pt.17 of the GPDO (Statutory Railway Undertakers). The other storage activities are considered to be unauthorised and Eurostorage UK has been invited to submit an application.