COMMITTEE REPORT PROFORMA - London Borough of Hillingdon

AVAILABLE 

IN LARGE 

PRINT 

Meeting: 

Hayes & Harlington Planning Committee 

Date: Thursday 1 st May 2003 Time: 7.30pm 

Place: 

Committee Room 5, Civic Centre, Uxbridge 

Committee Administrator: Nadia Williams Tel: 01895 277655 

Press Enquiries: Roy Mills Tel: 01895 250534 

Councillors on the Committee 

Conservative 

David Bishop (Chairman) 

George Cooper (Vice-Chairman) 

Margaret Grant 

Alf Langley 

Labour 

Dalip Chand 

Ken Lakhan 

John Oswell 

Advisory Member 

Harmondsworth & Sipson Conservation Panel 

Vacant 

Substitute Councillors 

David Routledge Mary O’Connor David Horne Paul Harmsworth 

Bruce Baker Roshan Ghei Phoday Jarjussey 

Henry Higgins Mo Khursheed Peter Curling 

Ann Banks Tony Burles Rod Marshall 

Geoff Courtenay 

Janet Duncan 

You are invited to attend the above meeting. The agenda is attached. 

David Brough 

Head of Democratic Services 

Smoking is not allowed in the Committee Room 

Hayes Planning Committee – 1 May 2003 Page 1 

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Parking is available to the public attending meetings - entrance from Uxbridge 

High Street 

DESPATCH DATE: Wednesday 23 rd April 2003 



HAYES & HARLINGTON PLANNING COMMITTEE 1 ST MAY 2003 

AGENDA 

1. Apologies for absence and to report the attendance of any substitute 

members. 

2. To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 3 rd April 2003, attached. 

3. Disclosure of ‘any other business’ items to be considered in public and private. 

4. Confirmation that all items marked Part 1 will be considered in public and that 

any items marked Part 2 will be considered in private. 

5. Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation Services, copy attached. 

PART 1 – PUBLIC 

BARNHILL WARD 

1. Land at 

Langworth Drive 

Hayes 

Increase in height of existing perimeter 

fences and walls, alterations of existing 

entrance to accommodate new vehicular 

and pedestrian sliding gates. 

Recommendation: Approval 

BOTWELL WARD 

Page 1 

2. 24 Princes Park Avenue 

Hayes 

3. Land rear of 

28-34 Keith Road 

Hayes 

4. 11-21 Clayton Road 

Hayes 

5. 14 Lannock Road 

Hayes 

Erection of a part single storey side and 

rear extension and part two-storey side 

and rear extension. 

Recommendation: Refusal 

Erection of two chalet bungalows with 

parking (duplicate application). 


Erection of a 94 bedroom, five floor 

hotel with associated parking (involving 

demolition of the existing buildings). 

Recommendation: 

Erection of a two-storey side and a part 

two-storey and a part single storey rear 

extension. 


Page 9 

Page 12 

Page 21 

Page 35 



6. Mellow Lane School 

Hewens Road 

Hayes 

7. Mellow Lane School 

Hewens Road 

Hayes 

8. The White Hart 

Public House 

1186 Uxbridge Road 

Hayes 

CHARVILLE WARD 

Laying out of new all-weather playing 

surface and erection of additional changing 

facilities adjoining existing gymnasium. 


Erection of a two-storey extension and first 

floor extension to provide a pupils 

communication centre. 


Erection of 43 residential units with 

associated amenity space and parking 

(involving demolition of the existing 

buildings). 

Recommendation: Refusal 

Page 42 

Page 45 

Page 49 

HEATHROW VILLAGES WARD 

9. 41 Sipson Way and 

Ground Floor of 

47 Sipson Way 

Sipson 

West Drayton 

10. Brookside Moor Lane 

Harmondsworth 

11. 361 Sipson Road 

Sipson 

West Drayton 

12. 363 Sipson Road 

Sipson 

West Drayton 

The unauthorised change of use from A1 

retail and residential flat above to use as a 

cargo/freight business. 

Recommendation: Enforcement Action 

Unauthorised commercial use for open 

storage/scrap together with boundary 

fencing. 

Recommendation: Prosecution Action 

Variation of Condition 4 (to extend hours of 

opening between 12:00 hours and 14:00 

hours and 17:00 hours –23:00 Sunday to 

Thursday, 17:00 hours 23:30 hours Friday 

and 12:00-23:30 hours on Saturday) of the 

Secretary of States Appeal Decision: Ref: 

T/APP/R5510/A/96/271466 dated 14/01/97 

change of use of ground floor from Class 

A1 (retail to ClassA3 (food and drink). 


Change of use of ground floor from Class 

A2 (financial and professional services) to 

Class A3 (food and drink) 


Page 63 

Page 71 

Page 88 

Page 95 



13. Hyde House 

Newhaven Close 

Hayes 

14. Land forming part of 

24 Cotmans Close 

Hayes 

15. 24 Cotmans Close 

Hayes 

16. 10B Botwell Lane 

Hayes 

17. 4 Hamilton Road 

Hayes 

18. 21 Norwood Gardens 

Hayes 

PINKWELL WARD 

Erection of 7 houses and 9 supported flats 

(involving demolition of existing residential 

home). 

Recommendation: S106 Agreement 

TOWNFIELD WARD 

Erection of a single storey rear 

extension (retrospective application). 



extension (retrospective application). 


Change of use from office (Class B1) to 

3 self contained studio flats (Class C3). 


Erection of a single storey side 

extension. 


YEADING WARD 


extension. 


Page 105 

Page 116 

Page 119 

Page 123 

Page 127 

Page 133 

19. 55 Brookside Road 

Hayes 

20. 35 Swanage Way 

Hayes 

Erection of a part two-storey, part single 

storey side extension. 


Erection of a part single part two-storey 

rear extension. 


Page 136 

Page 139 



ALL WARDS 

21. New Appeals and Appeals Decision received between: 

1 March and 31 March 2003 

22. Decisions taken by officers under delegated powers between: 

1 February and 28 February 2003 

Page 142 

Page 143 

23. List of Background Documents to all reports Page 158 

6. Any other business and urgent items in Part 1 

PART 2 – PRIVATE 

7. Any items transferred from Part 1 

8. Any other business and urgent items in Part 1 



HAYES AND HARLINGTON PLANNING COMMITTEE 

Meeting held at the Civic Centre, Uxbridge 

on Thursday 3 rd April 2003 at 7.30pm 

_______________________________ 

Councillor David Bishop (Chairman) 

Councillor George Cooper (Vice-Chairman) 

Councillors: Margaret Grant Dalip Chand 

Alf Langley 

Ken Lakhan 

John Oswell 

Also Present: Councillors Peter Ryerson, Mike Usher, John Major, Lee Griffin 

and Rod Marshall (Standing Order 6 (2)) 

_______________________________ 

1. MINUTES 

The minutes of meeting of the Committee held on 5 th February 2003 were 

agreed as correct and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following 

amendments: On page 6 relating to the application on Lombardy Park, 

Coldharbour Lane, Hayes, Councillor John Oswell from the Labour Group 

voted in favour of the officer’s recommendation. He did not therefore 

request for his dissent to be noted together with the other Labour Members. 

2. DECLARATION OF PERSONAL INTEREST 

Councillor Dalip Chand and Councillor Margaret Grant declared personal 

and non-prejudicial interests in the following applications: Land at Eastern 

Perimeter Road, Heathrow Airport and Brookside Moor Lane, 

Harmondsworth. Councillor Ken Lakhan declared a personal and 

prejudicial interest in connection with the application on Quenchwell House, 

Newhaven Close, Hayes. 

3. BUSINESS TO BE CONDUCTED IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE 

The Committee agreed that items marked Part 1 would be conducted in 

public and the items marked Part 2 would be conducted in private. 

4. APPLICATIONS APPROVED 

RESOLVED - That the following applications be approved subject to the 

Conditions and Informatives set out in the officers report and amendment 

sheet, or as indicated beneath the individual description:- 

ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER 

23 Chatsworth Road Erection of a two-storey side and 1664/APP/2002/2108 

Hayes 

part two storey single storey rear 



extension. 


104 Lansbury Drive Change of use from class A1 2615/APP/2002/1766 

Hayes 

(retail) to class A3 (food and 

Drink), installation of new shopfront 

and side extractor duct. 

181 Woodrow Avenue Erection of first floor rear 

46849/APP/2002/3003 

Hayes 

Pheasant Nurseries 

West End Lane 

Harlington 

extension. 

Retention of a single storey 

ancillary office building (which 

involved removal of a single storey 

garage/storage building, in 

association with the production of 

boxed plants and shrubs, provision 

of access road, five parking spaces 

and erection of double gates. 

276/APP/2002/2007 

The Committee requested that officers should pay particular attention to the 

premises to ensure horticultural use. 


British Telecom 

Computer Centre 

Colne Brook By-Pass 

Longford 

Installation of 6 dual-band, plane 

polar antennae; 4 600mm diameter 

transmission cabin and ancillary 

development (application for 

determination under Schedule 2 

Part 24 of the GPDO 1995). 

34097/APP/2003/276 

12 East Avenue 

Hayes 

Quenchwell House 

140 Coldharbour Lane 

Hayes 

Change of use of ground floor of 

the premises from A1 (retail) to 

learning centre (retrospective 

application). 

Erection of an enclosed 

walkway/corridor to link the main 

building to the laundry room. 

5487/APP/2002/1026 

12665/APP/2003/176 

Councillor Ken Lakhan declared a personal and prejudicial interest in that the 

applicant was known to him and withdraw from the discussion. 


3 Chaucer Avenue Erection of a rear extension 5486/APP/2002/2534 

Hayes 

(Retrospective Application). 

The Committee added the following additional condition: 

Condition 

The development hereby approved shall not be sub-divided to form additional 

dwelling units or used in multiple occupation without a further express permission 

from the Local Planning Authority. 



REASON - To ensure that the premises remain as a single dwelling until such 

time as the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied that conversion would be in 

accordance with Policy H7 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan. 


3 Church Close Erection of a single/part two-storey 30527/APP/2002/2315 

Hayes 

rear extension with pitched roofs 

and installation of two rear 

dormers. 

16 Strathearn Avenue Erection of a first floor side and 2800/APP/2002/1173 

Harlington 

Taylor Woodrow 

Complex 

Broadmead Road 

Hayes 

single-storey rear extension. 

Details of siting, design and 

external appearance of 

development in respect of housing 

area1, pursuant to condition 1 of 

outline planning permission Ref: 

327/APP/2000/2106 dated 17.5.02 

for phased redevelopment and part 

refurbishment of site/buildings 

(straddling Hillingdon and Ealing 

Boroughs) To provide mixed use, 

1-8 storeys, development 

comprising 705 residential units 

and non offices, 7520 square 

metres refurbished offices, 680 

square metres light 

industrial/workshops retained for 

use as managed workspace, 890 

square metres of additional 

managed workspace, 100 square 

metres wardens office/meeting 

rooms, 100 square metres teleworking 

240 square metres 

restaurant, 480 square metres 

crèche, 200 square metres 

ancillary commercial floorspace to 

canal basin area, 1500 square 

metres separate health facility, 

4945 square metres sports 

complex, together with children’s 

play/adventure play areas, youth 

shelter, sports pitches, parkland 

landscaping and wildlife area, new 

canal basin, new bridge over canal 

and rebuilding of vehicular access 

from Ruislip Road and Broadmead 

Road, and environmental impact 

statement. 

327/APP/2002/1397 



5. APPLICATION REFUSED 

out 

RESOLVED: That the following application be refused for the reasons set 

in the officers’ report and amendment sheet. 


Land at 10 & 12 and 

forming part of 2,4,6,8 

and 14 Milton Close 

Hayes 

Erection of 1 block of 10 flats (4 

one-bedroom and 6 two-bedroom) 

plus 9 three-bedroom houses in 3 

blocks with associated car parking 

and landscaping (involving the 

demolition of 10 and 12 Milton 

Close). 

57046/APP/2002/2035 

A representative of the petitioners objecting to the proposal addressed the 

meeting (Standing Order 12 (5)). Two Ward Councillors spoke about the 

application (Standing Order 6 (2)). 

6 SITE VISITS 


14 Lannock Road 

Hayes 

Erection of a two-storey side and a 

part two-storey and a part singe 

storey rear extension (involving 

demolition of existing garage). 

39804/APP/2002/2741 


meeting (Standing Order 12 (5)). A Ward Councillor spoke about the application 

(Standing Order 6 (2)). It was moved, seconded and agreed that the application 

be deferred for Members to visit the site. 


Hyde House 

Newhaven Close 

Hayes 

Erection of 7 houses and 9 

supported flats (involving 

demolition of existing two storey 

residential home). 

2306/APP/2002/238 


meeting (Standing Order 12 (5)). 



7. OTHER DECISIONS 

Decisions on the following applications are indicated beneath each individual 

description:- 


Land at Eastern 

Perimeter Road 

Heathrow Airport 

A) Upgrade of the Eastern 

Perimeter Road to a wide single 

carriageway (10M) standard form 

54182/99/1585 

its junction with Enfield Road 

roundabout to the existing access 

point into the east maintenance 

area. 

Land at West of River 

Crane and North of 

Eastern Perimeter Road 

Heathrow Airport 

B) Environmental enhancements 

to the Crane Valley including the 

restoration of contaminated land. 

54180A/99/1583 

Councillor Dalip Chand and Councillor Margaret Grant declared personal and 

non- prejudicial interests in this application. 

RESOLVED 

A) That the Council enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and 

Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) with the applicant to secure the 

following:- 

• -the closure of Eastchurch Road as a road for through traffic and to 

establish a bus priority route via this area. 

• off-site screen planting and maintenance of the native tree and shrub 

screen alongside the widened section of the Eastern Perimeter Road as 

identified on drawing number 1068601/04 Rev B. 

• Transfer of the lorry park fronting the A30 as identified on drawing number 

1068601/04 Rev B to the London Wildlife Trust. 

• Restoration, landscaping and maintenance of the lorry park site in 

accordance with the approved scheme (LPA ref: 54180A/99/1583). 

• that the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable cost in the preparation of 

the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the 

agreement not being completed. 

1. That subject to the above, the application be deferred for determination by the 

Head of Planning and Transportation under delegated powers, subject to the 

completion of the agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country 

Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers, with the applicant. 

2. That if the application is approved the conditions and informatives in the 

officer’s report be attached. 



B) Permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives in the 

Officer’s report. 


68 Mildred Avenue Erection of a rear extension 802/APP/2002/2178 

Hayes 

(retrospective application). 

RESOLVED 

A) That the application be Refused for the following reason: 

The additional rear extension by reason of its overall size, height, siting and 

length of projection is an overdominant and visually obtrusive form of 

development in relation to the neighbouring properties and as such 

constitute an un-neighbourly form of development, resulting in a material 

loss of residential amenity. The rear extension is therefore contrary to 

Policies BE15, BE19 and BE21 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary 

Development Plan and design principles A3, A4 and B3 of the Council’s 

Design Guide “Residential Extensions”. 

B) That the Head of Planning and Transportation be authorised to instruct 

the Borough Solicitor to issue an Enforcement Notice to remedy the breach 

of planning control under delegated authority and to take all necessary 

legal steps, to secure compliance, in respect of: 

The unauthorised erection of an additional single storey rear extension at 

68 Mildred Avenue, Hayes, Middlesex. 

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

breach of planning control: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

demolish the rear extension; 

remove from the land all debris, rubble, roofing and all other 

materials resulting from the demolition; 

reinstate the land to garden. 

2. That a period of three months be given for compliance with the terms of the 

Enforcement Notice. 

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

(i) 

The additional rear extension by reason of its overall size, height, 

siting and length of projection is an overdominant and visually 

obtrusive form of development in relation to the neighbouring 

properties and as such constitute an un-neighbourly form of 

development, resulting in a material loss of residential amenity. The 

rear extension is therefore contrary to Policies BE15, BE19 and 

BE21 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and 



design principles A3, A4 and B3 of the Council’s Design Guide 

“Residential Extensions”. 


16 Strathearn Avenue 

Harlington 

Erection of a replacement 

detached garage and boundary 

wall (Retrospective Application) 

2800/APP/2002/2265 

RESOLVED 

A) That the application be refused for the following reasons:- 

1. The detached garage in the rear garden by reason of its overall size, bulk, 

height, siting on a prominent bend in the road, projection beyond the front 

building line of No. 39 Langley Crescent and proximity to the highway 

results in an overdominant / incongruous form of development which is 

detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding 

area. The garage is contrary to policies BE13, BE19 and BE21 of the 

adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan. 

2. The 1.7 metre high boundary wall between No. 16 Strathearn Avenue and 

No. 39 Langley Crescent by reason of its height and siting in close 

proximity to the highway and detached garage fails to provide adequate 

visibility for a vehicle reversing out of the garage resulting in conditions 

prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. The boundary wall is contrary 

to policies BE18 and AM7 of the adopted Hillingdon Development Plan. 

B) That Members consider the expediency of taking enforcement action in 

respect of the detached garage in the rear garden and boundary wall 

between No. 16 Strathearn Avenue and No. 39 Langley Crescent. 

C) That the Head of Planning and Transportation be authorised to instruct the 

Borough Solicitor to take the appropriate enforcement action to remedy the 

breach of planning control in accordance with officer delegated authority in 

respect of: 

The erection of a replacement detached garage at 16 Strathearn Avenue, Harlington. 

Either 

(a) 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

That the Notice shall require the following steps to be taken to 

remedy the breach of planning control: 

demolish the 5.1m wide, 7.8m deep by 3.1m high 

replacement detached garage in its entirety; 

remove from the land all foundations; 

remove from the land all resulting building materials, bricks, 

window frames, wood, doors, rubble and debris associated 

with compliance with steps (i) and (ii) above; 



(b) 

Or 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

Demolish that part of the detached garage that is 2.6 metres 

deep (from the front of the garage), for its full width (5.1 

metres) and its total height (3.1 metres) by the removal of the 

roof, brick courses, tiles and other materials. 

Make good the resulting building by re-building the front wall 

of the garage in the new position using bricks to match the 

existing garage to a maximum height of 3.1 metres by the 

inclusion of a garage door, rafters, beams, batons, roofing felt 

and roofing tiles. 

remove from the land all resulting building materials, bricks, 

window frames, wood, doors, rubble and debris not required 

to effect compliance with steps (I) and (ii) above. 

(iv) 

That the reason to be stated for the issue of the Notice be as 

follows: 

The detached garage in the rear garden by reason of its overall size, 

bulk, height, siting on a prominent bend in the road, projection 

beyond the front building line of No. 39 Langley Crescent and 

proximity to the highway results in an overdominant / incongruous 

form of development which is detrimental to the visual amenities of 

the street scene and surrounding area. The garage is contrary to 

policies BE13, BE19 and BE21 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary 

Development Plan. 

(c) 

That the period of 3 months be given for compliance with the terms 

of the Enforcement Notice. 

D) That the Head of Planning and Transportation be authorised to 

instruct the Borough Solicitor to take the appropriate enforcement 

action to remedy the breach of planning control in accordance with 

officer delegated authority in respect of: 

The erection of a 1.7 metre high boundary wall at 16 Strathearn Avenue, 

Harlington. 

(a) 

That the Notice shall require the following steps to be taken to 

remedy this breach of planning control: 

(i) 

(ii) 

demolish that part of the 1.7 metre high boundary wall 

between No. 39 Langley Crescent and No. 16 

Strathearn Avenue that exceeds the permitted 1 metre 

height for its full length by the removal of brick courses 

and other materials; 

make good the resulting wall using materials to match 

to a maximum height of 1 metre; 



(iii) 

remove from the land all resulting building materials, 

bricks, rubble and debris not required to effect 

compliance with steps (i) and (ii) above; 

(b) 

That the reason to be stated for the issue of the Notice be as 

follows: 

The 1.7 metre high boundary wall (between No. 16 Strathearn 

Avenue and No. 39 Langley Crescent) by reason of its height and 

siting in close proximity to the highway and detached garage fails to 

provide adequate visibility for a vehicle reversing out of the garage 

resulting in conditions prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. 

The boundary wall is contrary to policies BE18 and AM7 of the 

adopted Hillingdon Development Plan. 

(C) 

That the period of 3 months be given for compliance with the terms 

of the Enforcement Notice. 


41 Triandra Way 

Yeading 

Hayes 

Erection of a wooden shed in rear 

garden 

56249/APP/2001/1057 

RESOLVED 

1. That the Committee should consider the expediency of enforcement 

action, including the service of an Enforcement Notice under Section 

172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

2. That the Head of Planning and Transportation be authorised to 

instruct the Borough Solicitor to issue an Enforcement Notice in 

accordance with officer delegated powers in respect of: 

the unauthorised erection of a wooden shed in the rear garden of 41 

Triandra Way, Yeading. 

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

remedy the breach of planning control: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

remove the garden shed from the land; 

remove all wood, roofing felt, materials, rubbish and debris; 

reinstate the land to a garden. 

4. That the reasons to be stated for the issue of the notice be as 

follows: 

(i) 

The unauthorised structure results in an over development of the 

site resulting in an obtrusive feature when viewed from adjoining 

properties creating a dominating impact which is detrimental to the 



character and visual amenities of the area, contrary to policies BE13 

and BE19 of the Borough’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan. 

5. That a period of 2 months be given for compliance with the terms of 

the Enforcement Notice. 

8. NEW APPEALS AND APPEALS DECISIONS 

RESOLVED - That the New Appeals and Appeals decisions received 

between 1 January and 28 February 2003 be noted. 

9. DECISION TAKEN BY OFFICERS UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

RESOLVED -That the decisions taken by officers under delegated authority 

for the period 1 January to 31 January 2003 be noted. 

10. S106/278 PLANNING AGREEMENTS – QUARTERLY FINANCIAL 

MONITORING REPORT 

RESOLVED – That the S106/278 Planning Agreements – Quarterly 

Financial Monitoring report be noted. 

11. BROOKSIDE, MOOR LANE, HARMONDSWORTH – UNAUTHORISED 

COMMERCIAL USE (58546/APP/98/2307 & EN/00/3 

Councillor Dalip Chand and Councillor Margaret Grant declared personal and 

non-prejudicial interests in this application and took part in the discussion. 

The report was considered in Part 2 because information relating to the report 

that was to be reported to the meeting constituted exempt information as 

defined in 

the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. 

The Committee had received 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. 

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred until the next Hayes and 

Harlington Planning Committee to enable officers to seek further legal advice. 

The meeting closed at 9:25 p.m. 



PLANNING COMMITTEE – 1 MAY 2003 

(HAYES & HARLINGTON) 

REPORT OF THE HEAD 

OF PLANNING AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

Item No. 1 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation 

LAND AT LANGWORTH DRIVE, HAYES 

Increase in height of existing perimeter fences and walls, 

alterations to existing entrance to accommodate new 

vehicular and pedestrian sliding gates. 

2084/APP/2002/3027 

A 

Drawing Nos: 

Drawing Nos. D/02/1/2073-1; D/02/1/2073-2 & D/02/1/2073-3 

Date of receipt: 14/2/03 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 14/3/03 

(1) SUMMARY 

This application by Housing Services seeks to improve security at the existing 

Langworth Drive sheltered housing complex through improvements to the 

boundary fencing. This has been in response to incidents of criminal activity and 

anti-social behaviour at the complex, in addition to preventing the use of 

Langworth Drive as an informal pedestrian thoroughfare. It is also anticipated that 

the proposed access gate will prevent parking problems caused by persons using 

Langworth Drive as free parking for adjacent Uxbridge Road businesses. 

The proposed works include the erection of a powder coated, galvanised fence 

with electrically operated gates along the front boundary, in addition to increasing 

existing fence heights along strategic portions of the remaining boundaries by the 

addition of railings, timber trellis or plastic coated chain mesh to existing 

closeboard and brick fences. 

It is considered that the proposed development works are acceptable. The 

design, siting and height of the proposed fencing is not considered to significantly 

affect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers or the street scene in general. 

Planning permission is recommended. 

(2) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:- 

1. (T1) Time limit 1. (T1) Standard 

2. (TL1) Existing Trees - Survey (TL1) Standard 

(TL2) Trees to be Retained 3. (TL2) Standard 

4. (TL3) Protection of Trees & 4. (TL3) Standard 



Plants 

5. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme 5. (TL5) Standard 

6. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme - 6. (TL6) Standard 

Implementation 

7. (TL7) Landscaping Maintenance 7. (TL7) Standard 

8. (TL8) Screen Planting 

8. (TL8) Standard 

‘… height of 2 metres ...’ 

9. (M1) Details of Materials 9. (M1) Standard 

10. (M3) Boundary Treatment – 10. (M3) Standard 

Details 

11. (M7) Means of Boundary 11. (M7) Standard 

Enclosure – Screen Planting 

‘... on the front boundary ...’ 

12. (H1) Traffic Arrangements 12. (H1) Standard 

13. (H5) Sight Lines 13. (H5) Standard 

INFORMATIVES 

1. (36) Property Rights/Rights of Light 

2. (7) Legislation Administered by Building Control 

3. (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance 

(3) CONSIDERATIONS 

(3)(a) Site and Locality 

The site is 1.24 hectares in area, being currently occupied by a mix of 80 Council 

owned and managed sheltered flats/houses. These are predominantly occupied 

by elderly persons. The complex is based around Langworth Drive and Forsters 

Way, with vehicular and pedestrian access to the site obtained via Yeading Lane. 

The site is bounded by residential properties to the north, the Mecca Bingo Hall 

and associated car park to the west, the rear yards of Uxbridge Road shopping 

parades and a residential property to the south and Yeading Lane to the east. 

(3)(b) Scheme 

The proposed scheme comprise improvements to the fencing along all boundaries 

of the application site. These improvements have been designed primarily to 

improve security for the Council tenants residing within by preventing 

unauthorised access and parking on the site. 

The proposed front boundary fencing will be 1.8 metres in height, comprising of 

1.35 metre high galvanised steel railings (moss green colour), affixed to the top of 

the existing 0.45 metre high brick wall. The 17 metre length of front boundary 

fence closest to 25 Yeading Lane will be increased to 1.8 metres in height, with 

the addition of 0.3 metre high galvanised bars, moss green in colour, affixed to the 

top of the existing 1.5 metre high brick wall. 



Approximately midway along the front boundary, it is proposed to install an 

electrically operated access gate on the location of the existing access. The gates 

are activated via an access control panel situated in the drive and accessible from 

the drivers window. The existing single entry vehicle access will be widened to 

create a separate in/out arrangement, each 4 metres wide and divided by an oval 

shaped traffic island. Pedestrian access from the front boundary will be 

maintained via a pedestrian access gate. 

The side boundaries will comprise of mixed fencing treatments, reflecting differing 

security needs. On the southern boundary abutting 11 Yeading Lane, it is 

proposed to erect a 1.8 metre high fence consisting of a 1.5 metre wall with 0.3 

metre galvanised steel bars (moss green) affixed to a new wall constructed 

parallel to the existing wall. The remainder of the fence along the boundaries of 11 

Yeading Lane and 392 Uxbridge Road comprises of a 0.6 metre high section of 

the timber trellis affixed to the top of the existing 1.8 metre high closeboard fence. 

The section behind 28, 29, 30 & 31 Bedford Avenue and along the rear and part 

of the side boundary with 25 Yeading Lane is also topped with timber trellis. 

The revised fence with the storage yards of 424 to 446 Uxbridge Road will 

comprise of a 0.6 metre high section of plastic coated chainlink fence affixed to 

the existing 1.8 metre high closeboard fence. The same plastic coated chainlink 

arrangement is also used in the section of fence bounding the rear accessways of 

32-35 Bedford Avenue. 

The section of fence bordering 460-468 Uxbridge Road and extending around the 

rear of the application site bordering the car park with Mecca Bingo comprises of a 

0.69 metre high section of powdercoated, galvanised steel bars (moss green) 

affixed to the top of the existing 1.63 metre high brick fence. 

(3)(c) Planning History 

No relevant planning permissions were identified. 

(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards 

UDP Designation: Development Area 

The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:- 

Part I Policies: 

Pt1.10 

To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the 

amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas. 

Part Two Policies: 

BE13 

New development must harmonise with the existing street scene. 



BE19 

BE38 

OE1 

New development must complement or improve the amenity and 

character of the area. 

Protection and provision of landscaping on the property using natural 

features where possible. 

Consideration of other environmental impacts on the amenities of 

surrounding properties. 

Design Guide: Residential Layouts and House Design 

(3)(e) Consultations 

External Consultees 

NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 148 No. of replies: 1 

Comments: 

1. Concerned that Council proposes to affix railings on side boundary wall 

with 11 Yeading Lane, which belongs to owner of 11 Yeading Lane. 

Internal Consultees 

Traffic Engineer 

Trees/Landscape Officer 

Access arrangements to Yeading Lane remain 

unchanged from initial plans sighted by Traffic 

Engineer, and are considered acceptable. 

The proposed works are likely to result in loss 

of trees along the Yeading Lane frontage. 

Lack of uniform materials may result in 

piecemeal appearance. However, a suitable 

landscaping scheme along the frontage and 

use of climbing plants in other areas could 

reduce visual impacts. The provision of this 

detail can be secured through a condition of 

permission. 

Crime Prevention Officer 

See below. 

(3)(f) Main Planning Issues 

The main planning issues in respect of this development are: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

Justification of the need for such fencing 

Effect on the character and visual amenities of the area 

Effect on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers 



(i) 

Justification of the need for such fencing 

The fencing has been requested by the Housing Department in response to 

incidents of anti-social behaviour, reported criminal activity and parking problems 

at the Langworth Drive sheltered housing complex. These problems are being 

exacerbated by the perceived vulnerability of the mainly elderly occupants, and 

the open nature of the estate. 

A letter of support works has been provided from the Metropolitan Police Crime 

Prevention Office, stating that: 

1. the number of incidents at complex is unusually high in relation to the 

number of dwellings; 

2. fencing will enhance “ownership” of the estate; and 

3. fencing will reduce possibility of unauthorised intrusion and use of the 

estate as a shortcut which is exacerbated by the current lack of appropriate 

fencing. 

In addition, Housing Services has provided copies of correspondence relating to 

security problems at the Langworth Drive complex. Problems identified in the 

correspondence include burglary, frequent incidents of anti-social behaviour 

emanating from the adjacent bus stop/pub, extensive littering and non-residents 

parking on the site to access businesses on Uxbridge Road. 

Planning considers that adequate evidence has been provided to justify the 

requirement for this fencing. The fencing will prevent unauthorised parking in 

Langworth Drive, whilst serving to increase the perception of safety which will 

allow residents to better enjoy their space. 

(ii) 


Whilst the proposed fencing will be visible from Yeading Lane and surrounding 

properties, it is considered that adequate measures have been undertaken to 

minimise visual amenity impacts. This includes limiting the height of the fencing to 

1.8 metres, using visually permeable bars and a colour (e.g. Moss Green) that will 

blend with the vegetation behind to some degree. In addition, the visual impact of 

the front fence can be softened through the provision of appropriate landscaping 

behind the fence. This vegetation would be in addition to the existing vegetation 

that exists along portions of the property frontages. The provision of further 

appropriate landscaping is proposed to be secured by way of a condition. 

The return fencing on the side boundaries visible from Langworth Drive will again 

be kept to a maximum of 1.8 metres in height, with a 300mm high section of 

steelwork being added to the existing 1.5 metre high brick fences. This will again 

be of a moss green colour, and visually permeable. 

Timber trellis sections have been placed in areas that are particularly prominent 

from amenity space on the application site, or from people’s garden areas. It is felt 

that trellis is a less intrusive option, and does not detract significantly from people 



enjoyment of their amenity space. Trellis topped sections include the length of 

fence along the boundaries of 11 Yeading Lane, behind 29-35 (odd) Langworth 

Drive, flanking the central amenity space area and behind 10-28 (even) Forsters 

Way. 

There is a 0.6 metre high plastic coated section of chainlink proposed to be added 

to fences in two sections, namely a 31 metre section behind 49-61(odd) 

Langworth Drive (backing onto the storage yard for businesses on Uxbridge 

Road) and a 29 metre section adjacent 44 and 46 Langworth Drive (abutting a 

secluded access for rear garages in Bedford Avenue). Whilst it is recognised that 

chainlink is not a visually appealing fencing option, it should be noted that its use 

has been limited to strategic areas where specific criminal problems may occur. In 

addition, the chainlink would be plastic coated and dark in colour to minimise its 

visual prominence. 

The increase in the height of the rear fence to 2.3 metres in height has been 

proposed in order to address specific security concerns arising from the Mecca 

Bingo car park abutting the site. Due to the secluded nature of this car park, it has 

been identified as an easy entry/exit point into the complex which needs fencing 

of a higher security level. Whilst it is recognised this fencing will be somewhat 

prominent from the rear gardens of 69-79 (odd) and 44-66 (even) Langworth 

Drive, it is proposed that the visual impact of this fencing can be somewhat 

lessened through the use of climbing and other types of vegetation. 

(iii) 


It is not considered that the proposed fencing will adversely affect the amenity of 

neighbouring properties. 

All proposed additions to existing fencing abutting residential gardens of 

neighbouring properties, namely 11 & 25 Yeading Lane and rear of 28, 29, 30, 31 

Bedford Avenue, will be of a timber lattice construction. Timber lattice is 

considered to provide an acceptable compromise between security and 

appearance. 

The proposed front boundary fencing lies opposite three residential properties and 

a hotel on Yeading Lane. It is considered that the proposed vegetation screening, 

colouring of the fence and open nature of the fencing will minimise possible 

adverse visual amenity impacts for these properties. 

As the property to the rear is a car park, the proposed metalwork added to the 

existing brick wall is not considered to result in adverse amenity impacts. The use 

of chainlink tops on fences abutting Uxbridge Road businesses and the Bedford 

Avenue rear accessway will not affect the enjoyment of residential amenity space 

on neighbouring properties. 



(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations 

One letter of objection was received from the owner of 11 Yeading Lane stating 

that no consent would be given to erect anything on walls in the occupiers 

ownership. 

As a result, it is proposed to construct a brick wall of the same height with railings 

on top just inside the Councils boundary. 

(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor 

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 the Members must not take any irrelevant 

considerations into account. 

Observations of Borough Treasurer 

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 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 Environmental Services Group and the 

wider Council. 

(4) CONCLUSION 

In summary, the proposed additional fencing works provide the opportunity to 

increase the security of the Langworth Drive sheltered housing complex, whilst 

presenting residential and visual amenity impacts that are either acceptable or 

can be minimised. 

As a secondary benefit, the controlled access gates will prevent the unauthorised 

parking of vehicles on the site by persons using the Uxbridge Road Shopping 

area. 

As such, approval is recommended. 

Reference Documents: 

(a) 

(b) 

Unitary Development Plan 

1 letter of objection 

Contact Officer: DAVID MORGAN Telephone No: 01895 277084 





B 

Item No. 2 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

Drawing Nos: 


24 PRINCES PARK AVENUE, HAYES 

ERECTION OF A PART SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR 

EXTENSION & PART TWO STOREY SIDE AND REAR 

EXTENSION. 

41952/APP/2003/221 

C/156/01, C/156/02, C/156/03, C/156/04 

Date of receipt: 30/01/03 Date(s) of Amendment(s): N/A 

CONSULTATIONS: 

Three consultation letters were sent, one objection has been received. This letter 

raised one material planning consideration:- 

(1) Accessibility to side of property 

KEY PLANNING ISSUES: 

UDP Designation: Developed Area 

• The proposed extension is to the side and rear of the semi-detached dwelling 

at No. 24 Princes Park Avenue, Hayes, and will extend to eastern property 

boundary of the site. The extension will be setback 1 metre from the existing 

front building line and have a length of 9.3 metres. The two-storey component 

is setback an additional 2.2 metres and has a length of 4.6 metres before the 

extension reverts back to single-storey. The proposed extension will have a 

pitched roof similar to the existing dwelling. 

• It is considered that the proposed development would be detrimental to the 

character of the surrounding streetscape of Princes Park Avenue, as the 

double storey extension would not maintain an acceptable visual separation 

distance with 22 Princess Park Avenue. Policy BE22 of the Unitary 

Development Plan requires a two-storey extension to be setback 1 metre from 

the side boundary. Therefore, the proposal also fails to satisfy this policy and 

policies BE13 and BE19; as well as Council’s policy on two storey side 

extensions as contained within Council’s design guide “Residential 

Extensions”. 

Observations of Borough Solicitor 





Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis 

of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant 




no financial implications for the planning committee or the council. 

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSAL, for the following reason:- 

The proposal by reason of its overall size, design and proximity to the side 

boundary, would result in a closing of the visually open gap between the 

neighbouring property, giving rise to a cramped form of development, which 

would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and 

character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to 

policies BE13, BE19 and BE22 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary 

Development Plan. It is also contrary to the Council’s policy on two storey 

side extensions as contained within the Council’s design guide “Residential 

Extensions”. 

INFORMATIVES 

If you require further information concerning the reason(s) why the Council 

refused planning permission or would like to discuss possible revisions to 

the scheme, please contact Mr. Robert Szymanski of the Development 

Control Team on 01895 277081. 

The policies referred to in the refusal notice are available for inspection in 

Planning Reception, Level 3 at The Civic Centre, Uxbridge. 


(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan 

1 letter making representation (the contents of which are summarised in the 

report) 

Supplementary Design Guide “Residential Extensions” 

Contact Officer: ROBERT SZYMANSKI Telephone Number: 01895 277081 





A 

Item No. 3 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

Drawing Nos: 


LAND REAR OF 28-34 KEITH ROAD, HAYES 

ERECTION OF TWO CHALET BUNGALOWS WITH 

PARKING (DUPLICATE APPLICATION) 

51745/APP/2002/2298 

PE/1/02, PE/3/02 and unnumbered OS Plan received 

04/12/02 and 27/01/03 


(1) SUMMARY 

Full planning permission is sought to erect two chalet bungalows. 

Members may recall that outline planning permission was granted at the Hayes 

and Harlington Planning Committee on 10/07/02, for two detached chalet 

bungalows. Means of access was only determined at this stage. The principle of 

the development has therefore been established for this site. 

This current application has been amended to reduce the overall scale and bulk of 

the dwelling house on plot 1 and revise the design of the dormer windows. It is 

considered that this revised scheme overcomes the previous reasons for refusal. 

(2) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions: - 

1. (T1) Time Limit – full planning 1. (T1) Standard 

application 

2. (M1) Details/Samples to be 2. (M1) Standard 

Submitted 

3. (M3) Boundary Treatment – 3. (M3) Standard 

details 

4. (OM1) Development in 

4. (OM1) Standard 

Accordance with Approved Plans 

5. (RPD5) Restrictions on Erection 5. (RPD5) Standard 

of Extensions, Garages, Sheds 

and Outbuildings 

5. (RPD9) Enlargement to Houses 5. (RPD9) Standard 

Consisting of Roof 

Additions/Alterations 

6. (OM7) Refuse and Open-Air 6. (OM7) Standard 

Storage 

7. (RPD6) Fences, Gates, Walls 7. (RPD6) Standard 




(full applications where details 

are reserved for future approval) 

9. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme – 

implementation 

10. (TL7) Maintenance of 

Landscaped Areas 

11. (H7) Parking Arrangements 

(Residential) 

12. (MRD4) Single Dwellings 

Occupation 



11. (H7) Standard 

12. (MRD4) Standard 

INFORMATIVES 

1. (36) Property Rights/Rights to Light 

2. (7) Building Regulations 



The application site concerns land approximately 600m² in area. The site 

comprises an access road, which runs between Nos. 28 and 30 Keith Road, and a 

plot of land, which is currently occupied by a block of four garages, a detached 

garage and a greenhouse. The plot of land occupied by the garages and 

greenhouse is approximately 465m² in area and is located between the rear 

garden of properties which front onto Keith Road to the north, Albert Road to the 

east and North Hyde Road to the south. 

(3)(b) Scheme 

Planning permission is sought to demolish the existing garages and greenhouse 

and erect two chalet bungalows. Both dwelling units on Plots 1 and 2 are of an 

identical handed design. Both dwelling units have two bedrooms in the roof space 

with one dormer window in the front elevation and two dormer windows in the 

rear. No. 28 Keith Road is to be retained, although some of the rear garden is to 

be lost in order to provide a turning area for emergency vehicles. 


On 9 July 1997 planning permission ref: 51745/97/342 was refused for the 

erection of 4 two-bedroom flats. The reasons for refusal were as follows: 

1. The proposal represents a cramped form of development which would be 

out of keeping with the layout and appearance of existing development in 

the area, being detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and existing 

street scene, contrary to Policies UL1 and UL2 of the Central Hillingdon 

Local Plan (CHLP) and Policies BE9 and BE12 of the Proposed 

Modifications Version of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP). 



2. The proposal by reason of its overall site coverage by building and hard 

surfacing would result in the overdevelopment of the site and fails to 

provide sufficient amenity space for the existing and proposed dwelling 

house as defined in the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning 

Guidance “Residential Layouts and House Design”. The proposal would 

therefore give rise to a substandard form of accommodation, being contrary 

to Policy UL7 of the CHLP and Policy BE15 of the UDP. 

3. The proposal fails to provide adequate parking, access and turning facilities 

in accordance with this Council’s Adopted Standards and Supplementary 

Planning Guidance as set out in this Council’s Design Guide “Roads in 

Residential Layouts”. The development is therefore likely to give rise to onstreet 

parking exacerbating existing parking problems on Keith Road and 

would be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to Policy 

T12 of the CHLP and Policies AM6 and AM13 of the UDP. 

4. The proposed shared access and parking facilities by reason of their siting 

in close proximity to adjoining properties are likely to give rise to an 

unacceptable level of noise, disturbance and fumes, thereby detracting 

from residential amenity, being contrary to Policy OE1 of the UDP. 

An outline planning application (ref: 51745/APP/2001/1831) was granted 

permission at the Hayes and Harlington Planning Committee on 10/07/02 for two 

detached chalet bungalows. Only the means of access was determined. 

Planning application ref: 51745/APP/2002/2269 for two detached chalet 

bungalows was refused planning permission at the Hayes and Harlington 

Planning Committee on 19/12/02 for the following reasons: - 

1. The proposed dwelling on plot 1 by reason of its siting, and overall size and 

bulk would result in an incongruous, visually intrusive and overdominant 

form of development, which would detract from the character and 

appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to 

Policies BE13 and BE19 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. 

2. The proposal dormer windows by reason of their siting, excessive size and 

bulk are considered to be overdominant and out of keeping with the scale 

and architectural composition of the proposed dwelling houses, being 

detrimental to the character and appearance of the proposed units and the 

visual amenities of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary 

to Policy BE19 of the adopted UDP. 





Part One Policies: 

Pt1.10 Seeks to ensure that the development will not adversely affect the 

character and amenity of the residential area. 


BE13 New development must harmonise with the existing street scene. 

BE19 New development must improve or complement the character of the area. 

BE20 New development must ensure adequate sunlight and daylight can 

penetrate between buildings. 

BE21 Planning permission will not be granted for new development that results in 

a loss of residential amenity by reason of siting bulk and proximity. 

BE23 Requires the provision of adequate amenity space. 

BE24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to 

neighbours. 

AM7 Development should not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions 

prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. 

AM14 Parking should be provided in accordance with Council standards. 

This Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance “Residential Layouts and 

House Design” and adopted car parking standards are also relevant. 



NEIGHBOURS: No. Consulted: 70 No. of replies: 1 letter of objection 

and a petition with 68 

signatures objecting to 

the scheme 

Comments: - 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

The application site is of an insufficient area to accommodate the proposed 

development providing insufficient amenity space. 

The proposal is out of keeping with the existing layout thereby detracting 

from residential amenity. 

The proposal will result in a loss of privacy. 

The proposal fails to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles 

The proposal will exacerbate existing parking problems. 



(vi) 

(vii) 

(viii) 

The proposal is contrary to the deeds. 

The proposal will affect existing rights to light. 

The applicant is not a resident of the neighbourhood. 

Mr John McDonnell MP 

Concerned about the number and frequency of 

planning applications that are being submitted 

to develop this plot of land that is just not 

suitable for any type of development. 

Opposed to the development on the grounds 

of loss of amenity to his constituents. 



No objection 


The main issues in this case are considered to be whether the proposal: - 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

Is in keeping with the character of the area 

Provides a satisfactory form of accommodation 

Detracts from the amenities of adjoining residents 

Provides adequate parking, turning and access 

(i) 

Is in keeping with the character of the area 

The character and appearance of the surrounding streets comprises 

predominantly of the spacing of moderately proportioned semi-detached houses 

on large plots. These houses are set back from the road frontage and this 

accentuates the degree of spaciousness. 

The part of the application site where the bungalows are proposed to be located is 

situated in between the rear gardens of properties on Keith Road, Albert Road 

and North Hyde Road. Whilst the site is not visible from the street scene, it is 

clearly visible from surrounding properties. 

Under the previous outline consent, it was established that the site is capable of 

accommodating two detached chalet bungalows. However, siting design and 

external appearance were reserved for future consideration. No details in respect 

of these matters have been submitted. 

The plans submitted in respect of this current full planning application indicate two 

chalet bungalows, which face towards the properties on Keith Road. 

When compared to the previous refused scheme, the overall floor area of chalet 

bungalow been reduced from 153m 2 to the 130m 2 . The width of the chalet 



ungalow has also reduced from 8.3 metres to 7.4 metres. However, the height of 

the dwelling unit has increased by 0.2 metres to 7.2 metres. 

The average height of a house is approximately 8 metres. It is considered that 

the height of both properties has been kept to a minimum and that the reduced 

size and bulk of the development now proposed results in chalet bungalows that 

are no longer incongruous, visually intrusive or overdominant, to the detriment of 

the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 

The dormer windows to both properties have been reduced in size and bulk and 

are now sited 1.1 metres below the ridge of the roof. The dormers are now 

considered to be subordinate to the proposed roof slopes and therefore no longer 

detract from the visual amenities of the surrounding area. 

(ii) 

Provides a satisfactory form of accommodation 

The amenity space for plots 1 and 2 is over the 60m 2 recommended in this 

Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’. The proposal 

therefore provides a satisfactory environment for future occupiers. 

(iii) 


The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Residential Layouts and House 

Design states that where a building of two or more stories abuts a residential 

curtilage adequate distance should be maintained to avoid overdominance of the 

property and its garden. This distance is dependent on the extent and bulk of the 

buildings but it is generally considered that this should not be less than 15 metres. 

The Design Guide also requires that a minimum of 21 metres is provided between 

habitable room windows in order to avoid overlooking. 

The plans indicate that the proposed chalet bungalows are situated some 26 

metres from the properties on Keith Road. The proposal is not therefore 

considered to detract from the amenities of nearby residents by reason of 

overdominance or loss of privacy. 

Five garages currently occupy the site and will be demolished; the three parking 

spaces proposed will not materially detract from the amenities of nearby residents 

by reason of noise and disturbance. 

(iv) 

Provides adequate parking, turning and access facilities 

According to this Council’s adopted car parking standards, a maximum of 

two spaces are required per dwelling unit. The plans indicate three spaces within 

the application site and this is considered to be sufficient to ensure that the 

proposal will not give rise to additional on street parking on Keith Road. 

This Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance “Roads in Residential Layouts” 

seeks to create safe and convenient road conditions for vehicular and pedestrian 



safety. Generally the maximum carrying distance shall be only 25 metres. The 

plans indicate that a bin store is to be located no more than 25m from the adopted 

highway. In such circumstances refuse vehicles will not have to access the 

application site. 

It is considered that proposed development would not constitute a fire and safety 

hazard or give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. 


Point (i), (iii), (iv) and (v) are addressed in the main body of the report. 

Points (vi), (vii) and (viii) are not material planning reasons for refusal. 

Point (ii) has been addressed in the main body of the report and is no longer 

considered to be a reason for refusal. 

With regard to the letter from John McDonnell MP, the Local Planning Authority is 

not in a position to stop applicants submitting multiple applications. 

For reasons outlined in the main body of the report it is considered that the 

proposed development will not detract from the visual amenities of the 

surrounding area. The distance of the proposed dwelling units from existing 

properties, which surround the application site, is considered sufficient to ensure 

that the scale of development proposed will not adversely affect the amenities 

future occupiers and residents of the surrounding area by reason of 

overdominance and visual intrusion. 



















It is considered that this revised scheme overcomes the previous reasons for 

refusal. This application is therefore recommended for approval. 


(a) 

(b) 


1 petition with 68 signatures and 1 letter of objection 

Contact Officer: ANDY PARKER Telephone No: 01895 250111 Ext 2653 





A 

Item No. 4 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 


11-21 CLAYTON ROAD, HAYES 

ERECTION OF A 94 BEDROOM, FIVE FLOOR HOTEL 

WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING (INVOLVING DEMOLITION 

OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS) 

56840/APP/2003/535 

Drawing Nos: 3354 PL01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 AND 07 

Date of receipt: 10/03/03 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 

(1) SUMMARY 

The application proposes a 94-bedroom hotel and a total of 19 on-site car parking 

spaces on the land at 11-21 Clayton Road, Hayes. 

The principle use of the site for the purposes of a hotel is not opposed given its 

mixed use location with good public transport accessibility within the Hayes Town 

Centre. 

Members may recall a similar application for a Hotel on this site reported to the 

December 2002 meeting of the Hayes and Harlington Committee at which it was 

resolved that had an appeal for non-determination of the application not been 

lodged, the application would have been refused. 

The main issues with the previous application [56840/APP/2001/2544] related to 

the bulk and mass of the building, its compatibility with the surrounding buildings 

in particular the streetscape of Clayton Road. There was also concern that the 

design of the building lacked architectural merit, and the manoeuvring area and 

proposed servicing arrangements were inadequate. 

The new application has addressed the concerns with the previous application 

and consequently represents a scheme of architectural merit, respecting the 

streetscape of Clayton Road and providing an improved car parking layout and 

also incorporating a bus lay-by at the front of the site. 

The appeal date is listed for 28 May 2003 and therefore necessitates the urgency 

for the reporting of this application. 

On this basis, the application is considered acceptable and is recommended for 

approval subject to no further objections being received raising further material 

planning issues, to those addressed in this report, and the preparation of a 

Section 106 Agreement for the lay-by, contribution towards a CPZ and training 

initiatives. 



(2) RECOMMENDATION: That delegated power be given to the Head of 

Planning and Transportation to grant planning permission subject to the 

following:- 

a) The consultation period expiring and no new material objections 

being received. 

b) The Council enter into an agreement with the applicant under Section 

106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or 

Sections 38 and 278 Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and all 

appropriate legislation to secure: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

a new pedestrian footway to be provided around the bus lay-by 

under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980; 

The applicant shall agree to the full and complete costs to 

undertake the necessary works for the provision of the new bus 

lay-by; 

a license under Section 177 of the Highways Act 1980 to allow 

the building to overhang the new public footway; 

a contribution of £25,000 towards the provision of a Controlled 

Parking Zone (CPZ); 

A Green Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the 

Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the 

building. The Green Travel Plan shall outline the means and 

methods of reducing private transport use by employees and 

customers and facilitate increased use of public transport. The 

Green Travel Plan shall be implemented for a minimum period 

of 5 years from completion and occupancy of the buildings 

hereby permitted. 

c) That the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the 

preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a 

result of the agreement not being completed. 

d) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms 

of the proposed agreements. 

e) That if the application is approved, the following conditions be 

attached: 

1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 

2. (M1) Details/Samples to be 2. (M1) Standard 

submitted 

3. (M3) Boundary treatment - details 3. (M3) Standard 



4. (MCD11) Storage in defined area 4. (MCD11) Standard 

5. (MCD16) Restriction of Use 5. (MCD16) Standard 

applied for (hotel) (C1) 

6. (H10) Parking/Turning/Loading 6. (H10) Standard 

Arrangements – Commercial 

Developments 

7. (H12) Closure of Existing Access 7. (H12) Standard 

8. (TL1) Existing trees survey 8. (TL1) Standard 

9. (TL2) Trees to be retained 9. (TL2) Standard 

10. (TL3) Protection of trees and 10. (TL3) Standard 

plants during site clearance and 

development 

11. (TL5)Landscaping Scheme 11. (TL5) Standard 



13. (TL7) Maintenance of 


Landscaping 

14. (OM11) Flood lighting 14. (OM11) Standard 

15. Provisions shall be made within 

the site to ensure that all 

vehicles associated with the 

construction of the development 

hereby approved are properly 

washed and cleaned to prevent 

the passage of mud and dirt onto 

the adjoining highway. 

16. The ‘Bins’ storage area as 

identified on Drawing No. PL02 

shall also include waste 

recycling receptacles. Such an 

area shall be provided prior to 

the occupation of the 

development and thereafter 

permanently retained. 

17. (DIS1) Facilities for People with 

Disabilities 

18. (DIS2) Access to buildings for 

People with Disabilities 

19. (DIS4) Signposting for People 

with Disabilities 

INFORMATIVES 

15. To ensure that the development 

does not cause danger and 

inconvenience to users of the 

adjoining pavement and 

highway. 

16. To provide a designated area 

where the hotel operators can 

store and handle recycled waste 

before it is moved from the site. 

17. (DIS1) Standard 



1. Access to Buildings and Facilities for Persons with Disabilities 

2. Community Safety – Designing Out Crime 

3. Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works 

4. Works affecting the Public Highway – General 

5. Consent for the Display of Advertisements and Illuminated Signs 





The application site is within the southern part of Hayes Town Centre to the west 

of Station Approach and to the north of Blythe Road. Within the Town Centre are 

two multi-storey office blocks. The adjoining properties to the north of the 

application site are industrial buildings and commercial buildings. To the east are 

two storey properties used as a Public House, restaurant/ café and retail with what 

appears to be ancillary residential on the first floor. On the south side of Clayton 

Road, directly opposite the application site, are retail units with what appears to 

be ancillary residential on the first floor. Further along this side of the road is a 

pair of two storey semi-detached houses, followed by rows of two-storey terraced 

residential properties. 

The site currently comprises two-storey buildings of a domestic scale 

located on the back edge of the footway. On the ground floor is a vacant 

retail shop in the double unit and two vacant retail units. Whilst the 

buildings originally incorporated residential uses at first floor level, this is 

not now the case. 

(3)(b) Scheme 

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 94-bedroom hotel with 

associated parking (involving the demolition of the existing buildings). 

The proposed hotel is divided into two main parts, a three storey building (with 

fourth storey within the roof) fronting Clayton Road and a second perpendicular 

five and six storey element at the rear. 

The building is to be set back 2metres from the Clayton Road frontage, with a 

cantilevered balcony and canopy type element projecting over this two metres at 

the first and second floor levels. The building is three storeys in this location with 

a curved roof raking back from the front elevation partially enclosing a fourth 

storey. 

The five and six storey element is setback approximately 9.5m from the frontage 

of the site and has a height of 19 metres at the top of a curved roof. 

The building would contain a large ground floor foyer with bar and kitchen and 

Managers flat. A total of 19 on-site vehicles parking spaces with access from 

Clayton Road are proposed. Three parking spaces have been allocated on the 

plans for wheelchair users and people with disabilities. A bicycle store and 

motorcycle parking have also been accommodated on the site. 

A small landscaped courtyard is located at the north-western corner of the site. 




Planning Application No.56840/APP/2001/2544 was lodged on 27 November 

2001 and originally proposed the erection of a 99 bedroom 5 storey hotel, 

including two residential units, hotel with associated parking and landscaping 

(involving the demolition of the existing buildings). 

The application was amended several times during discussions with Council 

Officers and reduced to 90 bedrooms. However, the design of the building failed 

to respect the streetscape of Clayton Road and eventually an appeal for nondetermination 

of the application was lodged in November 2002. 

The application was then reported to the Hayes and Harlington Planning 

Committee Meeting of 19 December 2003 at which it was resolved that had an 

appeal for non-determination of the application not been lodged, the application 

would have been refused for the following reasons: 

1. The proposed development by reason of the overall size, height, siting and 

relationship with adjoining properties, together with the nature of the use 

represents an overdominant and visually obtrusive form of development in 

relation to neighbouring properties and an overdevelopment of the site that 

is detrimental to the amenities of surrounding area including the occupiers 

of adjoining residential properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to 

policies T4(iii) and BE13 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development 

Plan. 

2. The design of the proposed building is detrimental to the appearance and 

character of the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy 

BE13 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan. 

3. The on-site servicing and access arrangements are sub-standard for a 90- 

bedroom hotel and are likely to result in on-street congestion. The 

proposal is therefore contrary to policy T4(v) from the Borough’s adopted 

Unitary Development Plan. 

4. The proposal makes inadequate provision for the replacement of residential 

units and is therefore contrary to policy H3 from the Borough’s adopted 


The date of the appeal hearing is set for 1 May 2003. 

Further to the resolution of the Committee, Council officer’s proceeded to meet 

with the agent and new architects with a view to a more appropriate scheme for 

redevelopment of the site being prepared. The subject application is as a result of 

such discussions. 

No other relevant planning history applies to the site. 




UDP Designation: Town Centre 


1.10, 1.14, 1.18, 1.28 


Design/Impact on Amenity 

BE13, BE15 Design of new development. 

BE18 Designing out Crime 

BE19 Character of the area. 

BE20, BE21 Protection of Residential Amenity 

BE38 Trees and Landscaping. 

BE26 Design, layout and landscaping within Town Centres 

Environmental Impact 

OE1 Character and amenities of surrounding properties. 

Housing 

H2 Restrictions on changes of use of residential properties 

H3 Loss and replacement of residential accommodation 

Shopping and Town Centres 

S6 Safeguarding the Amenity of Shopping Areas 

Tourism 

T2 Demand for Tourist Accommodation 

T4 Budget Accommodation 

Accessibility and Highways 

AM7 Traffic generation 

AM14 Car Parking 




The application was advertised as Major Development under Article 8 of the Town 

and Country Planning Act and a total of 48 consultations were undertaken. Two 

objections were received from surrounding businesses west of the site along 

Clayton Road. Such objections raise concerns with traffic congestion and parking 

along Clayton Road. 


Hayes Town Centre Residents 

Association 

MP John McDonnell 

Hayes Chamber of Commerce 

No comments 

No comments 

No comments 


Highways Engineer 

No objections to the proposed hotel 

development subject to conditions relating to 

the construction of the lay-by and public 

footway, dedication to the highways authority 

and license for the cantilevered balconies. 


The main planning issues are considered to be:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

The principle of a hotel use 

Loss of residential units 

Bulk, scale and massing 

On-site parking and access from the Highway 

Design 

Amenity Impacts 

(i) 

The principle of a hotel use 

Policies T2 and T4 of the UDP support the provision of hotels on sites close to 

railway stations, within mixed-use areas and town centre locations that have good 

public transport accessibility. 

Hotels provide employment and make a significant contribution to the local 

economy. Hillingdon has good communications with Central London but its 

distance from central facilities does not encourage longer staying tourists to make 

the area’s hotels their holiday base. Heathrow and its airport oriented hotels, 

together with a strong and diverse local economy continues to generate a demand 



for hotel and conference facilities in the Borough. Therefore, UDP policies reflect 

that there is a demand for hotel accommodation. 

The immediate locality includes industrial, office, shopping and residential uses 

allied to a range of subsidiary town centre uses including food, drink, financial and 

professional services. Being within a Town Centre location, within a mixture of 

uses, subject to the application fully complying with detailed site requirements, 

there are no policy objections to the redevelopment of the site with a hotel. 

(ii) 

Loss of residential units 

UDP Policy H3 requires that residential accommodation which will be lost, should 

be replaced within the boundary of the development site. Notwithstanding the fact 

that the hotel use offers a form of accommodation, this short-term use by 

occupiers who are unlikely to be permanent residents of the Borough is not seen 

as an adequate replacement for the existing residential units. 

Currently, at first floor level within the existing buildings there is somewhat 

dilapidated residential accommodation in the form of flats. These units have fallen 

into disrepair or have been superseded by other uses, such as storage ancillary to 

the ground floor commercial uses. 

Under the previous application, the scheme included two replacement residential 

units on the top floor level. The difficulty with such units was that their access was 

via the foyer of the Hotel, which made the two units difficult for independent 

residential use. Consequently, this was still considered unacceptable and was 

listed as a reason for refusal. 

The current application provides a Manager’s flat at the ground floor level that 

potentially could be construed as a residential unit, but otherwise does not 

accommodate any other replacement residential units. Due to the layout of the 

building and the provision of a single lift in the centre of the building, it is 

considered difficult to accommodate any other replacement residential units on 

the site. Therefore, on this basis the proposed development fails to comply with 

Policy H3 of the UDP. 

(iii) 

Bulk, scale and massing 

One of the fundamental issues with the previous application was the bulk, scale 

and massing of the Hotel and its relationship to the Clayton Road streetscape. 

The previous application proposed a flat four-storey facade on a 4m setback from 

the front boundary of the site. A building of such a height and alignment was 

considered to be detrimental to the streetscape of Clayton Road and out of 

character with the area. 

In terms of the design of any replacement building, the site is located in a very 

difficult transitional location on the very fringe of the Hayes Town Centre amongst 

a conglomeration of building scales and forms. The site is at the distinct point 

where the designation changes under the UDP from Town Centre to IBA on the 



northern side of Clayton Road, and from Town Centre to developed area (in this 

case residential) on the southern side. 

On the northern side of Clayton Road, to the rear and west of the site is the six 

storey serviced offices building. Further west is a three and four-storey 

office/industrial buildings. 

The southern side of the street is typically a very coherent two-storey scale 

terraced streetscape. East of the site, the town centre is a variety of building 

forms from two-storey mixed commercial/residential terrace development through 

to two notably high rise office buildings of approximately 11 storeys in height. 

The proposed building presents a three-storey building elevation to Clayton Road 

with a curved roof sweeping back and five/six storey building element at the rear. 

The three-storey building element is approximately 36m in length with an eaves 

height of 8.2m. The roof over this element rises to a height of 12.5m. In 

comparison to the previous scheme, this represents a substantial reduction in the 

built form at the street frontage. The design presents a three-storey facade, but 

through the use of the canopy architectural elements emphasises the horizontal 

eaves line of the adjoining buildings at 1 to 9 Clayton Road and those on the 

southern side of the street. This facade is considered to be more sympathetic 

with the streetscape and creates a visually interesting building. 

It is acknowledged that the five and six-storey element at the rear of the building, 

is 4m taller than that proposed under the previous scheme, but the bulk of this 

element will be screened from street level. Firstly it is perpendicular to the street, 

so that when viewed from directly opposite the site this element will be read 

largely as a roof line, some 13m wide. 

When the building is viewed from more oblique angles, it would be expected that 

more of the bulk of the rear part of the building would become more visible. 

However, when approaching the site from the east along Clayton Road, the 

existing row of buildings at 1-9 Clayton Road would screen a large part of this 

element. When approaching the site from the west, the building would be more 

readily visible across the adjoining car park of the properties at 23 to 31 Clayton 

Road except for the line of Leylandii trees that stand along the western boundary 

of the site. Furthermore, the 11 storey office buildings to the east provide a visual 

backdrop to the site. 

Overall, whilst it is acknowledged that the reduction in the scale of the building in 

the Clayton Road part has resulted in a slight increase in the height of the building 

at the rear of the site, it is considered that the bulk, scale and massing of the 

development have been designed in such a way to minimise amenity impacts on 

the nearby residential properties, whilst also achieving a development that will be 

attractive and visually interesting in a difficult part of the Hayes Town Centre. On 

this basis, it is considered that the bulk, scale and massing of the development is 

acceptable and in accordance with BE13 and BE26 of the UDP. 



(iv) 

Parking and highway issues 

The on-site requirement for a 94-bedroom hotel at a ratio of 1 parking space for 

every 5 bedrooms is 19 on-site parking spaces. The application proposes to 

comply with such requirements and provides the maximum 19 spaces allowable, 

three of which are proposed to be for disabled persons. Provision is also made 

for the parking of motorcycles on site and 12 bicycle spaces. 

The design of the car parking layout under this application is considered to have 

overcome the concerns raised with the previous application. The plans have 

retained a drive-through access beneath the building to the majority of the 

parking, at the eastern end of the site. The design locates the disabled parking 

spaces closest to the entrance and ensures a 6m aisle width facilitates adequate 

manoeuvring. Such design and aisle width has overcome the ingress/egress 

difficulties associated with the previous application. The design has deleted the 

spaces from outside the refuse bin area to enable clear access to this facility. 

At the front of the site, on Clayton Road, a lay-by is proposed within the footway to 

enable coach parking or a set-down and pick up point. Such a lay-by could also 

be used for the purposes of delivery lorries as access under the building is limited 

to vehicles having a height of less than 3.2 metres. 

The provision of a lay-by along the frontage of Clayton Road necessitates the 

relocation of the footway to within the site. As part of a Section 106 and 278 

Agreement, the public footway will be required to be dedicated to the highway 

authority, i.e. the Council. Furthermore, given that the canopy elements as 

proposed cantilever over the proposed footway a further license will be required 

under Section 177 of the Highways Act 1980 for the public liability of the canopy 

over a public footway. 

Overall, given the hotel’s location within the Town Centre with its good public 

transport links, it is considered that the parking and service arrangements for the 

proposed development are of a suitable standard, subject to conditions. 

With regard to the concerns of parking and traffic congestion raised in the two 

objections from neighbouring business/industries in Clayton Road, the level of 

parking is considered adequate as the provision of parking is in accordance with 

the Council’s current parking standards. The provision of off-street parking is an 

improvement on the existing development which has little or no parking due to the 

terraced nature of the properties. Furthermore, it is recommended as part of the 

Section 106 that a contribution be required towards the implementation of a CPZ 

in the area, which would further resolve parking problems in the area. 

In relation to traffic congestion, it is acknowledged that Clayton Road, is relatively 

narrow road and is used by large vehicles accessing the surrounding industrial 

areas. To avoid or minimise the disruption to traffic flow along Clayton Road, the 

application proposes a lay-by at the front of the Hotel to allow any buses or 

delivery vehicles to stand. The lay-by is an improvement on the previous scheme 

which had little or no area for deliveries or buses. In relation to the general use of 



the site for a hotel and the potential impact of such a hotel use on the traffic 

congestion in the area, it is considered that the location of the Hotel within the 

Hayes Town Centre is an ideal location for improved use of the town centre and is 

in good proximity to public transport connections to both central London and 

Heathrow Airport. 

(v) 

Design 

The design of the proposed Hotel was again one of the key issues of concern with 

the previous application. Whilst being adequate for the purpose, the design under 

the previous application was not considered to respect or be sympathetic to the 

street scene. There were few architectural details or features that added to the 

modelling of the elevations or otherwise break up what was considered to be 

bland elevations. 

The subject scheme is a radically contemporary approach when compared with 

the previous scheme. The building design utilises sweeping curved roof forms 

over both the key front and rear elements of the building. Such roof shapes serve 

to minimise roof heights whilst accommodating a storey within the roof. The 

contemporary shape is also of interest and vitality, which is what the Hayes Town 

Centre desperately requires. The front facade with cantilevered balcony and 

canopies echoes the eaves lines of terraced development of Clayton Road, 

creating horizontal emphasis to this facade. The materials are also contemporary 

with the largely glazed facade along Clayton Road giving a good functional street 

presentation, with facing blockwork wrapping around the remainder of the ground 

floor. Above the ground floor level, the walls are proposed to be of Eurocom 

metal panels and at the higher level of the rear block, the walls are to be metal 

standing seam as is the roof across the whole building. 

Overall, the building is considered to be a very modern approach to the 

redevelopment of the site that respects the scale of development along Clayton 

Road, but also integrates with the adjoining town centre and industrial/business 

area building forms. In this regard, it is considered that the application complies 

with Policy BE26 and supporting paragraph 5.32 of the UDP, in that the design of 

the building increases the visual and functional attractiveness of the town centre. 

The new building maintains the feeling of bulk and scale of the town centre whilst 

creating variety and interest. The site has development potential and the 

opportunity to create a distinctive new building that could act as a landmark or 

focal point of the centre. On this basis, the scheme is considered to make a 

positive and welcome contribution to the character of the centre. 

(vi) Amenity impacts 

One of the final concerns with the previous application was the amenity impact the 

Hotel development would have on the first floor residential flats on the southern 

side of Clayton Road, directly opposite the site. 

The main difference between the previous scheme and this application in this 

regard is that the previous scheme proposed a full four storey elevation on a 4m 



setback from the frontage to Clayton Road. This application proposes a threestorey 

building with the fourth storey within the roof. This is a 4m difference in the 

height of the two buildings at the frontage. Given the 17m separation between the 

Hotel and the residences on the southern side of Clayton Road, the proposed 

three-storey building is not considered likely to have the overbearing and 

dominating impact on such residences as the previous scheme would have 

created. 

At the rear of the site, the rear block is setback approximately 1.2m from the 

northern boundary of the site with a six storey 14m wide profile. An element of 

concern was raised with the applicant’s on the visual impact this would have on 

the offices to the north of the site. However, such offices are also some six 

storeys in scale and are setback from the subject building by approximately 9.5m 

at its closest point and predominantly 12-13m. The width of the rear element of 

the building also serves to lessen the potential impact on the adjoining offices with 

only a 14m wide profile. 


Two objections were received from the neighbouring businesses at Clayton Road 

raising concerns with issues of parking and traffic congestion along Clayton Road. 


To be reported. 


The report indicates that the costs of the development will be fully met by the 

developer and the developer will make a Section 106 contribution towards 

associated public facilities. The developer will also meet all reasonable costs of 

the Council in preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as 

a result of the agreement not being completed. Consequently, there are no 

financial implications for this planning committee or Council. 


The subject site is a located at a transition point within the south-western 

boundary of the Hayes Town Centre, immediately adjoining an industrial/business 

area and located to the north of a residential developed area. Consequently, the 

site is caught between a variety of building scales and forms. 

However, the current application has overcome such difficulties with design and 

scale and presents a new building that is considered likely to increase the visual 

and functional attractiveness of the town centre, creating variety and interest and 

a distinctive building form, whilst respecting the streetscape of Clayton Road. 

A Hotel use in this location is welcomed and utilises the good public transport 

links, the Hayes Town Centre has to both central London and Heathrow. 



Despite such attributes, it is acknowledged that the application results in the loss 

of some residential units from the existing site and is therefore contrary to Policy 

H3 of the UDP. Whilst this is certainly not ideal, given the current state of the 

Hayes Town Centre and the existing residential units on site, it is considered that 

the benefits of such investment within the Town Centre and such a quality of 

development significantly outweigh the loss of such quasi residential units. 

In view of this, it is considered that the application is generally acceptable and 

warrants approval subject to a suitable Section 106 and conditions. 


(a) 

(b) 

UDP 

2 letters of objection 

Contact Officer: MICHAEL BAKER Telephone No: 01895 250525 





Item No. 5 

Address: 


14 LANNOCK ROAD, HAYES 

A 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

ERECTION OF A TWO-STOREY SIDE AND A PART TWO- 

STOREY AND PART SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION 

(INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE) 

39804/APP/2002/2741 

Drawing Nos: Drawing Nos.01a, 02a received 21/01/03 

Date of receipt: 20/11/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 

(1) SUMMARY 

This application was deferred from Hayes Planning Committee held on 3 April 

2003 to enable Members to visit the site. 

This application relates to a house that was constructed within the back gardens 

of 1 and 2 Forris Avenue in the early 1980s. The extension is not considered to 

significantly harm the amenity of the adjoining occupiers. It has been designed to 

be subordinate to the main building and will not impact adversely on the character 

and appearance of the street scene.The scheme overcomes the reason for 

refusal of an earlier scheme and, as such, is recommended for approval. 

(2) RECOMMENDATION- APPROVAL, subject to the following 

conditions:- 

1. (T1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (T1) Standard 

2. (M1) External Surfaces to Match 2. (M1) Standard 

3. (RPD1)No Additional Windows or 3. (RPD1)Standard 

doors facing Forris Avenue 

4. (RPD4) Prevention of 

Balconies/Roof Gardens 

4. (RPD4)Standard 

INFORMATIVES 





14 Lannock Road is a neo-Georgian detached house built in the early 1980’s in 

what used to be part of the rear gardens of 1 and 2 Forris Avenue. It is situated 

between Forris Avenue and Moray Avenue, near to Lake Gardens at Botwell 



Lane, Hayes. There is an electricity sub-station to the east of the site and there is 

a substantial detached garage within the garden of 1 Moray Avenue. 

(3)(b) Scheme 

Planning permission is sought to construct a part two-storey side and rear 

extension which will be 3.25m wide and 6m deep with a set back of 1m from the 

front of the property. The two-storey element will project 3m beyond the back of 

the house for a width of 5m and the single storey extension will complete the 

extension to the rear of the property. The two-storey development will have a 

pitched roof over. 


Outline planning permission was originally granted for a house on this site in 1980 

and a single storey rear extension was approved in 1987. 

Planning permission for a two-storey side and rear extension (2002/1370) was 

refused on the 11 th September 2002 due to an unacceptable impact on the 

adjoining occupiers at 1 and 2 Forris Avenue. This scheme was set back from the 

front of the property by 2m, was 3m wide and had a length of 7metres. Planning 

permission was refused for the following reason:- 

1. The proposed development by reason of its overall size, height, siting and 

length of projection would result in an overdominant / visually obtrusive 

form of development in relation to the neighbouring properties at 1 & 2 

Forris Avenue and as such would constitute an un-neighbourly form of 

development, resulting in a material loss of residential amenity. The 

proposal is therefore contrary to policy BE21 from the Borough’s adopted 

Unitary Development Plan, as well as design principal A3 from the 

Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”. 



The relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policies are:- 

Part One polices: 

Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the 


Part Two policies: 

BE13 Development will not be permitted if the layout and appearance fail to 

harmonize with the existing street scene 



BE15 Proposals for alterations and extensions to existing buildings will be 

permitted where they harmonise with the scale, form, architectural composition 

and proportions of the original building. 

BE19 The Local Planning Authority will seek to ensure that new development 

within residential areas complements or improves the amenity and character of 

the area. 

BE21 Planning permission will not be granted for new buildings or extensions 

which by reason of their siting, bulk and proximity, would result in a significant loss 

of residential amenity. 

Principle A.5.1 of the residential design guide is also of relevance as well as 

contents within the Residential Layouts and House Design Guide. 




Comments: 

1. Overdevelopment of the site, which was formerly the back gardens of 1 & 2 

Forris Avenue. This approval was the maximum permitted. Current 

proposal doubles the size of the house. 

2. Overcramped and unneighbourly, too close to boundaries leading to a loss 

of privacy and loss of light. 

3. Existing house already leads to a loss of outlook and this proposal will 

make matters worse. Loss of skyline and light to back garden. 

4. The new house will be totally out of character with the street scene and the 

surrounding area. 

5. Fire regulation problems. 

6. Loss of the garage will lead to on-street parking. 

7. Property could be turned into flats. 

8. Construction impacts on our driveway and the joint garage. 

9. Proportions of the extension are far too ambitious for this plot and would be 

detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, not to mention the 

living conditions of immediate neighbours. 

10. Construction impacts could lead to additional health problems for my 

daughter. 

11. Discrepancy in drawings. 

In addition a petition of objection has been submitted signed by 27 people. It 

states that: 

“We the undersigned who live in Lannock Road, Forris Avenue and Moray 

Avenue wish to express our very strong objections to the above application, as 

the proposed development would result in an over development on a very small 

plot and would be a visually obtrusive form of development in relation to the 



neighbouring properties and as such would constitute an unneighbourly form of 

development. 

The current plans show that the height of the roofs have been raised and that 

overall new building area has not reduced when compared with the previous plans 

in which permission was refused. 

We respectfully request that this new application be also be refused.” 


OTHER CONSULTATIONS: 

Area Engineer 

COMMENTS: 

No objection subject to a plan showing 2 car 

parking spaces 


The main planning issues are considered to be the:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

Impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers 

Impact on the character and visual amenity of the area 

Comparisons with the previous refusal 

(i) 

impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers 

The predominant impact of this development will be on the occupiers of 1 and 2 

Forris Avenue who will find that the extension is nearer to them than the existing 

house. In effect a 6m (deep) x 6m (high) extension will be constructed to the east 

and 17m from the back of the original rear facade of 1 Forris Avenue. Design 

Guidance indicates that a normal back to flank distance of 15m on new 

development is acceptable. This proposal exceeds this distance but there are 4m 

deep conservatories to the rear of both 1 and 2 Forris Avenue which means that 

the 15m figure is breached because the extension will be only 13.5m from the rear 

of the conservatories. Whilst the built form of the extension will be apparent from 

the rear windows of the conservatory, the presence of a detached garage already 

has some impact on the occupiers of 1 Forris Avenue. The rear garden of 1 Forris 

Avenue is also of a size that will ensure that a sense of openness is maintained 

for the occupiers and will minimise any sense of enclosure or overdominance. It 

is considered that the adjoining occupiers at 1 and 2 Forris Avenue will 

experience some loss of amenity but it is not significant enough to justify refusal. 

On the basis that the bulk of the extension is to the east of the conservatories, it is 

separated by 13.5m and that there is an existing garage no significant loss of 

amenity will occur through loss of sunlight or daylight. A condition has been 

recommended to safeguard the installation of any additional windows in the side 

elevation facing 1 and 2 Forris Avenue. 



The extension is sufficiently far from the rear amenity areas of the adjoining 

houses in Moray Avenue to ensure that no loss of sunlight or daylight or privacy to 

adjoining occupiers will arise. 

(ii) 

Impact on the street scene and area 

The extension to the existing house has been designed to reduce its impact on 

the street scene and ensure that it does not harm the character and appearance 

of the area. The set back ensures that the bulk of the roof is lower than the 

existing roof and helps to minimise the impact of the building in the street scene. 

The side extension will ensure that a 17m gap will still be retained between the 

back of 1 Forris Avenue and the proposal, which is considered to be acceptable to 

retain a sense of openness in the street and thereby maintain the amenity of the 

area. The area is characterised by semi-detached properties in a regular building 

pattern and the extension to the property would not result in a building that will be 

harmful to the character or appearance of the area. 

(iii) 

Comparisons with the previous refusal 

The current proposal is one metre smaller than the previous refusal and has a 

reduced cumulative impact on the adjoining occupiers, such that it is considered 

to be acceptable. The previous scheme was 7m deep with a 2m set back from the 

front of the property whereas the current application has a 6m deep extension 

with a 1m set back. The bulk and mass is, therefore, considered to be of an 

acceptable level to ensure that the amenities of the adjoining occupiers are not 

significantly harmed. 


1. It is not considered that the doubling of the size of the building is a reason 

for refusing the scheme. 

2. Points 2,3 and 4 have been addressed in the main body of the report. 

5. This is not a land use planning consideration. 

6. The house would retain an acceptable number of car parking spaces in 

accordance with policy. 

7. This would be subject to planning permission. 

8. Construction impacts are covered by separate legislation. 

9. These points have been addressed in the main body of the report. 

10. This is not a land use planning consideration. 

11. A corrected set of plans was received on the 21 January 2003. 




Human Rights Act 1998.Further,Members must make their decision on the basis 






To be reported 


The proposal will not significantly harm the amenities of the adjoining occupiers by 

virtue of the distance of the new structure from the nearest affected occupiers at 1 

and 2 Forris Avenue. 

The extension will be subordinate to the existing house and will relate in a 

satisfactory manner to the street scene and the character of the area. Two car 

parking spaces will be retained. The scheme is considered to overcome the 

reason for refusal of the previous extension. As such planning permission is 

recommended. 


(a) 

(b) 

UDP, Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions and 

Residential Layouts 

5 letters making representations and 1 petition (the contents of which are 

summarised in the main body of the report) 

Contact Officer: RICHARD BUXTON Telephone Number: 01895 250838 





B 

Item No. 6 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

Drawing Nos: 


MELLOW LANE SCHOOL, HEWENS ROAD, HAYES 

LAYING OUT OF NEW ALL-WEATHER PLAYING SURFACE 

AND ERECTION OF ADDITIONAL CHANGING FACILITIES 

ADJOINING EXISTING GYMNASIUM 

2572/APP/2003/333 

02/100/LP,01,02,05,06,07,08,10,11,12,13 

Date of receipt: 13/02/03 


61 Consultation letters to adjoining occupiers have been sent. No responses have 

been received. 


UDP Designation: Green Belt 

• The predominant issue is the impact on the open character and 

appearance of this Green Belt site through the erection of a small-scale 

extension (for additional changing facilities) and the installation of an all 

weather sports pitch. 

• The extension for the single storey changing facilities (60m 2 ) will not lead to 

a disproportionate increase in the amount of built form on the site. 

• The proposed all weather sports pitch will be 110m x 67m and located to 

the north east of the main school block, within the existing playing field 

area. There would not be any visible built form associated with the proposal 

that would harm the open appearance of the Green Belt site. 

• The sports pitch is located more than 20m from the nearest house at 61 

Mellow Lane East which is considered to be an acceptable distance to 

ensure that the amenities of the adjoining occupiers are not harmed 

through noise and nuisance. 

• Projects and Environmental Planning comment that open air recreational 

facilities are acceptable in the Green Belt. Assuming that the new allweather 

pitch is not accompanied by any significant lighting, including 

floodlighting columns, this development is considered to be of an 

appropriate scale in the Green Belt; the additional changing room is also 

modest in scale. 



Observations of the Borough Solicitor 

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




considerations into account.” 

Observations of the Borough Treasurer 


RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the following conditions:- 


2. (HLC5) School Development 2. (HLC5) Standard 

The pitch shall not be used 

except between 08:00 and 20:00 

hours Mondays to Fridays, 

between 08:00 and 13:00 on 

Saturdays and at no time on 

Sundays and Bank Holidays 

3. (M2) Details/Samples to match 3. (M2) Standard 

INFORMATIVES 


2. (25) Building Control 

3. You are advised that planning permission will be required for the 

installation of floodlights. 


(a) 


Contact Officer: RICHARD BUXTON Telephone Number: 01895 250838 





B 

Item No. 7 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 


MELLOW LANE SCHOOL, HEWENS ROAD, HAYES 

ERECTION OF A TWO-STOREY EXTENSION AND FIRST 

FLOOR EXTENSION TO PROVIDE A PUPILS 

COMMUNICATION CENTRE 

2572/APP/2002/2646 

Drawing Nos: 02/105/LP, 02/105/01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 

12, 13 & 14 received 11/11/02 and 02/105/LP2, 

02/105/01/Rev: A & letter dated 14/03/03 received 18/03/03 



Two letters of objection have been received. The concerns relate to the increase 

in traffic congestion leading to parked cars on both sides of the road resulting in 

further parking problems for the residents. Emergency vehicles would also be 

unable to pass safely. 


• The application relates to Mellow Lane School located on the east side of 

Hewens Road and south of the Uxbridge Road in Hillingdon. The site is within 

the Metropolitan Green Belt. The school is sited within extensive grounds with 

various playgrounds and sports pitches. 

• Planning Permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey extension, 

measuring 12.4m deep, 14.2m wide and 6.8m high with a pitch roof and a first 

floor extension measuring 8.4m deep, 7.4m wide and 6.5m high with a flat 

roof. The proposal would largely be surrounded by existing buildings. 

• Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts advises that the infilling or 

development of major education sites within the Green Belt, even if not 

identified in the development plan, is not inappropriate development. As such, 

the proposal is not contrary to the provisions of the Unitary Development Plan, 

requiring advertising as a departure. 

• The proposed extension would occupy an area of 414m² on part of a 

playground in the middle of the school complex. It would be sited within the 

existing building envelope and therefore would not be prominent. As it would 

not result in disproportionate change in the bulk of the school buildings, the 

built-up appearance of the site would not be significantly increased and the 



visual amenities of the Green Belt would not be injured. The proposal is 

therefore considered to comply with Policy OL4 of the UDP. 

• The extension would provide a new communication centre for children with 

special needs, including two new study rooms, four classrooms and three 

offices. 

• The applicant has stated that there will be no increase in the number of pupils 

or teaching staff and therefore no additional parking spaces are required. On 

this basis the traffic engineer raises no objection to the scheme. 

• The Landscape Officer and the Environmental Protection Unit were consulted 

on this application and raise no objections to the proposal. 

• The extension has been designed to match the existing school buildings. As 

such, the extension complies with BE15 in the UDP 

• It is considered that the proposed extension would not harm the openness and 

the visual amenity of the Green Belt, or harm the street scene. Planning 

Permission is therefore recommended. 












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 Environmental Services Group and the wider 

Council. 

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:- 


2. (M1) Details/Samples to be 

submitted 

2. (M1) Standard 



INFORMATIVES 

1. (5) Access to Buildings & Facilities for Disabled Persons 


3. (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance From Construction Work 


Contact Officer: NOSHEEN JAVED Telephone No: 01895 277722 





Item No. 8 

Address: 


THE WHITE HART PUBLIC HOUSE, 1186 UXBRIDGE 

ROAD, HAYES 

A 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

ERECTION OF 43 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH 

ASSOCIATED AMENITY SPACE AND PARKING 

(INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS) 

10852/APP/2002/2486 

Drawing Nos: 2737/KOAK.TV/S/01A, 02A, 03A, 04 

Date of receipt: 21/10/02 Date of Amendment: 18/02/03 

(1) SUMMARY 

Planning permission is sought for the erection of 43 residential units with 

associated amenity space and parking. The application proposes two blocks of 

flats, one fronting Uxbridge Road and the other Hayes End Road. The building 

fronting Uxbridge Road is part three/part four storeys, and the building fronting 

Hayes End Road is two storeys (with a third floor within the roof space). 43 

parking spaces are proposed. 

The site adjoins the Green Belt and a locally listed building (Laburnum Villa) and 

brick wall to the north. Thirteen trees that are protected by Tree Preservation 

Order 301 are scattered throughout the site. The application has been consulted 

and 53 letters of objection have been received. 

The proposal is a duplicate application that has been appealed for nondetermination. 

The original application (10852/APP/2002/2487) has been 

amended and currently proposes 41 units. Notwithstanding, further amendments 

have been requested. 

The application is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site having regard 

to its density, the size of the building and parking area footprints, the inadequate 

setback of Block A to Hayes End Road, the lack of useable amenity space and 

the removal of several significant trees. The design of the building fronting 

Uxbridge Road combined with its height, bulk and scale is also considered to 

have an adverse impact on the street scene and character of the area. Therefore, 

had an appeal for non-determination not been lodged, the application would have 

been recommended for refusal. 

(2) RECOMMENDATION: 

That had an appeal for non-determination of the application not been lodged, 

the application would have been refused for the following reasons:- 



1. The application is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site 

having regard to its density, the size of the building and parking area 

footprints, the inadequate setback of Block A to Hayes End Road, the 

lack of useable amenity space and the impact on existing trees. In this 

regard the development is contrary to Policies H6, BE19, BE21 and 

BE23 of the Hillingdon adopted Unitary Development Plan and the 

Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’. 

2. The design of the building fronting Uxbridge Road combined with its 

height, bulk and scale is considered to have an overbearing impact on 

the street scene and character of the area. In this regard the 

development is contrary to Policies BE 13, BE19, BE21 and OE1 of the 

Hillingdon adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Design 

Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’. 

3. The development fails to provide an adequate amount of conveniently 

located usable amenity space that will not impinge on the amenities of 

future occupiers. In this regard the development is contrary to policy 

BE23,BE24 and OE1 of the Hillingdon adopted Unitary Development 

Plan and the Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House 

Design’. 

4. The development is considered to have an adverse impact on the 

landscaped character of the site having regard to the proposed removal 

of a number of significant trees and the lack of adequate replacement 

landscaping. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to 

policies OL3, OL26, BE13, BE19 and BE24 of the Hillingdon adopted 


5. The development is considered to provide inadequate parking (car, 

motorcycle and bicycle) having regard to Council’s revised parking 

standards (December 2001), the inadequacy of on-street parking in the 

vicinity of the site and the local parking problems in the area. The 

development is therefore considered to be contrary to policies AM14 

and AM15 of the Hillingdon adopted Unitary Development Plan. 



The application site is a corner property located at the intersection of Uxbridge 

and Hayes End Road. The site is rectangular in shape and has an area of 0.37 

hectares with frontages of 45m to Uxbridge Road and 70m to Hayes End Road. 

The site adjoins the Green Belt and a locally listed building (Laburnum Villa) and 

brick wall to the north, residential development (with ground floor commercial) to 

the east, Hayes End Road to the west and Uxbridge Road to the south. On the 

other side of Hayes End Road is a mix of one and two-storey commercial and 

industrial uses and to the south of Uxbridge Road is a mix of two-storey 

commercial and residential properties. 



The predominant scale of development within the surrounding area is two-storeys 

with the adjoining properties to the east containing a third floor within the roof 

space. Development along Uxbridge Road is a mixture of commercial and 

residential uses with development built flush with the front boundary. Hayes End 

Road comprises mainly industrial uses near its intersection with Uxbridge Road, 

changing to residential uses further to the north. 

The site is occupied by a dilapidated two-storey public house building that is 

currently boarded up. The building is orientated towards Uxbridge Road and 

contains a parking area to the east and overgrown land to the north. A number of 

large trees are scattered throughout the site and along the northern property 

boundary. Thirteen of these trees are protected under Tree Preservation Order 

301. A brick wall approximately 2m in height is located along the western 

boundary of the site, running from the rear of the existing public house building to 

the northwest corner of the site. 

(3)(b) Scheme 

Planning permission is sought for the erection of 43 residential units with 

associated amenity space and parking. The development consists of two blocks 

of flats, one fronting Uxbridge Road (Block A - 32 units) and the other Hayes End 

Road (Block B - 11 units). The block fronting Uxbridge Road is part three and part 

four-storeys and the block fronting Hayes End Road two storeys (with a third floor 

within the roof space). The buildings are to be constructed of face brick with 

concrete roof tiles. 43 parking spaces are proposed. 

The development contains 33 x 2 bedroom and 10 x 1 bedroom flats. Eleven 

affordable housing units are proposed, all of which are contained in Block B. 

Amenity space is provided in two separate areas, one at the rear of Block A 

(135m²) and the other at the rear and side of Block B (750m²). Access to the site 

is off Hayes End Road via a two-way driveway approximately 40m from the its 

intersection with Uxbridge Road. 


This is a duplicate application that has been appealed for non-determination. The 

original application (10852/APP/2002/2487) has been amended and currently 

proposes 41 units. Notwithstanding, further amendments have been requested 

which may further reduce the number of units. 


UDP Designation: 

Developed Area 

Adjoins the Green Belt (to the north) 

Located on a London Distributor Road (Uxbridge Rd) 

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



Part 1 Policies: 

Pt1.10 

Pt1.16 

Pt1.17 

Pt1.32 

Pt1.35 

Pt1.39 



To seek to ensure enough of new residential units are designed to 

wheelchair and mobility standards. 

To seek to ensure enough of new residential units are designed to 

wheelchair and mobility standards. 

To encourage development for uses other than those providing local 

services to locate in places which are accessible by public transport 

To accord priority to pedestrians in the design and implementation of 

road construction and traffic management schemes, and to seek to 

provide a network of cycle routes through the Borough to promote 

safer cycling and better conditions for cyclists. 

To seek, where appropriate, planning obligations to achieve benefits 

to the community related to the scale and type of development 

proposed. 


OL3 

OL5 

Green Belt – retention and improvement of existing landscape 

Development proposals adjacent to the Green Belt 

OL26 Protection and enhancement of trees, woodland and landscape features 

BE13 Layout and appearance of new development 

BE18 Design considerations – pedestrian security and safety 

BE19 New development with residential areas – complementing and improving 

character and amenity of the area 

BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations 

BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity to new buildings/extensions 

BE22 Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys 

BE23 External amenity space and new residential development 

BE24 Design of new buildings – protection of privacy 



BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new 

planting and landscaping in development proposals 

BE39 Protection of trees and woodland – tree preservation orders 

OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the 

local area 

OE12 Energy conservation and new development 

OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate sites 

H4 

H6 

H8 

H9 

H11 

R17 

Mix of housing units 

Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential development 

Change of use from non-residential to residential 

Provision for people with disabilities in new residential developments 

Provision of affordable housing 

Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation, 

leisure and community facilities 

AM2 Development proposals – assessment of traffic generation, impact on 

congestion and public transport availability 

AM7 Consideration of traffic generated by proposed development 

AM8 Priority consideration to pedestrians in the design and implementation of 

road construction and traffic management schemes 

AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design of 

highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking facilities 

AM14 New development and car parking standards 

AM15 Provision of reserved parking for disabled persons 

Also considered applicable are:- 

PPG1 (General Policy and Principles) 

PPG3 (Housing) 

PPG13 (Transport) 

SPG – Residential Layouts and House Design Guide 

Council’s Revised Parking Standards (December 2001) 




The application was advertised in the local paper and 73 neighbours were 

consulted by letter. 53 objections have been received. The issues raised are 

listed below:- 

• Density 

• Traffic generation and safety 

• Parking 

• Tail backs caused by the gated entry 

• Impact on trees 

• Impact on existing brick wall (fronting Hayes End Road) 

• Impact on listed building 

• Traffic queuing at lights (preventing access out of Keller Motors onto Hayes 

End Rd) 

• Location of entry driveway entry (in Hayes End Rd rather than Uxbridge Rd) 

• Future occupancy of units and the potential to attract asylum seekers 

• Impact on capacity of existing schools 

• Impact on other local services & facilities (doctors, hospitals, dentists) 

• Setbacks (to street frontages) 

• Privacy 


Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Team 

No comments 

English Heritage 

The application can be determined in 

accordance with Government guidance in 

PPG15, development plan policies, and with the 

benefit of conservation advice locally. We do 

not, therefore, wish to make any 

representations. 


Highways 

The footpath in Hayes End Road should be 

widened to 1.8m. In addition, a further 1.2m is 

required for a cycle track in Hayes End Road 

and continuation of the same in Uxbridge Road 

to link up with the existing cycle track. 

Parking spaces should be grouped in 3’s or 4’s 

with 1.0m wide landscaped/tree planting verges. 

Spaces 19 & 20 should be relocated. 

1.0 car space per unit is required. 10% of these 

are to be disabled. 



Require 43 cycle spaces. For Block A, the 

covered cycle storage area appears inadequate 

and should be segregated from the bin storage 

area. 

The applicant should be asked to fund the 

investigation and provision of a pedestrian 

crossing phase across Hayes End Road. 

Projects and Environmental 

Planning 

Trees/Landscape Officer 

Housing Services 

Education Service 

Major Projects and 


No “in principle” objection to the loss of the 

public house. In terms of Green Belt, the scale, 

design and massing of the development is 

unlikely to have an adverse impact. The density 

of the scheme is relatively high for this location. 

A scheme of this size should contain a 

reasonable amount of amenity space but the 

layout indicates much of the site is taken up by 

car parking. Consideration should be given to a 

modest reduction in the density of the scheme 

to reduce pressure on amenity space and the 

area taken up by parking. Appropriate 

affordable/key worker accommodation and 

education contributions should be sought by 

way of a section 106 agreement. 

The removal of TPO trees 11 & 12 will expose 

the rear elevation of Block A. The landscaping 

in front (and to the side) of Block A raises 

maintenance issues and is likely to act as a 

rubbish collector. Greater setbacks are required 

if these areas are to support dense landscaping. 

A landscaping setback should be provided 

adjacent to spaces 26-28. 

The location of the boundary fence that 

separates Block A and B will not create a good 

living environment for the ground floor flat that 

overlooks parking spaces 13-15. 

Contribution of £237.747 sought for public and 

primary school places by way of a Section 106 

agreement. 

Uxbridge Road is the proposed route of the 

West London Tram – investigate possible 

contribution to public transport initiatives 

commensurate with this density. The area of 

amenity space and local play area is small, 

overshadowed and poorly located next to car 



parks and sitting rooms. Access to the rear 

amenity area is inconvenient. 

Urban Design/Conservation 

The proposed development is of poor design. 

The site is of importance in terms of the street 

scene and as a corner site. The layout may 

need to be broken into 3 separate blocks, with a 

lighter, more contemporary design. The amount 

of accommodation may need to be reduced to 

achieve a sensible amount of amenity space 

and clearance around existing trees. 


(i) 

Principle of flats 

Policy H8 of the UDP permits a change of use from non-residential to residential 

in circumstances where:- 

• a satisfactory residential environment can be achieved; 

• the existing use is unlikely to meet demand for such, 

• the proposal is consistent with other objectives of the plan. 

The change of use from non-residential to residential is not opposed given the 

dilapidated state of the existing building and the residential uses that adjoin. The 

site is also located in close proximity to public transport services along Uxbridge 

Road. The land is considered to be of an adequate size and dimension to 

achieve a high quality residential environment that is in keeping with the character 

and amenity of the area. The building has been boarded up for some time and 

the site is overgrown and in need of maintenance and repair. The proposed 

change of use will therefore enable the existing building to be demolished and the 

site cleaned up and redeveloped to the benefit of the surrounding properties. 

(ii) 

Impact on the Green Belt 

The application site adjoins the Green Belt to the north and as such the design, 

location and height of buildings needs to be carefully considered. In this regard, 

proposed Block B is to be setback 7.6m from the northern property boundary and 

presents as a two-storey building along the northern elevation. This setback 

distance is considered appropriate given the height of the building and the dense 

band of vegetation that runs along the northern boundary. 

Proposed Block B is a mix of three and four storeys and is setback 49m from the 

northern boundary. This setback distance is considered sufficient given the height 

and scale of the building and the transitional effect of the smaller block of flats 

(Block B) between this building and the Green Belt. The development is therefore 

considered to satisfy Green Belt Policies OL3 & OL5 and would not result in harm 

to the visual amenities of the adjoining Green Belt land. 



(iii) 

Impact on the locally listed building and wall 

The site adjoins a locally listed building (Laburnum Villa) and brick wall on the 

adjoining property to the north. The locally listed building dates back to the mid 

19 th Century and is sited approximately 30m from the northern boundary of the 

site. The brick wall dates back to the 18 th Century and abuts the site at its 

northwest corner. The proposed development is not considered to have a 

detrimental impact on the locally listed building or wall having regard to the 

setback of the development and the retention of the existing trees along the 

northern boundary. A new 1.2m high railing fence is proposed along the frontage 

of the site with landscaping behind. The railing fence will abut the locally listed 

wall. This is considered preferable to a continuation of the wall as it will allow for a 

softening of the street frontage and open up views of the vegetation along the 

northern boundary. 

(iv) 

Density 

Policy H6 of the UDP states that the density of development depends on a 

balance between the full and effective use of available housing land and a 

combination of the following important considerations; 

- the quality of the housing layout and design, 

- its compatibility with the density, form and spacing of surrounding 

development, 

- the proposed dwelling mix, and 

- the location, configuration and characteristics of the site. 

Applications with densities above 150 habitable rooms per hectare (h.r.p.h) need 

to demonstrate that the layout and design of the scheme are of a quality that 

produces good environmental conditions within the development and which 

harmonise with the surroundings. 

The proposed development has a density of 287 h.r.p.h. This density is not 

supported having regard to the following:- 

• The layout of the development provides too much built form on the southern 

portion of the site (adjacent to Uxbridge Road). 

• The concentration of parking areas at the southern end of the site results in 

the removal of two significant trees (protected under TPO 301) which it turn 

exposes the rear elevation of Block A. 

• The play area adjacent to Block A is considered inadequate having an area of 

only 135m², or just over 4m² per unit (for Block A). The play area also contains 

a path running through the middle of it and is located directly adjacent to the 

main living areas of one of the ground floor flats. This is likely to result in a 

poor level of amenity for the future occupier of that unit. 

• The configuration of the parking bays is unconventional and results in poor 

access to spaces 25-29. 

• The development provides inadequate landscaping opportunities along the 

eastern boundary adjacent to spaces 26-28. This will enable overlooking into 



the rear yard of the adjoining property from the balconies and living areas at 

the rear of Block A. 

• The setbacks to the western elevation of Block A are considered inadequate 

having regard to the height of the building and the setbacks of other residential 

buildings along Hayes End Road. 

• The density of development is significantly higher than adjoining residential 

properties. 

(v) 

Impact on the character & amenity of the area 

Policies BE19, BE21 & OE1 seek to ensure that new development will 

complement and improve the character and amenity of the area. Whilst 

demolition of the existing building and cleaning up of the site may be seen as 

positive, the design of the building together with its bulk and scale is considered to 

have an overbearing impact on the street scene and character of the area. In this 

regard, the design of Block A lacks adequate modulation or articulation along both 

street frontages while the protruding fourth storey provides little relationship to the 

remainder of the building. The elevation to Uxbridge Road will read as a long and 

bulky structure which is inconsistent with the eave heights, roof forms and general 

appearance of adjoining development. The corner feature is lost in the overall 

scale and massing of the building and therefore fails to provide a true focal point 

to the development. The character and amenity of the area is also considered to 

be compromised having regard to the extent of hard paving, the minimal setbacks 

and landscaping opportunities to Uxbridge and Hayes End Roads, the extent of 

traffic generation and the removal of several mature trees. 

(vi) 

Layout and appearance of development 

Policy BE13 states that development will not be permitted if the layout and 

appearance fail to harmonise with the existing street scene. The elevation of 

proposed Block A (to Uxbridge Road) is a combination of three and four storeys 

with traditional pitching roofs. The adjoining properties to the east are two storeys 

with a third storey within the roof space. The development therefore reads a full 

storey higher than the adjoining buildings and this is further exacerbated by the 

length of the building (44m) and its lack of modulation or articulation. The setback 

of the building to Hayes End Road is also inconsistent with other buildings to the 

north. In this regard, the two-storey dwelling on the east, and the terraces on the 

west of Hayes End Road have setbacks of 5 and 6 metres respectively. These 

setbacks provide spatial separation and landscaping opportunities that would 

greatly benefit the elevation of Block A given its height, design and prominent 

corner location. The layout of the development is also considered to result in the 

removal of several significant trees, the separation of amenity spaces and a poorly 

configured car parking layout. The layout and appearance of the development is 

not, therefore, considered to harmonise with the existing street scene. 

(vii) 

Impact on existing trees 

Policy OL26 encourages the preservation of existing trees and the provision of 

additional landscaping. The proposal involves the removal of several mature 



trees, two of which are covered by Tree Preservation Orders (T11 and T12). 

These trees provide natural screening and contribute to the landscaped character 

of the area. Whilst it is acknowledged that some trees will be lost as a result of 

the development, the application fails to provide adequate replacement 

landscaping, particularly on the southern portion of the site. In this regard, 

additional landscaping buffers are required along the eastern boundary (adjacent 

to spaces 26-28) and within the setback areas to Hayes End and Uxbridge Roads. 

The proposed setback areas are insufficient to accommodate deep planting which 

is commensurate with the bulk and scale of the building. The landscaping 

proposed in these setback areas is likely to act as a rubbish trap and will be 

difficult to maintain given that its inaccessible from inside the units. 

(viii) 

Amenity space 

Policy BE23 requires new development to provide amenity space which is usable 

in terms of its siting and shape. The development provides amenity space around 

the northern building although the provision of this amenity space is dictated by 

the location of the trees along the northern boundary, adjacent to the Green Belt. 

Whilst the size of this area is considered reasonable, the usability of the area is 

questioned having regard to the canopy spread of the trees and the resultant 

overshadowing. 

The other area of amenity space (located on the western side of the site) is the 

only “open” area and is quite small, having an area of only 135m² and a width of 

9.5m. This area is located outside the main living area of the adjacent ground 

floor unit and is bounded on the other three sides by the car park, Hayes End 

Road and the entry driveway. It also has a bin/cycle storage area in its northeast 

corner and a footpath running through the middle. Accordingly, its usability is 

again questionable, particularly as it is the only accessible area of amenity space 

for the occupants of Block A (without the need to cross the car park). 

(ix) 

Traffic, parking and access to public transport 

Policies AM2, AM7, AM14, AM15 are concerned with traffic generation, road 

capacity, on-site parking and access to public transport. In terms of traffic 

generation and road capacity, Council’s Highways Engineer has not raised any 

objection to the development on these grounds. 

Notwithstanding, numerous objections have been received in respect to parking 

and traffic volumes along Hayes End Road. In this regard, Council’s revised 

parking standards seek the provision of the following maximum parking rates:- 

1.5 spaces per dwelling 

10% of spaces to be disabled 

1 motor cycle space per 20 car spaces 

1 bicycle space per dwelling (1 & 2 bedrooms) 



Accordingly, the development generates a maximum parking provision of:- 

65 parking spaces 

7 disabled spaces 

4 motor cycle spaces, and 

43 bicycle spaces 

The development proposes 43 parking spaces (6 disabled spaces), 2 motor cycle 

spaces and approximately 18 bicycle spaces. The development therefore fails to 

meet Council’s maximum parking rates. Given the highlighted parking problems 

in the area, and the lack of on-street parking in close proximity to the site, this 

level of parking provision is considered inadequate. 

(x) 

Planning obligations 

Policy R17 seeks to supplement the provision of recreational open space and 

other community, social and educational facilities through planning obligations. In 

this regard, an education contribution of £237,747 has been sought in respect to 

primary and secondary school places while the applicant has also been asked to 

fund the investigation and provision of a pedestrian crossing phase at the 

southern end of Hayes End Road. No agreement has been reached with the 

applicant in respect to these issues. 


53 letters of objection have been received in relation to the proposal. These 

comments have been taken in account in recommending the application for 

refusal. 



(3)(i) Observations of Borough Treasurer 










The proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site having regard to 

its density, the footprint of the building and parking areas, the lack of useable 

amenity space and the removal of several significant trees. The design of the 



front building (Block A), combined with its height, bulk and scale is considered to 

have an adverse impact on the street scene and character and appearance of the 

area. The proposed setback of Block A (to Hayes End Road) is not considered to 

provide adequate spatial separation or landscaping opportunities and will 

therefore have an overbearing impact on the streetscape. The development also 

lacks adequate landscaping space to the Uxbridge Road frontage and adjacent to 

car spaces 26-28. The development is therefore considered to be incompatible 

with the character and appearance of the area. On this basis, had the applicant 

not appealed against non-determination, the application would have been refused. 


(a) PPG1 (General Policy and Principles) 

(b) PPG3 (Housing) 

(c) PPG13 (Transport) 

(d) Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Adopted September 1998). 

(e) SPG – Residential Layouts and House Design Guide 

(f) Council’s Revised Parking Standards (December 2001) 

Contact Officer: NICK SUTTON Telephone No: 01895 277079 





A 

Item No. 9 

Address: 

Development: 


41 SIPSON WAY and GROUND FLOOR OF 47 SIPSON 

WAY, SIPSON, WEST DRAYTON 

THE UNAUTHORISED CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS A1 

RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL FLAT ABOVE TO USE AS A 

CARGO/FREIGHT BUSINESS 

LBH Ref Nos: 19592 - Enf 185 & Enf 1582 

Drawing Nos: 

N/A 

Date of receipt: N/A Date(s) of Amendment(s): N/A 

(1) SUMMARY 

41 Sipson Way is a former shop/post office within Class A1 with an ancillary 

residential flat on the first floor. 47 Sipson Way is a former retail shop also within 

Class A1 with an independent residential flat above. 

Planning Enforcement enquiries have shown that the properties are now being 

used as a freight/cargo forwarding business. This use falls within Class B8. The 

original shop and first flat at No. 41 is being used for the storage of freight 

packages and administration of this business. The ground floor of No. 47 is being 

used for storage in connection with this business. The first floor at No. 47 is a 

self-contained residential flat in separate occupation. Up to six commercial small 

trucks are being operated from the site. It is understood that this business is 

related to Heathrow Airport activities. 

This report considers the effects of the unauthorised use without planning 

permission. 


1. That the Committee should consider the expediency of enforcement 

action, including the service of an Enforcement Notice under 

Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

2. That the Head of Planning and Transportation be authorised to 

instruct the Borough Solicitor to issue Enforcement Notices in 

respect of a breach of planning control, namely the use of the 

premises at 41 Sipson Way and the ground floor of 47 Sipson Way as 

a Class B8 freight distribution centre. 

3. The Notices shall require the following steps to be taken to remedy 

the breach of planning control: 



(a) Cease the use of the ground and first floor at No. 41 

Sipson Way as a Class B8 freight distribution centre. 

(b) Cease the use of the ground floor of 47 Sipson Way as a 

Class B8 freight distribution centre. 

(c) Remove all vehicles/materials/equipment/tools and other 

items associated with the freight business; 

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

The breach of planning control has been going on for less than 

10 years and by reason of its size and operation has resulted in the 

loss of A1 retail units at 41 and 47 Sipson Way. The use is 

detrimental to the amenity of nearby occupiers because of storage 

and display of vehicles’ traffic generation and congestion in Sipson 

Way. The business is directly related to Heathrow Airport contrary to 

Policies S6(iv) and OE1 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary 


The development has a harmful effect on road safety by increased 

traffic generated by collections and deliveries to both premises. It is 

not compatible with neighbouring uses and causes unacceptable loss 

of amenity to nearby residential properties by reason of noise, smell, 

fumes, parking or other traffic related policies and is therefore 

contrary to Policies S6(iv) and OE1 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary 


The use as a freight cargo business has resulted in the loss of two 

retail units detrimental to the character and function of this retail 

parade and has resulted in the surrounding area becoming deficient 

of essential retail uses contrary to Policy S7 of the Borough’s adopted 


The use of the premises as a cargo import/export freight business 

with up to six vehicles serving the business is detrimental to the 

amenity of nearby occupiers because of appearance, storage and 

display of vehicles, traffic generation and congestion in Sipson Way 

resulting in increased noise, vibration, dust, pollution and other 

pollutants which cannot be mitigated adequately or within acceptable 

levels by engineering layout or administrative measures, contrary to 

Policies OE1 and OE3 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development 

Plan. 

The business that is being conducted as an air cargo import/export 

specialising in freight and baggage re-routing to the Middle East, 

deals directly with all the major airlines at Heathrow. By the nature of 

its business it is directly related to Heathrow Airport and is therefore 



contrary to Policy A4 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development 

Plan. 

5. That a period of 2 months be given for compliance with the terms of 

the Enforcement Notice. 



The properties are located within a purpose built two-storey parade of four shops 

with residential flats above. The properties are bounded to the north and south by 

residential properties, with a park to the west. 

(3)(b) Planning History 

No relevant planning history for either property 

In October 1999 the Council became aware of the unauthorised development 

activity including the conversion of the properties into an airport import/export air 

cargo business. 

On 14th December 1999, Planning Contravention Notices were served on the 

owner and tenant of No. 41 and 47 Sipson Way for the breach of planning control 

as a freight business. 

(3)(c) Planning Policies and Standards 

UDP Designation: Local Parade 

The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies, Supplementary Planning 

Guidance (SPG) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) documents to this report 

are considered to include:- 


Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely effect the 

amenity and character of the Boroughs residential areas. 

Pt1.19 To maintain a hierarchy of shopping centres which maximises accessibility 

to shops and to encourage retail development in existing centres or local parades 

which is appropriate to their scale and function and not likely to harm the viability 

and vitality of town or local centres. 

Pt 1.20 to give priority to retail uses at ground floor level in the Boroughs shopping 

areas. 

Pt 1.32 to encourage development for uses other than those providing local 

services to locate in places which are accessible by public transport. 




Policy S6 Change of use of shops-safeguarding the amenities of shopping areas 

Policy S7 Change of use of shops in Parades. 

OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the 

local area. 

OE3 Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance -mitigation measures. 

A4 New development directly related to Heathrow airport should normally be 

within its boundary and will not normally be permitted outside the airport. 

Development not directly related to the operation of the airport will not be 

permitted within its boundary. For the purposes of this policy, directly related 

development includes passenger and cargo terminals, maintenance facilities, oil 

storage depots, administrative offices, warehousing, storage and distribution 

facilities, car parking and catering facilities. 

Circular 10/97 Enforcing Planning Control: legislative Provisions and Procedural 

Requirements 

Paragraph 2.2 

The power to issue an enforcement notice is discretionary notice requires 

remedial steps to be taken within a specified time limit. It should only be used 

where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that there has been a breach of 

planning control and it is expedient to issue a notice, having regard to the 

provisions of the development plan and to ant other material consideration. 

Planning Policy Guidance 18: Enforcing Planning Control 

Paragraph 5 

The Local Planning Authority has a general discretion to take enforcement action, 

when they regard it is expedient. 

PPG6: Retail 

PPG13: Transportation 

(3)(d) Consultations 


The Highways Engineer objects to the continued use of the development as it 

results in an increase in traffic congestion. 



(3)(e) Main Planning Issues 

The main issues are: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

(i) 

Loss of A1 retail use at Nos. 41 and 47 Sipson Way 

Loss of ancillary residential flat at No. 41 Sipson Way 

Harm to local residents due to noise and disturbance 

Highway and pedestrian safety 

Inappropriate location 

Expediency 

Loss of A1 retail use at Nos. 41 and 47 Sipson Way 

The Local parade at Sipson Way consists of four retail units. Two of the units are 

currently being used for the sale of classic car parts with the remaining two being 

used by the freight company. 

Although these retail units are vacant, the opportunity for these units to provide 

convenient shopping to local residents is lost if this unauthorised use was to 

continue. No. 41 was in use as a Post Office, which is considered to be an 

essential use protected under Policy S7. The nearest town centre is the Yiewsley 

/ West Drayton Town Centre which is not within walking distance of this site. 

It is therefore considered that the surrounding residential area is deficient in 

essential shop uses. The loss of the retail units at 41 and 47 Sipson Way is 

therefore contrary to Policy S7 of the UDP. 

(ii) 

Loss of ancillary residential flat at No. 41 Sipson Way 

It is the Council’s general policy not to grant planning permission for a change 

from residential use. However the residential unit above No. 41 can only be 

accessed from within the ground floor unit, it is therefore considered to be 

ancillary to the use as a retail unit. As such, the proposal does not result in a loss 

of a residential use protected under Council policy. 

(iii) 

Harm to local residents due to noise and disturbance 

The character of this locality is that of an established residential area. The 

introduction of a commercial business with the parking, delivery and collection of 

freight by such vehicles within this residential area has resulted in increased levels 

of activity. The nature of the business is such that throughout the day between 

8am and up to 9pm vehicles are collecting freight from the airport and depositing 

the freight at the site where it is stored. Similar collections are made from this 

location for delivery to the airport. Furthermore reports from local residents 

indicate that the freight vehicles are regularly cleaned in Sipson Way creating 

further noise and pollution associated with this activity in addition to the normal 

levels of activity associated with a residential area. It is considered this additional 

activity has harmed the residential character of the area. In addition, as 

evidenced by neighbours and local residents’ associations, the general activity 



associated with the use has impinged upon those living nearby and is out of 

keeping with the residential character of the street scene. 

The development is therefore contrary to Policies OE1, OE3 and of the Unitary 


(iv) 

Highway and pedestrian safety 

The continued use of the site gives rise to conditions, which are likely to prejudice 

the free flow of traffic and conditions of general highway and pedestrian safety. 

Complaints have been received from local residents and resident associations 

concerning the number of vehicles using the site, the parking delivering and 

collection from the site. This unacceptable increase of traffic to a small residential 

road interferes with the free flow of traffic and endangers pedestrian safety. 

The use is therefore contrary to Policies OE1 and S6(iv) of the Unitary 


(v) 

Inappropriate location 

The unauthorised development is directly related to Heathrow Airport. It deals 

with the import and export of cargo and unaccompanied baggage to the Middle 

East dealing with all the major airlines. This gives the operation a direct functional 

link to the airport. Such an activity should be normally sited within the airport 

boundary. 

The location of such activity off-airport is contrary to Policy A4 of the Unitary 

Development Plan 

(vi) 

Expediency 

The current use involves the storage and display of commercial vehicles 

associated with the running of this freight company. The operation comprises the 

use of these vehicles for the collection and delivery of freight that is inappropriate 

for this residential area. They give the site the appearance of a commercial depot. 

The use is incompatible in amenity terms with the local area, and is unacceptable 

in planning terms and is clearly contrary to Development Plan Polices. In view of 

the seriousness of this breach of planning control it is recommend that 

enforcement action is taken. 


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 of planning control. They 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 planning grounds enforcement action should not be 

taken purely to regularise the situation. 











The current use is unauthorised and is considered to be detrimental to the 

character and amenities of the surrounding area. The use fails to comply with 

planning policy. It is recommended the Committee consider taking enforcement 

action to stop the use. 


UDP 

PPG 6, 13, 18 

Letters of Complaints 

Contact Officer: PAT MAGUIRE Telephone Number: 250845 





A 

Item No. 10 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

Drawing Nos: 


BROOKSIDE, MOOR LANE, HARMONDSWORTH 

UNAUTHORISED COMMERCIAL USE FOR OPEN 

STORAGE/SCRAP TOGETHER WITH BOUNDARY 

FENCING 

24416/APP/2000/610 & EN/00/3 

N/A 

(1) SUMMARY 

This application was considered in Part 2 at the Hayes Planning Committee held 

on 3 April 2003 because information relating to the report that was to be reported 

to the meeting constituted exempt information as defined in the Local Government 

(Access to Information) Act 1985. The application was then deferred for officers 

to seek further legal advice. 

This site is known as Brookside, Moor Lane, Harmondsworth. It lies within the 

Metropolitan Green Belt, Colne Valley Regional Park and is Common Land. 

The site currently comprises a fenced storage/scrap area. The site has no 

planning consent for any development. 

The site has an extensive history of unauthorised development dating back to the 

1960s. In 1970 an enforcement notice in respect of car breaking was authorised 

and the occupier was successfully prosecuted. A further prosecution in 1979 

failed. In 1998 a further enforcement notice was authorised relating to the storage 

of scrap, the parking of lorries, boundary fencing etc. A subsequent planning 

inquiry upheld the enforcement notice but despite some limited clearance the 

notice has not been complied with over 2 years after the required date. 

Additionally the site is subject to a S106 Agreement requiring its acquisition and 

restoration as Common Land for incorporation within British Airway’s 

Harmondsworth Moor public park which has been provided as planning mitigation 

for the development of British Airway’s Waterside corporate headquarters building 

within the Green Belt. 

The enforcement appeal is recent and there have not been any significant 

material changes in circumstances that would justify not prosecuting this blatant 

breach of planning control. 

The current state of the site is considered unacceptable and it is recommended 

that prosecution be authorised. 



(2) RECOMMENDATION:- 

That it is expedient to authorise the Borough Solicitor to:- 

1. commence and pursue appropriate prosecution action to secure 

compliance with the enforcement notice issued on 3.2.2000 and 

upheld on appeal on 17.8.2000 at Brookside, Moor Lane, 

Harmondsworth and to bring proceedings against such persons 

connected with the breaches of planning control as he considers 

appropriate; and 

2. swear affidavits/witness statements and to give and produce evidence 

on behalf of the Council and to authorise other officers of the Council 

to do so. 


(3)(a) Site and locality 

The location of the site is shown on the Ordnance Survey plan attached to this 

report. The site is now fenced with approximately 3m high green painted profiled 

metal fencing to the northeast boundary, approximately 2.4m high to the 

southeast and approximately 2.8m high to the Moor Lane frontage. Access to 

Moor Lane is provided via high metal gates set in the fence along the Moor Lane 

frontage. Approximately 2m high mainly metal mesh fencing generally delineates 

the northwest boundary. The site has an area of approximately 0.18 hectares and 

is generally level. Its surface comprises mainly flattened earth, tarmac and 

hardcore. An amount of hardcore was deposited either late 1996 or early 1997 

adjacent to the northwest boundary to raise the level of the appeal site along the 

bank of the River Colne. 

All articles, vehicles, portable buildings, materials, other paraphernalia etc are 

moveable. 

The River Colne bounds the appeal site to the northwest with Moor Lane to the 

southwest. Moor Lane crosses the River Colne via a gated bridge whilst a 

pedestrian bridge and public footpath are located to the north side of the road 

bridge. On the opposite side of the River Colne is an area called the Glebelands 

which forms part of the public park known as Harmondsworth Moor which is being 

provided and managed by British Airways via a Section 106 Agreement with this 

Council. 

The northeast boundary of the appeal site adjoins part of the treed river bank and 

a car parking area at the Saxon Way Trading Estate - a modern industrial estate 

served via a single access from Moor Lane. The southeast boundary of the 

appeal site adjoins a mainly treed area that provides a landscaped frontage to the 

trading estate. 



On the opposite side of Moor Lane is Home Farm, which comprises a dwelling 

and various outbuildings. The outbuildings contain a small business producing 

film sets, exhibition stands and material and which is run by the owner. 

The site and surrounding area is wholly within the Metropolitan Green Belt and 

ColneValley Park as defined on the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan 

Proposals Map. 

In the late 1980’s British Airways proposed plans for a new headquarters office 

building on a site approximately 0.5 km to the south of the site. The proposals 

also included the creation of a new regional public park on the surrounding land. 

Two duplicate planning applications were submitted on 27.4.89 and were 

subsequently withdrawn in February 1990 but a revised application providing 

substantially more parkland was subsequently approved by the Secretary of State 

on 12.10.92. 

The permission was subject to a Section 106 Agreement. A new and more 

comprehensive replacement planning obligation was signed on 13.4.95. This 

contains a requirement for British Airways to incorporate this site and several 

others within the park if necessary by use of a compulsory purchase order 

together with decontamination, landscaping, public access and maintenance in 

perpetuity at no cost to the Council. However, although the Council is currently 

progressing compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) in respect of three other sites, it 

decided not to immediately pursue a CPO in respect of Brookside due to the 

complexities of the planning enforcement situation and its common land 

designation. 

The bulk of the new park has been completed to a consistently high standard. In 

respect of the area on the west side of the River Colne which is visible from the 

site, a new, gently rolling parkland landscape has been created. This represents 

a complete transformation from the previously degraded landscape. 

(3)(b) Planning History 

The site has an extensive planning history including breaches of planning control 

dating back to the 1960s. The full chronology is attached at Appendix 1. 

Summary of Planning History 

Pre 1960’s 

Open common land understood to have been used as a ‘mud 

landing’ and also a rubbish dump by local residents. 

1965 Local authority removed fencing from along the Moor Lane frontage 

as such fencing is unauthorised on common land. 

1970 Enforcement notice served to prevent car breakers yard. 

1971 Mr Doyle fined £140 plus costs at Uxbridge Magistrates Court. 



1972 Appeal against conviction dismissed. 

1978 Refusal of application for established use certificate for car and 

commercial breakers yard. (Appeal declared invalid). 

1978 Refusal of application for continued use of land for car breaking and 

storage of scrap metal. (Appeal declared invalid). 

1979 Council prosecution in respect of 1970 enforcement notice fails in 

Uxbridge Magistrates Court. 

1983 Council writes to occupiers that site appears not to be actively used 

but still contains equipment and material. 

1990 Derelict motor vehicles and cranes appear to continue to be stored. 

1993 PCN issued re: use of land for storage of cranes. 

1994 Comprehensive photographs showing storage of scrap. 

1997 Site cleared, inner yard created, surface improved, new fencing, 

HGV use and vehicle repairs. Complaints from Home Farm re: 

adverse impact on residential amenity. 

1998 Enforcement action authorised. 

2000 Enforcement notice served. Appeal against enforcement notice 

dismissed. 

2001 Compliance period expires. 

The Enforcement Notice 

The enforcement notice the subject of this proposed prosecution was authorised 

by the Council’s Hayes and Harlington Planning Sub-Committee on 11.8.98. It 

was issued on 3.2.2000 and alleged: 

Without planning permission making a material change of use for:- 

i) the parking and storage of lorries, repair of vehicles including paint 

spraying, the storage of waste materials, pallets, skips, wood, metal 

frames, metal ladders, air conditioning units, tyres, lorry bodies, 

vehicles and vehicle parts, 

ii) the siting of a caravan, portable buildings and 2 mobile cranes and 

iii) the erection of boundary fencing. 



The requirements of the notice are:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

cease use of the land for the parking and storage of lorries, repair of 

vehicles including paint spraying, the storage of waste materials, 

pallets, skips, wood, metal frames, metal ladders, air conditioning 

units, tyres, lorry bodies, vehicles and vehicle parts, the siting of a 

caravan, portable buildings and two mobile cranes; 

remove from the land all lorries, vehicles, vehicle parts, lorry bodies, 

waste materials, tyres, pallets, skips, wood, metal frames, metal 

ladders, air conditioning units, caravans, portable buildings, mobile 

cranes and all other materials, equipment, machinery, tools and 

paraphernalia associated with the unauthorised use; 

remove from the land the boundary fencing as shown in the 

approximate position by a broken black line on the plan attached to 

the enforcement notice; 

remove from the land all hardcore and compacted earth that form 

the hardstanding on the land. 

The period for compliance was amended by the Inspector from 3 months to 6 

months. 

The original 1970 enforcement notice served in respect of this site is still extant. 

The Planning Inspector who determined the recent appeal was clear that this 

notice had never been fully complied with and that the Council could have taken 

action then and at any subsequent date to clear the site in compliance with the 

1970 notice. 

Breaches of the Notice 

Whilst some initial clearance of the site took place soon after the appeal this was 

not comprehensive and much material remains including skips, piles of rubble and 

other scrap/waste materials. 

The fencing around the site remains in place unaltered from the time of the appeal 

in 2000. 

The site was last inspected by officers on 25.03.2003 and clearly remains in 

breach of the requirements of the enforcement notice. 

Green Belt, Colne Valley Park, Comprehensive Redevelopment Area. 

Why it is Expedient to Prosecute 

The compliance period in respect of the enforcement notice expired on 17.2.01. It 

is normal practice to ensure compliance with enforcement notices especially those 

that have been upheld on appeal. Unless new material considerations indicate 

otherwise, a failure to secure compliance with an enforcement notice may set a 

precedent that encourages others to ignore important planning controls. 



The Planning Inspector summarised the reasoning for his decision to refuse to 

grant a deemed consent for the use as follows: 

“At the inquiry the appellant’s agent very fairly conceded that there was no 

real case he could advance on behalf of his client in support of the appeal 

made on its planning merits. I have to concur with that. The use may well 

be largely open in nature but it does not fall within any of the acceptable 

open green belt uses set out in UDP Policy OL1. Moreover, the 

unfortunate external appearance of the site, and the activities contained 

within its boundaries, cannot be said to further the environmental and 

recreational objectives of the Colne Valley Park. The uses and operational 

development enforced against therefore constitute inappropriate 

development in the Metropolitan Green Belt. Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of 

PPG2, “Green Belts” set out a presumption against inappropriate 

development within green belts which is, by definition, harmful to the green 

belt, and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 

The appellant was unable to identify any very special circumstances that 

would justify the grant of planning permission for this inappropriate 

development. As a consequence, the appeal on ground (a) fails and 

planning permission will not be granted on the application deemed to have 

been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended.” 

There have been no significant material changes in circumstances since the 

Inspector determined the appeal. Failure to restore the site results in continuing 

harm to the amenity of the Green Belt and Colne Valley. 

A copy of the Inspector’s decision letter is attached at Appendix 2. 

One of the complications of this prosecution is that the site is common land 

although full documentation is not available. Accordingly prosecutions should be 

brought, in the first instance, against the user of the site (Mr A Hall) and any other 

appropriate person with an interest in the site. 

Financial Implications 

The costs of bringing the prosecution are minimal but costs of the order of £5,000 

are likely if the defendant elects for trial or an appeal is made against conviction or 

sentence. There is satisfactory provision within the Enforcement Prosecution 

budget. Additionally the Council may be awarded costs by the court. 

Observations of the Borough Solicitor 

The power to prosecute for breach of an enforcement notice is discretionary and 

should only be used where the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that it is 

expedient to do so 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 prosecute 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. 

Observations of the Borough Treasurer 

The financial implications are included within the report. The costs of bringing the 

prosecution are minimal, but costs of the order of £5k are likely if the defendant 

elects for trial or an appeal is made against conviction or sentence. At the present 

time, there is satisfactory provision within the enforcement budget with which to 

fund these likely costs. 

Conclusion 

It is recommended that the Committee authorise prosecution to secure 

compliance with the enforcement notice at Brookside, Moor Lane, 

Harmondsworth. 

The current development at the site is not consistent with its Green Belt and 

Common Land status within the Colne Valley Regional Park or with a range of 

policies within the UDP. 

Background Documents 

• Detailed chronology of inspections, correspondence etc. relating to this site 

• Inspectors decision letter dated 17.8.2000 

• Enforcement notice issued 3.2.2000 

• UDP 

Contact Officer: TIM JURDON Telephone Number: 01895 250610 



APPENDIX 1 

Chronology 

7.1.65 Following correspondence with the then occupier (a Mr R. C. Doyle) 

the then Yiewsley and West Drayton Urban District Council removed 

fencing along the Moor Lane frontage. This was done on the basis 

that the Council was responsible for maintaining the site as common 

land by virtue of the Harmondsworth award of 1819. 

25.3.70 Enforcement notice issued alleging the making of an unauthorised 

change in the use to a use for the purpose of a car breakers yard. 

The notice was not appealed. 

18.2.71 Mr Doyle fined £140 plus costs at Uxbridge Magistrates Court. 

11.5.71 Appeal against conviction at Middlesex Guildhall dismissed. 

26.6.73 Letter from Senior Planning Solicitor to Mr Doyle plus letters dated 

30.4.74 from Deputy Director of Planning and 30.7.75 from Principal 

Area Planning Officer. 

1973 – 1977 During this period there are numerous records of site visits and 

memorandums relating to the continuing unauthorised use of the 

site. 

6.12.77 Application ref: 24416/77/1729 received for the established use of 

the site as a car and commercial breakers yard. The application 

was refused on 2.3.78 for the following reason: 

(a) Insufficient independent factual evidence has been produced by 

the applicant to support the claim and 

(b) An investigation of rating and planning history and the study of 

an aerial photograph of the premises taken after 1 January 1964, 

does not provide any evidence to support the applicants 

contention that the use as a car and commercial breakers yard 

began before 31 December 1963. 

12.10.76 A subsequent appeal was declared invalid by the DoE on 12.10.78 

for the reason that an application for an established use certificate 

could not be made in respect of a use which was, at the time of the 

application, in contravention of an effective enforcement notice and 

is therefore illegal. 

7.11.78 Letter from Somers & Leyne Solicitors to the Council advising that 

the car breakers use was ceasing and that it would be grassed for 

the keeping of horses. This would take some time and the 2 cranes 

would remain until a purchaser could be found. In the meantime 



planning permission was to be sought to re start use as a car 

breakers yard. It was requested that the rating of the site be 

changed from light industrial. 

17.11.78 Planning application ref: 24416A/78/1972 submitted for the 

continued use of land for car breaking and storage of scrap metal. 

The application was refused on 8.1.79. 

30.1.79 Appeal lodged. 

26.3.79 Unsuccessful prosecution of Mrs. Doyle in Uxbridge Magistrates 

Court. It appears that the case was dismissed on the basis that car 

breaking was not being carried out and that the land was being 

cleared following the rejection of the planning appeal. 

24.4.79 Appeal declared invalid by DoE on 24.4.79 for the reason that the 

applicant had failed to advertise the application under Section 26 of 

the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. 

5.12.80 Letter from Council’s Assistant Solicitor to Mrs. Doyle. 

28.2.83 Letter from Area Planning Officer to Somers & Leyne advising that 

the site does not appear to be actively used but harbours a variety of 

equipment including scrapped cars and spare parts. Council are 

now anxious to effect clearance. 

21.4.83 Letter from Somers & Leyne to Area Planning Officer requesting 

application forms in order to retain use and appeal if refused. 

8.11.90 Memorandum from Mr P. Scott (Principal Planning Officer) stating: 

“It would appear that derelict motor vehicles and cranes are being 

stored on the land.” 

22.9.93 File note of site visit by Mr D. Gurtler (Planning Officer) confirming 

no new activity. 

13.12.93 Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) issued. The suspected 

breach of planning control was ‘use of land for the storage of 

cranes.’ 

6.1.94 Meeting between Mr Hall, Mr Turner (agent), Mr Gurtler and Ms C. 

D’Arcy (Council’s legal dept). Mr Hall stated that he took over the 

site from Mrs. Doyle in 1977. The use of the site is described as 

“car breakers and clear govt sites of dismantling - then sell it off to 

scrap.” Part of the site is said to be used for breaking and part for 

general storage (from 1977 to date). 



7.1.94 A site visit by Mr P. Poplett (Enforcement Officer) and Mr Gurtler 

took place with photographs taken at the same time. It is clear that 

the site was being used for storage of scrap materials including 

some limited vehicle parts and some reclaimed building materials. 

16.2.97 Written complaint from Heathrow and Sipson Residents Association 

alleging enlargement of building, commercial vehicle repair and paint 

spraying. 

25.4.97 Site visit was undertaken by Mr Poplett and Mr K. Rushe (Planning 

Officer). Site Photographs show newly painted perimeter fencing 

fronting Moor Lane, a mainly mesh metal fence (approx. 2m high) 

alongside the River Colne and profile sheet fencing along the 

northeast and southeast boundaries. Also shown are 4 HGV tipper 

lorries, 1 smaller flat bed type lorry with a pick up arm, a smaller flat 

bed type lorry, a transit van, 9 cars/vans, a Komatsu digger, 

prefabricated single storey building, large metal shipping container, 

old lorry box, crane, skip and assorted scrap in the north-west 

corner, rubble/brick infill along part of the boundary to the River 

Colne, and what appears to be an extended/replaced building on the 

site of the previous building which appears to incorporate the same 

profiled metal panels used for the majority of the new fencing to 

provide additional height to the building. A high fenced yard with 

metal gates encloses the space between the building and the site 

access gates. Inside is a mechanical guillotine, scrap metal, several 

storage drums, a workbench and assorted items. 

8.5.97– 27.7.99 Further written complaints received over time from the Criers 

plus 4 photographs. These show more than 4 HGVs parked at the 

site with 1 lorry appearing to contain earth/inert material. 

15.5.97 Letter sent by Borough Enforcement Officer to the appellant 

confirming advice from the appellant that he was permitting the yard 

to be used for the parking of lorries by a third party(s) and was using 

the shed (extended building) to repair vehicles including painting 

them. It was also advised that the prefabricated building 

(portacabin) was empty and for sale. 

3.7.97 Letter from David Baker & Co Solicitors confirms that the fence was 

specifically raised by 1 foot 9 inches higher than previously to 

prevent stones entering the yard from tipper lorries using the nearby 

bridge. The use of the appeal site since 1977 is stated as “general 

commercial storage of vehicles, vehicle parts, builders materials and 

mixed commercial use.” 

21.1.98 PCN served on appellant alleging use of land for the parking of 

lorries and the repair of motor vehicles and the erection of a portable 

building and perimeter fence. 



12.2.98 A meeting was held at the Council Offices with Mr Hall, Mr Gurtler, 

Mr Rushe and Ms D’Arcy at which Mr Hall advised that he cleared 

the scrap, repaired the old shed and that portable buildings are 

currently for sale. Also general dealers yard, one or two lorries 

bought and sold. Other information relating to the use of the site is 

provided. 

18.2.98 Reply to PCN from Mr Hall stating purpose for which land used 

‘general commercial use’. 

4.8.98 Mr Rushe visited the appeal site and made notes and sketch plan. 

11.8.98 Enforcement action authorised by the Hayes and Harlington 

Planning Sub-Committee. 

3.9.99 Letter sent by Mr A. Parker (Planning Officer) to the appellant and 

handed to the appellant’s son on 9.9.99. A copy was also sent to 

the appellant’s address in Hayes End. 

15.9.99 Mr Parker and Mr P. Maguire (Enforcement Officer) attended a site 

meeting with Mr Hall. Sketch plan and photographs taken by Mr 

Parker show a similar situation to the sketch plan and notes of Mr 

Rushe’s visit of 4.8.98. However an additional portable building 

(caravan) and new yellow painted girders are evident. 

3.2.2000 Enforcement notice issued. 

17.8.2000 Appeal dismissed. 

17.2.2001 Compliance period expired. 

2.3.2001 Letter sent to Mr Hall to state that period for compliance had expired 

without clearance of the site, removal of fencing or hard surfacing. 

Rating Records 

The rating records available for the appeal site indicate that Mrs. Doyle paid rates 

from October 1976 to February 1988 with the last payment being made by 

executors of her will. Since then rates have been paid by Mrs. Hall. It is 

understood that the rating description is ‘commercial storage.’ 



The Appeal Decision is only available on hard copy, which can be obtained 

on requested. 





A 

Item No. 11 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

Drawing Nos: 


361 SIPSON ROAD SIPSON WEST DRAYTON 

VARIATION OF CONDITION 4 (TO EXTEND HOURS OF 

OPENING TO BETWEEN 12:00 HRS AND 14:00 HRS AND 

17:00 HRS- 23:00 SUNDAY TO THURSDAY, 17:00 HRS 

23:30 HRS FRIDAY AND 12:00-23:30 HRS. ON SATURDAY) 

OF THE SECRETARY OF STATES APPEAL DECISION: 

REF T/APP/R5510/A/96/271466 DATED 14/01/97 CHANGE 

OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR FROM CLASS A1 (RETAIL 

TO CLASS A3 (FOOD AND DRINK) 

33652/APP/2002/1849 

Unnumbered O.S. Plan, AC-Files\Curryworld.dwg 

Date of receipt: 19/09//02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None 

(1) SUMMARY 

Planning permission was granted on appeal to change the use of 361 from Class 

A1 (Retail) to Class A3 (Food and Drink). Condition 4 of the Inspectors decision 

letter restricted the hours of opening from 1200-1400 and 1700-2200 Mondays to 

Thursdays and 1200-1400 and 1700-2300 on Fridays and Saturdays. This 

application seeks to vary the hours of opening to enable the restaurant to open 

both later in the evenings and on Sunday. 

Letters of objection received in respect of this current application, indicate that the 

premises has been operating in breach of the hours specified by the Inspector. 

However, Council officers have not witnessed the use operating outside of the 

specified hours 

The Councils’ standard condition allows takeaways to open for the sale and 

preparation of food until 23:00 seven days a week. This condition has been 

applied to takeaways throughout the Borough. As such, it is considered that a 

limited extension to the hours of operation could be permitted in this case without 

giving rise to noise and disturbance at unsociable hours to the detriment of the 

amenities of nearby residents. 

(2) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:- 

1. The premises shall not be used for 

the preparation or sale of food 

outside the following times:- 

1. To safeguard the residential 

amenity of the occupiers of 

adjoining and nearby properties 

in accordance with Policy OE3 



12-00-14.00 and 1700-2300 hours 

Sundays to Fridays 

1200-2300 hours on Saturdays. 

of the Hillingdon Unitary 


INFORMATIVE 

1. (10) Consent for the Display of advertisements 



This application concerns an end of terrace ground floor shop unit with residential 

accommodation above, situated on the eastern side of Sipson Road, Sipson. The 

premises comprise part of a terrace of three shop units, which form a local 

parade. The existing shop unit is used as a hot food take-away. 

(3)(b) Scheme 

Planning permission was granted on appeal to change the use of 361 from Class 

A1 (Retail) to Class A3 (Food and Drink). Permission was subject to a condition, 

which sought to restrict the hours of opening. The applicants are seeking to vary 

the hours of opening to enable the hot food take-away to stay open for an 

additional hour (until 11:00) Mondays-Thursdays and an additional half hour (until 

11:30) on Fridays. With regard to Saturdays it is now proposed to open the 

restaurant in the afternoons from 12:00 until 23:30. The current restrictions on the 

hours of operation do not permit the restaurant to open on Sundays. This 

application therefore also seeks permission to allow the restaurant to open on 

Sundays from 12:00-1400 and 17:00 and 23:00. 

Members should be aware that a concurrent application to change the use of the 

ground floor of 363 Sipson Road from Class A2 to Class A3 restaurant is also on 

this agenda. 


Planning application ref: 33652/D/96/493 for the change of use of the ground floor 

of the adjoining shop unit 361 from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A3 (Food and Drink) 

was refused for the following reasons:- 

1. The proposal will result in the loss of an essential shop use in the parade, 

resulting in the deficiency of essential shop uses to serve the surrounding 

residential area, contrary to Policy S9 of the Deposit Draft of the Unitary 


2. The proposal would be likely to lead to further on-street parking giving rise 

to conditions prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and conditions of safety in 

the neighbouring highway, by reason of it’s position close to a busy road 

junction. This is contrary to Policy AM6 and S8 of the Deposit Draft of the 




The Inspector in his decision letter dated 14/01/97 upheld an appeal against this 

Council’s refusal. Condition 4 of the Inspector decision letter required the 

premises not to be open to customers outside the following hours:- 

1200 -1400 and 1700 -2200, Mondays – Thursdays 

1200 -1400 and 1700- 2300, Fridays and Saturdays. 

Planning application ref: 33652/F/97/1316 was approved on 02/12/97 for the 

installation of an extractor flue and side window with air intake fan. Details of an 

extractor flue were approved in 1997. 

Planning application ref: 33652/APP2001/762 to extend the hours of operation of 

the existing use to 12:00 and 14:00 and 17:00 hours and 23:00 hours Mondays to 

Saturdays was refused on 13/07/2001. The reason for refusal was as follows: - 

‘The extension of the opening hours proposed would be likely to cause 

disturbance to neighbouring residents due to noise and general activity. The 

proposal is therefore contrary to Policy OE1 of Adopted Unitary Development 

Plan.’ 


UDP Designation: Local Shopping Parade 

The relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policies are: - 


Pt1.10 Seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the amenity 

and the character of the area. 


OE1 Planning permission will not be granted for uses which are likely to become 

detrimental to the character and amenities of surrounding areas. 

OE3 Building or uses, which have the potential to cause noise annoyance will only 

be permitted if the impact is mitigated by engineering, lay-out, or administrative 

measures. 



NEIGHBOURS No. Consulted: 14 No of replies: 4 



Comments: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

The restrictions on the hours of opening have never been adhered to and 

the revised hours would give the applicants an opportunity to stay open 

even longer. One letter states that the customers leave the restaurant at 

11:30 and the loud shutters are closed around 12:30 giving rise to noise 

and disturbance to nearby residents. Another letter states that the 

premises stay open until 12:00 every night of the week. 

The extension of the hours of opening would exacerbate congestion and on 

street parking problems. 

The existing use of the premises has resulted in rubbish being dumped 

within the vicinity of the application site. The existing use has given rise to 

smells. 

Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association 

(i) 

(ii) 

The noise of the constant shutting of car doors detracts from the amenities 

of nearby residents. 

The parking provision is inadequate giving rise to on street parking, which 

is prejudicial to highway safety. 


Environmental Protection Unit 

No objection subject to standard hours 

of operation condition being applied. 


The main issues in this case are considered to be whether the proposal: - 

(i) 

(ii) 


Gives rise to conditions prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety 

(i) 


The hot food takeaway use at 361 Sipson Road was allowed on appeal subject to 

conditions requiring both the installation of appropriate equipment to deal with 

noise and fumes and restrictions on the hours of operation. 

Letters of objection have been received against this proposal. 

Comments received state that the restrictions on the hours of opening as 

specified by the Inspector in his decision letter have never been adhered to. In 

respect of this current application, one letter states that the customers leave the 

restaurant at 11:30pm and the loud shutters are closed around 12:30pm, giving 

rise to noise and disturbance to nearby residents. Another letter states that the 

premises stay open until 12:00pm every night of the week. 



The Council’s Environmental Protection Unit have not however received any 

complaints in respect of noise an disturbance since the premises opened and no 

enforcement action in respect of breaches in the hours of operation has been 

pursued. 

It was noted on 23/02/03 (Sunday) at 7.45 pm that the premises was closed. A 

further site visit the following weekend on 01/03/03 (Saturday) by the 

Environmental Health Officer confirmed that the last customer left the takeaway at 

23:05pm. It therefore appears that, at present the applicant is operating in 

accordance with the requirements of the Inspector decision letter. 

This Council’s Environmental Services Commercial Department has, between 

May 1998 to March 2002, received eight complaints, (mainly from one neighbour), 

relating to odour from the premises. The Environmental Health Officer visited the 

site on a number of occasions. In all occasions, the applicant has kept the 

premises clean and tidy and has maintained the ventilation equipment. 

It is considered that the extension of the hours of opening until 23:30 on Fridays 

and Saturdays, as proposed by the applicants, would give rise to noise and 

disturbance at unsociable hours, to the detriment of residential amenity. 

The takeaway is however situated within a parade of shops with flats above. 

Whilst it is located close to residential premises, it is on a relatively busy road. The 

location of this takeaway is therefore considered to be no different from that of 

other takeaways throughout the Borough where the Councils’ standard hours of 

operation condition have been applied. This condition allows such establishments 

to stay open for the sale and preparation of food until 23:00 seven days a week. 

As such, a limited extension to the current hours of operation, in accordance with 

the Councils’ standard condition is considered acceptable. This would enable 361 

Sipson Road to open on Sundays and for an additional hour on Mondays to 

Thursdays . It is considered that provided these hours of operation are adhered to 

the proposal will not give rise to noise and disturbance to the detriment of the 

amenities of nearby residents. Should Members be minded to approve this 

application the Council will seek to monitor the situation and will consider taking 

enforcement action if the applicant operates in breach of this variation of 

condition. 

(ii) 

Gives rise to conditions prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. 

It is considered that the additional hours of operation will not result in any 

significant increases in traffic movement or on street parking that would harm the 

free flow of traffic or conditions of safety on the neighbouring highway. 


4 residents letters of objection have been received and are summarised above. 

Points (i) and (ii) are addressed in the main body of the report. 



Point (iii) no evidence of litter and rubbish has been found within the vicinity of the 

application site following site visits. A litter-bin for members of the public is 

located at the front of the application site and refuse facilities for the take-away 

are situated at the rear of the premises. Eight complaints have been received 

relating to odour between May 1998 and March 2002. Subsequent visits to the 

site from Environmental Services Commercial Department have not established 

an odour problem. 








"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 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 

Environmental Services Group and the wider Council." 


It is considered that an extension to the hours of operation is acceptable in this 

case, provided these hours do not extend beyond those permitted by this 

Council’s standard conditions. I recommend approval accordingly. 


(a) 

(b) 

Unitary development Plan 

4 residents letters of objection and 1 letter from Harmondsworth and 

Sipson Residents Association 

Contact Officer: ANDY PARKER Telephone No: 01895 250111 

Ext 2653 





A 

Item No. 12 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

Drawing Nos: 


363 SIPSON ROAD SIPSON WEST DRAYTON 

CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR FROM CLASS A2 

(FINANCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES) TO CLASS 

A3 (FOOD AND DRINK) 

2902/APP/2002/2207 

Unnumbered O.S. Plan, A-Cfiles\Curryworld.dwg 

Sheet 1 of 1, Sheet 2 of 2. 

Date of receipt: 19/09//02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None 

(1) SUMMARY 

Planning permission is sought to change the use of the ground floor from Class 

A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to Class A3 (Food and Drink). There is 

an existing hot food takeaway at No.361 Sipson Road and this proposal would 

enable the extension of the existing premises to provide a restaurant facility at 

363 Sipson Road. 

The proposal does not result in the loss of a retail unit and would not therefore 

harm the function of this shopping parade. Objections to the proposal have been 

received on the grounds that the proposal would give rise to cooking odours and 

noise and disturbance at unsociable hours. A petition with 133 signatures has also 

been received in support of the proposal. It is considered that both noise and 

smells emanating from the premises can be adequately controlled by conditions 

and that sufficient parking has been provided in accordance with this Council’s 

standards. Planning permission is recommended. 

(2) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:- 

1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 

4. (N13) Sound insulation of 4. (N13) Standard 

commercial entertainment 

premises 

5. (N15) Hours of restriction for 5. (N15) Standard 

amplified music /sound 

6. The premises shall not be used 

for delivery and the loading or 

unloading of goods outside the 

hours of the amenities 08:00 and 

18:00, Monday to Friday, and 

outside of surrounding the hours 

6. To safeguard the amenity of the 

surrounding area. 



of 08:00 and 13:00hrs on 

Saturdays and areas shall not be 

used on Sundays or Bank 

Holidays 

7. (OM5) Provision of Bin Stores 7. (OM5) Standard 

8. (N6) Sound insulation scheme 8. (N6) Standard 

9. (H10) Parking/Turning/Loading 

Arrangements - Commercial 

9. (H10) Standard 

Developments 

10. The premises shall not be used 

for the preparation or sale of food 

outside the following times: 

12.00-14.00 and 1700-2300 hours 

Sundays to Fridays 

1200-2300 hours on Saturdays. 

11. The preparation of hot food shall 

not take place within the 

premises hereby approved until 

details of an extraction vent are 

submitted to and approved by the 

Local Planning Authority. The 

development shall be maintained 

in accordance with the approved 

details. 

INFORMATIVES 


2. (18) Storage Collection and Refuge 

3. (23) Installation of plant and machinery 

4. (25) Entertainment uses- licensing 

5. (27) Food hygiene 



10. To safeguard the residential 

amenity of the occupiers of 

adjoining and nearby properties 

in accordance with Policy OE3 

of the Hillingdon Unitary 


11. In order to safeguard the 

amenities of adjoining 

properties in accordance with 

Policy OE1 and OE3 of the 

adopted Unitary Development 

Plan. 

This application concerns a mid- terrace ground floor vacant A2 unit with 

residential accommodation above situated on the eastern side of Sipson Road, 

Sipson. The premises comprise part of a terrace of three shop units, which forms 

a local parade. The flat above is accessed via an external staircase to the rear on 

the first floor. 

(3)(b) Scheme 

Planning permission is sought for a change of use of ground floor from Class A2 

(Financial and Professional Services) to Class A3 (Food and Drink) to enable the 

provision of a restaurant linked internally to a hot food takeaway at 361 Sipson 



Road. 363 is to be used for a seating area and WC facilities only, as it is 

proposed to make use of the existing kitchen at 361 for the preparation of food. 

Consequently, no new extractor duct is required for 363. 

Members should be aware that a concurrent application to vary the hours of 

operation at No.361 is also on the agenda. 


Planning application ref: 33652/D/96/493 for the change of use of the ground floor 

of the adjoining shop unit 361 from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A3 (Food and Drink 

was refused for the following reasons:- 

“1. The proposal will result in the loss of an essential shop use in the parade, 

resulting in the deficiency of essential shop uses to serve the surrounding 

residential area, contrary to Policy S9 of the Deposit Draft of the Unitary 


2. The proposal would be likely to lead to further on-street parking giving rise 

to conditions prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and conditions of safety in 

the neighbouring highway, by reason of it’s position close to a busy road 

junction. This is contrary to Policy AM6 and S8 of the Deposit Draft of the 

Unitary Development Plan.” 

An appeal was lodged and subsequently upheld on 14/7/97. 

Planning application ref: 33652/APP2001/762 to extend the hours of operation of 

361 to 12:00 and 14:00 and 17:00 hours and 23:00 hours Mondays to Saturdays 

was refused on 13/07/2001. The reason for refusal was as follows: - 

‘The extension of the opening hours proposed would be likely to cause 

disturbance to neighbouring residents due to noise and general activity. The 

proposal is therefore contrary to Policy OE1 of Adopted Unitary Development 

Plan.’ 

Planning application ref: 2902/APP/2000/2583 was refused on 27/7/2001 to 

change the use of the ground floor of 363 to Class A3. The reason for refusal was 

as follows:- 

“The proposed extension (of the use) of the existing Class A3 use at No. 361 

Sipson Road would be likely to harm the amenity of local residents, due to noise 

and disturbance contrary to Policy OE1 of the Adopted Unitary Development 

Plan.” 

Planning application ref: 2902/APP/2001/2588 was refused on 02/04/02 for the 

change the use of the ground floor of 363 to Class A3. The reason for refusal was 

as follows: - 



“The proposed extension (of the use) of the existing Class A3 use at No. 361 

Sipson Road would be likely to harm the amenity of local residents, due to noise, 

disturbance, smells and traffic related problems, contrary to Policies OE1 and S6 

of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.” 


UDP Designation: Local Shopping Parade 

The relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policies are:- 


Pt1.10 Seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the amenity 

and the character of the area. 

Pt1.19 Seeks to maintain a hierarchy of shopping centres and to encourage retail 

development in existing centres and local parades. 


S6 New development should safeguard the amenities of shopping areas 

S7 New development should retain sufficient essential shops appropriate to the 

function of the parade. 

BE23 requires the provision of adequate amenity space. 

BE24 requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to 

neighbours. 

OE1 Planning permission will not be granted for uses which are likely to become 

detrimental to the character and amenities of surrounding areas. 

OE3Building or uses, which have the potential to cause noise annoyance will only 

be permitted if the impact is mitigated by engineering, lay-out, or administrative 

measures. 

AM7 Development should not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions 

prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. 

AM15 Parking should be provided in accordance with Council standards. 





NEIGHBOURS No. Consulted: 14 No of replies: 5 letters objecting to 

the proposal 

Petition in support of the proposal 

Comments: 

1 petition with 133 signatures in 

support of the proposal. 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

A restaurant will be available for residents within walking distance 

The proposal will generate employment. 

The proposal will make use of a vacant unit. 

The proposal will provide revenue for the local authority. 

Letters of objection 

Comments: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

The existing takeaway has resulted in the litter and smells which detract 

from the amenities of the surrounding area. 

Cars and people visiting the premises will give rise to noise and 

disturbance. 

The proposal will generate additional traffic and result in on street parking 

and congestion which will be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety. 

Planning permission has previously been refused for an A3 use at this 

address. 

The applicant has previously operated with disregard for the hours of 

opening on the adjoining unit 361 Sipson Road. The introduction of a 

restaurant in close proximity to a residential area will exacerbate existing 

problems of noise and disturbance at unsociable hours and will affect the 

quality of sleep. One letter states that disturbances have been as late as 

12:30. 

An illuminated sign at 361 Sipson Road has been installed without consent. 

Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents Association 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

The proposal would generate additional traffic and no parking is provided 

on or near the site. 

Tables and chairs should not be permitted on the footway 

The proposal would exacerbate existing problems of smells 


Environmental Protection Unit 

No objection subject to conditions. 



Highways Engineers 

No objection. 


The main issues in this case are considered to be whether the proposal:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

Detracts from the function of this local parade 



(i) 

Detracts from the function of this local parade 

Policy S7:- 

The local planning authority will only grant permission to change the use of shops 

in parades from class A1 if:- 

(a) 

(b) 

the parade retains sufficient essential shop uses to provide a range and 

choice of shops appropriate to the size of the parade and to its function in 

the borough shopping hierarchy; 

the surrounding residential area is not deficient in essential shop uses; and 

(c) the proposal accords with policy S6. 

In this particular case the proposal would not result in the loss of an A1 (Retail) 

use and would make use of a vacant A2 unit. The proposal would not therefore 

harm the function of this shopping parade and would make use of a unit which is 

currently vacant. 

(ii) 


The hot food takeaway at 361 Sipson Road was allowed on appeal in 1997, 

subject to conditions requiring both the installation of appropriate equipment to 

deal with noise and fumes, and restrictions on the hours of operation. These 

conditions were imposed in order to safeguard the amenities of nearby residents. 

Details of an extractor flue were approved in 1997. 

Subsequent planning applications received in 2000 and 2001 in respect of 361 

and 363 Sipson Road generated letters of objection. The letters indicated that the 

applicant was operating the takeaway at 361 in breach of the hours of operation 

specified by the Inspector and this has given rise to noise and disturbance to the 

detriment of residential amenity. These complaints were taken into consideration 

when planning permission was refused to vary the hours of operation at 361 and 

change the use of 363 to a restaurant. 



However, the Environmental Protection Unit have not received any complaints in 

respect of noise and disturbance since the premises opened and no enforcement 

action in respect of breaches in the hours of operation has been pursued. 

A recent site visit to 361 on 23/02/03 (Sunday) at 7.45 pm established that the 

premises was closed. A further site visit the following weekend on 01/03/03 

(Saturday) by the Environmental Protection Unit confirmed that the last customer 

left the takeaway at 23:05pm. It appears that at present the applicant is operating 

in accordance with the hours of operation specified in the Inspectors decision 

letter. Whilst previous applications have been refused it is considered that the 

proposed use of 363 can be permitted in this case without giving rise to noise and 

disturbance at unsociable hours. Conditions can be attached to safeguard the 

amenities of nearby residents and should the applicant operate in breach of these 

conditions appropriate enforcement action can be taken. 

The Council’s Environmental Services Commercial Department has, between May 

1998 to March 2002, received eight complaints, (mainly from one neighbour), 

relating to odour from the premises. The Environmental Protection Unit visited the 

site on a number of occasions and no signs of poor management of the site were 

found. The applicant has kept the premises clean and tidy and has properly 

maintained the ventilation equipment. 

363 is to be used for seating and WC facilities only. The existing kitchen at 361 is 

to be used for the preparation of food. As such, a new extractor duct is not 

required for 363. Should Members be minded to approve this application, it is 

recommended that a condition be attached which requires that no cooking related 

activities shall take place at the premises until details, including ventilation 

equipment, are submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 

(iii) 


According to the Council’s Adopted car parking standards uses within Class A3 

are required to provide a maximum of 1 parking space per 50m 2 . This is the same 

requirement as for the A2 use. A further 1.5 spaces are required to be provided 

per flat. 

361 and 363 have a combined ground floor area of 164m 2 with two flats above. A 

maximum of 7 spaces are required to be provided for the residential and 

commercial uses in respect of both properties. An area of hardsurfacing exists to 

the rear of 361 and 363 and plans indicate that a total of four spaces can be 

provided in this location. A lay by facility also exists to the front of this parade of 

shops. 

According to the Council’s parking standards, the parking requirement for the 

proposed use is the same as for the existing use and the parking provision is 

considered adequate. Although a restaurant use may generate additional traffic, 

the Inspector in his Decision Letter in respect of 361 Sipson Road, considered 

that the traffic on Sipson Road and Sipson Lane would not be excessive during 

the middle and late evening. It is considered that whilst a restaurant use is likely 



to generate an increase in traffic, the increase is not considered to be significant 

to justify the refusal of planning permission. 


5 letters of objection and a petition in support of the proposal have been received 

and are summarised above. 

The points raised in support of the proposal have been noted. 

With regard to the letters of objection points (ii), (iii) (iv) and (v) have been 

addressed in the main body of the report. 

Point (i) The preparation of hot food is not proposed to take place within 363. It is 

recommended that a condition is attached, should Member be minded to approve 

this application, which requires details of an extraction vent to be submitted and 

approved by the Local Planning Authority if such facilities are required to be 

provided in the future. Amended plans have been received which indicate a bin 

storage area to the rear of the premises. 

Point (vi) The applicant has been advised that the facia sign requires 

advertisement consent and that unauthorised signage remains at risk from this 

Council taking enforcement action. 

With regard to the letter from Harmondsworth and Sipson Residents’ Association 

points (i) and (iii) have been addressed in the main body of the report. 

With regard to point (ii), tables and chairs, which obstruct the highway, can be 

removed by the Highway Authority. 



















The proposed change of use to Class A3 would not harm the character and 

function of the shopping centre and would make use of a vacant unit. Subject to 

safeguarding conditions the proposal is not considered to harm residential 

amenity. 


(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Adopted Unitary Development Plan 

5 letters objecting to the proposal 

1 petition with 133 signatures in support of the proposal. 

Contact Officer: ANDY PARKER Telephone No: 01895 25011 

Ext 2653 





A 

Item No. 13 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 


HYDE HOUSE, NEWHAVEN CLOSE, HAYES 

ERECTION OF 7 HOUSES AND 9 SUPPORTED FLATS 

(INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISITING TWO STOREY 

RESIDENTIAL HOME) 

2306/APP/2002/238 

Drawing Nos: Drawing Nos (9-)01; (2-)01 & (2-)06 received 21/10/02 


(1) SUMMARY 

This application was deferred at the Hayes & Harlington Planning Committee on 

3 April 2003 to enable Members to visit the site. 

Approval of this application was delegated to the Head of Planning and 

Transportation, subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement, at the 21 

January 2003 meeting of the Hayes Harlington Planning Committee. Subsequent 

to this meeting, and before the signing of the Section 106 Agreement, it came to 

the attention of the Council that consultation letters had not been received by 

residents of Hyde Way. As a result, the Head of Planning and Transportation 

deemed that the matter should be referred back to the Committee in order to take 

into account the comments of Hyde Way residents. Any comments received from 

Hyde Way residents will be reported to Committee. It should be noted that the 

body of the report remains largely unchanged and that the recommendation for 

approval remains. Additional conditions regarding tree protection agreed at the 

January Committee meeting (conditions TL1, TL2, TL3, TL6) have been added. 

This application, by the Acton Housing Association, seeks to demolish an existing, 

derelict residential home and replace it with seven houses and nine self-contained 

supported accommodation units. Parking for sixteen vehicles would be provided 

on the site. 

It is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in this 

location. The design, bulk, siting, height and parking provision are considered 

acceptable, whilst the setback and habitable room window orientation would not 

adversely affect the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers. 

The loss of the residential home is not opposed as it is now redundant and has 

been vacant for some time. The application is seen as an opportunity to satisfy 

demand for new, quality housing in the area. 




1. That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under 

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) 

and all appropriate legislation in order to ensure that: 

(i) The applicants provide a financial contribution of £33,050 

towards the provision of primary school places in the 

Hayes/Harlington area. 

(ii) That the proposed dwellings remain as affordable housing in 

perpetuity. 

2. That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree detailed terms of 

the proposed agreement. 

3. That subject to the above, the application be deferred for the 

determination of the Head of Planning and Transportation under 

delegated powers, subject to the completion of the agreement under 

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other 

appropriate powers, with the applicant. 

4. That the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the 

preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a 

result of the agreement not being completed. 

5. That if the application is approved, the following conditions be 

attached: 

1. (T1) Time limit 1. (T1) Standard 


3. (TL7) Landscaping Maintenance 3. (TL7) Standard 

4. (M1) Details of Materials 4. (M1) Standard 

5. (OM5) Provision of Bin Stores 5. (OM5) Standard 

6. (M5) Means of Enclosure 6. (M5) Standard 

Details 

7. (OM11) External Lighting 7. (OM11) Standard 

8. (H1) Traffic Arrangements 8. (H1) Standard 

9. Provisions shall be made within 

the site to ensure that all 

vehicles associated with the 

construction of the development 

hereby approved are properly 

washed and cleaned to prevent 

the passage of mud and dirt onto 

the adjoining highway. 

10. The proposed office/carers 

accommodation, within the block 

of nine supported flats, shall 

only be used for purposes 


does not cause danger and 

inconvenience to users of the 

adjoining pavement and 

highway. 


does not prejudice the amenity 

of adjoining occupiers. 



ancillary to the nine flats and 

shall not be used as a separate 

residence without prior 

permission of the Council. 

11. (RPD1) No Additional Windows 11. (RPD1) Standard 

12. (RPD5) Restrictions Extensions 12. (RPD5) Standard 

13. (RPD6) Fences, Walls & Gates 13. (RPD6) Standard 

14. Two of the parking spaces 

provided shall be suitable for 

and allocated to wheelchair 

users and people with 

disabilities. 

15. That a covered area for 13 

bicycles shall be provided prior 

to the occupation of the 

development and thereafter 

retained. 

14. To ensure that adequate facilities 

are provided for people with 

disabilities. 

15. To ensure that safe access is 

provided for cyclists in 

accordance with AM9 of the 

Hillingdon Unitary Development 

Plan. 

16. (TL1) Existing Trees Survey 16. (TL1) Standard 

17. (TL2) Trees to be Retained 17. (TL2) Standard 

18. (TL3) Protection of Trees 18. (TL3) Standard 


20. No development shall take place 

until details of facilities to be 

provided for the storage of 

recycling receptacles have been 

submitted to and approved in 

writing by the Local Planning 

Authority. No part of the 

development shall be occupied 

until the facilities have been 

provided in accordance with the 

approved details and thereafter 

the facilities shall be 

permanently retained. 

INFORMATIVES 



3. (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance 




complies with Council’s refuse 

disposal policies. 

The site is 3069m² in area, being located at the end of Newhaven Close, a cul de 

sac providing access to North Hyde Road. The site is council-owned and 

comprises of a vacant, two-storey residential care home containing 34 bedrooms 



with shared facilities. The existing building has been vacant for some 2 years as it 

is understood to be too difficult and costly to upgrade for registration. 

The application site is a separate part of a wider Council-owned complex of 30, 

two storey terraced flats extending northwards to North Hyde Road and used for 

sheltered accommodation. The flats are arranged in two separate blocks, forming 

an “L” shape that fronts both Newhaven Close and North Hyde Road. These flats 

are currently occupied and will remain as existing. The site is bounded by the rear 

gardens of residential properties to the south and west, whilst the eastern 

boundary is flanked by a vehicular access and associated garages, with 

residential gardens beyond. An enclosed, communal area of open space is 

provided as part of the complex between Hyde House and the other 

accommodation for the enjoyment of the tenants. 

Vehicular access to the site is currently obtained from Newhaven Close, with 

parking provided along the site’s eastern boundary. Vacant garages lie in the 

southeastern and southwestern corners of the site. 

(3)(b) Scheme 

The Acton Housing Association seeks planning permission to demolish the 

existing, vacant residential accommodation and replace it with 7 two-storey 

houses (5 x two bed and 2 x three bed), and 9 self contained, supported 

accommodation units with an additional carers unit. The site would be accessed 

from Newhaven Close, with parking provided for 16 vehicles. This includes a 

communal parking area for 4 vehicles in front of the flats, with the remaining 12 

bays located in front of the houses for convenient access. 

The development is effectively separated into three separate, roughly rectangular 

blocks comprising of two rows of terraced houses and one block of flats. The two 

house blocks are on a similar building line, although the flats are set slightly 

forward, with all blocks oriented along an east-west axis. Private open space is 

located to the rear. 

The largest proposed block, being the flats, is 8.8 metres high (to a hipped roof), a 

maximum of 21.8 metres wide and 16.7 metres deep, with the footprint occupying 

approximately 335m 2 . It has a front porch with a mono-pitched roof over, with a 

subordinate side projection with hipped roof towards the rear. The remaining two 

blocks of terraced houses are similar in design and finish, although of differing 

size. Both blocks are 7.2 metres in height (to a hipped roof) and a maximum of 9.6 

metres deep, although the block closest the flats is 15.7 metres wide whilst the 

other is 20.8 metres wide. Both housing blocks have porches with mono-pitched 

roofs over their entries, in addition to forward facing gable ended projections. 

Habitable room windows for all three blocks are front and rear facing, except for 

two kitchen windows in the east facing elevation. 

Each house is provided with a separate area of private open space to the rear, 

being roughly rectangular in shape and measuring 60 m² in area. In addition, the 



flats are provided with an area of communal open space to the rear, measuring 

approximately 198 m² in area. 


No relevant planning permissions were identified. 


UDP Designation: 

The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:- 

Part I Policies: 

Pt1.10 

Pt1.13 

Pt1.32 

Pt1.39 



To seek to ensure a provision of 8,000 additional dwellings in the 

Borough. 

To encourage development for uses other than those providing local 

services to locate in places which are accessible by public transport. 

To seek, where appropriate, planning obligations to achieve benefits to 

the community related to the scale and type of development proposed. 


BE13 

BE19 

BE20 

BE21 

BE23 

BE24 

BE38 

New development must harmonise with the existing street scene. 

New development must complement or improve the amenity and 

character of the area. 

Buildings should laid out so that adequate daylight can penetrate 

between them. 

The bulk, siting and proximity of new buildings must not result in a 

significant loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. 

New residential buildings should provide sufficient areas of external 

amenity space to protect the occupants of the subject property and 

neighbouring occupiers. 

The design of new buildings should protect the privacy of the occupiers 

and their neighbours. 

Protection and provision of landscaping on the property using natural 

features where possible. 



H6 

OE1 

R17 

AM2 

AM14 

Development density should match site and local characteristics, with 

good design and layout demonstrated where density would go beyond 

150 habitable rooms per hectare. 

Consideration of other environmental impacts on the amenities of 

surrounding properties. 

Planning obligations for Education facilities. 

Contribution to traffic generation and the impact on congestion. 

New development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with 

the UDP Revised Car Parking Standards. 

PPG3 (Housing) 

PPG13 (Transport) 

Design Guide: Residential Layouts and House Design 


Comments: 



2. Concerned at possible removal of 6 mature trees along boundary with 14 

Cranford Drive, as these provide a degree of privacy. 



Minimum of 15 spaces acceptable, with 

maximum of 18 spaces permissible. 

Site has high level of accessibility, with good 

access to major bus routes on North Hyde 

Road and Hayes Station. 

Minimum of 2 disabled parking bays and 

covered area for 13 cycles required. 

Newhaven Close is not public highway, but 

maintained by the Housing Department. 

Education Officer 

A payment of £33,050 should be sought 

through a S106 agreement for the provision of 

school places. 




The main planning issues in respect of this development are: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

Whether the demolition of the existing building and replacement is 

acceptable 



The density of the development and adequacy of the accommodation 

provided 

Parking and access issues 

Provision of funding for school places 

(i) 

Whether the demolition of the existing building and replacement is 

acceptable 

It is considered that the demolition of the existing building and its replacement 

with new housing is acceptable in this instance. It provides an opportunity to 

rehabilitate an under utilised site that would be costly to upgrade. In addition, the 

Housing Directorate have indicated that there is strong demand for two and threebedroom 

houses and supported accommodation in the borough. 

(ii) 


It is considered that the proposed development would make a positive contribution 

to the general appearance of the area. The existing building has now fallen into a 

state of disrepair having been vacant for the past two years. The proposed 

scheme provides an opportunity to upgrade the appearance of the site with the 

ultimate benefit of enhancing the visual amenity of the locality. 

The size and design of the proposed houses are considered to integrate 

adequately with the mixed character of the surrounding area. The height of the 

proposed buildings would be similar to the existing Hyde House and to that of the 

surrounding flats fronting North Hyde Road and Newhaven Close. Whilst the 

combined footprint of the new buildings is wider than that of Hyde House, they 

have a similar overall bulk which is not considered excessive in this instance. 

Although the proposed hipped roofs are not consistent with the gable ended 

design of the existing complex, the appearance of the proposed blocks are 

considered acceptable and would not detract from the general character of 

Newhaven Close or the area in general. 

The colours and materials to be used in the buildings have yet to be finalised, 

although they are likely to be typical of the area and the existing complex which 

comprises of dark coloured, cement tiled roofs with lighter coloured brick walls. 

The use of appropriate colours and materials can be adequately secured through 

a condition. 



(iii) 


The residents occupying houses at 10-18 (even) Crane Gardens, 80 & 82 Hyde 

Way and 7 & 8 Newhaven Close are considered the only persons whose amenity 

may potentially be affected by this development. Other local residents are 

generally located too far away from the buildings to be directly affected by 

potential loss of light, over-shadowing, overlooking, noise or overbearance. 

In terms of overlooking, the proposed flank elevation of the house closest to the 

western boundary has no habitable room windows directly overlooking the 

gardens of Hyde Way residents. The eastern wall of the block of flats has one 

window at first floor level serving a kitchen which overlooks the gardens of houses 

in Crane Gardens, although is situated 24 metres from the nearest facing 

habitable room window. This is a sufficient distance to satisfy the 21 metre 

overlooking separation distance of the Council’s Design Guidance. The window 

providing natural light to the hallway at first floor level on the eastern elevation 

does not service a habitable room, and does not result in significant privacy 

concerns. 

Whilst the gardens of houses at 80 and 82 Hyde Way may experience some 

degree of overbearance from the proposed building, this impact is somewhat 

lessened by several factors. These include the restriction to two stories in height, 

the hipping of the roof, the limited wall length along the boundary and the 

proposed 2 metre boundary setback. In addition, there is an 18 metre separation 

provided from the proposed flank wall to the rear face of houses at 80 and 82 

Hyde Way which exceeds the 15 metre minimum distance required by Hillingdon 

Planning Guidance. The potential for significant overbearance of gardens at 12, 

14 and 16 Crane Gardens by the proposed flats is considered unlikely given that 

the houses are separated from the proposed two storey building by 24 metres. 

This separation exceeds the 15 metre policy requirement, and comprises of a 2 

metre boundary setback, a 3 metre wide vehicular access, single storey garages 

in the rear gardens of 12, 14 and 16 Crane Gardens and rear gardens. 

Whilst the existing flats at 7 & 8 Newhaven Close are in close proximity to the 

proposed buildings and flank the proposed new access road, there are no 

habitable room windows on their southern facing flank elevation. This means that 

residents at 7 and 8 Newhaven are unlikely to experience loss of privacy or 

significant disturbance from vehicles using the access road, or any loss of outlook 

over and above that resulting from the existing Hyde House facility. 

(iv) 

The density of the development and adequacy of the accommodation 

provided 

The subject site would be developed to a density of 135 habitable rooms per 

hectare (hrph). This density is considered appropriate in this location and is in 

keeping with the general existing density of Hyde House and the wider area. 

In terms of internal layout and design, all houses feature suitably sized living and 

sleeping areas with adequate access to natural light at both front and rear. 



All areas of open space are considered to offer a sufficient degree of privacy and 

are of suitable dimension and shape to constitute usable areas. The smallest rear 

garden for the houses is 60 m² in area with a minimum width of 5.25 metres, whilst 

the remaining gardens are in excess of 60m² in area. This satisfies the 60m² 

minimum required by Design Guidance for 2 and 3-bedroom houses. The rear of 

the block of flats is provided with an area of communal open space, roughly 

rectangular in shape, measuring 26 metres in width, a minimum of 7.5 metres 

deep and being approximately 198 m² in area. This is considered adequate in this 

instance, particularly given that, in addition to their individual areas of open space, 

all new units will have easy access to the existing 750m² area of communal open 

space available to all tenants in the complex. 

(v) 

Parking/access issues and pedestrian safety 

The development proposes to obtain access via Newhaven Close, in addition to 

the creation of a new 5 metre wide access extending across the front of the 

dwellings. This access is flanked by a 2 metre wide raised pedestrian footpath 

which is intersected by three crossovers. The exact surface treatment has yet to 

be finalised, although is likely to comprise of a tarmac roadway with block paved 

footpath. The use of appropriate colours and materials can be adequately secured 

through a condition. 

The development proposes to provide 16 parking bays, comprising of 4 bays in a 

communal area in front of the proposed flats, 10 in front of the individual dwellings 

and 2 at the termination of the access road. All bays are considered functional 

and are provided with adequate manoeuvring room. In addition, a minimum of 2 

disabled parking bays will be allocated from the existing 16, and a covered area 

for 13 bicycles provided. The proposed location of the disabled bays and bicycle 

parking has yet to be finalised, although the site has sufficient space to enable 

their provision and they can be adequately secured through a condition. 

The provision of 16 bays falls short of the 18 bays maximum permissible under 

the Council’s Revised Parking Standards, although is considered acceptable 

given the sites close proximity to a major bus route, located on North Hyde Road, 

and Hayes Station located in the Hayes Town Centre. 

The 3 metre wide fire access located behind the existing row of flats in Newhaven 

Close is proposed to be closed and the ground restored, as access for emergency 

vehicles can now be obtained via Newhaven Close. This revised access 

arrangement will be confirmed with the London Fire Brigade, although will not 

affect the design of the proposal. 

(vi) 

Provision of funding for school places 

The Education Officer has advised that an education contribution of £33,050 for 

primary and secondary places should be sought through a S106 Agreement. The 

nine flats have not been included in this calculation owing to the nature of the 

accommodation. 



The Education Officer has indicated that the development site falls within Primary 

Planning Area 12, which is noted as being under significant pressure for places. 


One letter of objection has been received relating to the removal of the 6 mature 

trees along the southern boundary of the site. These trees have been earmarked 

for retention in the scheme. In addition, the retention of the trees is to be reflected 

in the landscape plan required by condition. 

At the time of preparing the report, additional consultation with Hyde Way 

residents had not yet expired and no comments had been received. Any 

comments received after the preparation of this report will be reported to 

Committee. 






It is considered that the proposed development complies with UDP policy, and is 

acceptable in this location. It would integrate well with the area with negligible 

amenity impacts, whilst providing 16 extra housing units to help meet current 

demand. As such, approval is recommended. 


(a) Unitary Development Plan (Adopted September 1998) 

(b) Residential Layouts and House Design – Design Guide 

(c) PPG3 (Housing) 

(d) 1 letter of objection 

Contact Officer: DAVID MORGAN Telephone Number: 01895 277084 





B 

Item No. 14 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

Drawing No: 


LAND FORMING PART OF 24 COTMANS CLOSE HAYES 

ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION 

(RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) 

38534/APP/2002/1753 

Unnumbered O.S. Plan and NH/001 

Date of receipt: 22/07/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None 


(i) 

No letters of objection have been received. 


• Planning permission was granted in 2002 for an attached house (24A 

Cotmans Close), which has been substantially completed. A single-storey 

rear extension has also been constructed which did not form part of the 

original consent. This application seeks planning permission to retain the 

single storey extension. Members should be aware that a retrospective 

planning consent for a similar rear extension to the adjacent property No.24 

Cotmans Close, is also on this agenda. The site lies within the developed 

area. 

• The extension is 5.2 metres wide and 3.25 metres deep and does not 

project beyond the rear extension at No.24 Cotmans Close. The proposal 

does not therefore detract from the amenities of adjoining residents and 

complies with Policy BE21 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. 

• The rear terrace of properties face towards Coldharbour Lane. The amenity 

space provided is located between the houses and this busy road. The 

amenity space provision for the mid-terraced units and this end of terraced 

unit is already less than the 60 m 2 recommended in this Council’s Design 

Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’. 

• Planning permission was however granted in1977 for a similar rear 

extension, now built, at No.23 Cotmans Close and other rear extensions 

have been constructed at Nos. 12, 21 and 22 without the benefit of 

planning permission. These extensions appear to have been constructed a 

number of years ago. 

• The rear extension further reduces the overall garden area of 24A from 

46m 2 to 26m 2 . However, taking into consideration the fact that amenity 

space provision for these properties is already substandard and other 

properties on Cotmans Close have extended it is considered that there is 

insufficient justification to recommend refusal and enforcement action. 



Observations of Borough Solicitor: 






Observations of Borough Treasurer: 









RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:- 

1. The external surfaces shall 

match those used in the existing 

building for as long as the 

development remains in 

existence. 


INFORMATIVES 

1. (36) Property Rights/Rights to Light. 

2. (7) Building Regulations- Demolition and Building Works 


(a) 

(b) 

UDP 

This Council’s SPG ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’. 

Contact Officer: ANDY PARKER Telephone Number: 01895 250111 

Ext 2653 





B 

Item No. 15 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

Drawing No: 


24 COTMANS CLOSE HAYES 


(RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) 

57526/APP/2002/1787 

Unnumbered O.S. Plan and 24/SSRE/01A, 2A received 

22/07/02 and 13/09/03. 



1 letter of objection has been received making the following comments: 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

Further extensions to these properties will exacerbate existing parking 

problems. 

The house will be used as premises to let. 

Planning permission was previously refused for an attached house. 


• No 24 Cotmans Close is a mid terraced property, situated between Nos. 23 

and 24A Cotmans Close and backing onto Coldharbour Lane Hayes. 

Retrospective planning permission is sought for the retention of a singlestorey 

rear extension. Members should be aware that a similar 

retrospective planning consent is sought to retain a single-storey rear 

extension to 24A Cotmans Close. The site lies within the developed area. 

• The rear extension is 5.2 metres wide and 3.25 metres deep and does not 

project beyond the rear building line of the extension at No. 23 or 24A. The 

proposal does not therefore detract from the amenities of adjoining 

residents and complies with Policy BE21 of the Adopted Unitary 


• No.24 is one of 16 properties with rear elevations, facing towards 

Coldharbour Lane. The amenity space is located between the houses and 

this busy road. With the exception of the end of terrace units the amenity 

space provision for these properties is already less than the 60 m 2 

recommended in this Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and 

House Design’. 

• Planning permission was granted in1977 for a similar rear extension, now 

built, at No.23 Cotmans Close and other rear extensions to mid-terraced 

properties have been constructed at Nos. 12, 21 and 22 without the benefit 



of planning permission. These extensions appear to have been in 

existence for over four years. 

• The rear extension reduces the overall amenity space of 24 Cotmans Close 

from 39m 2 to 22m 2 . However, taking into consideration the fact that 

amenity space provision for these properties is already substandard and 

other properties on Cotmans Close have extended it is considered that 

there is insufficient justification to recommend refusal and enforcement 

action. 

• With regard to the letter of objection received. 

Point (i) A rear extension to an existing house will not give rise to additional 

parking problems. 

Point (ii) This is not a planning consideration. 

Point (iii) Planning permission was refused in 1986 for an attached house 

on the grounds that the proposal provided insufficient garden area and 

parking. Planning permission was later approved in 2002, taking into 

consideration the circumstances outlined above and the fact that the 

proposal accorded with the Council’s parking standards. 

Observations of Borough Solicitor: 






Observations of Borough Treasurer: 









RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL, subject top the following conditions:- 

1. The external surfaces shall match 

those used in the existing building 

for as long as the development 

remains in existence. 


INFORMATIVES 

1. (36) Property Rights/Rights to Light. 

2. (7) Building Regulations- Demolition and Building Works 




(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

UDP 

1 Letter of objection 

This Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Residential Layouts and 

House Design. 

Contact Officer: ANDY PARKER Telephone Number: 01895 250111 

Ext 2653 





Item No. 16 

Address: 


10B BOTWELL LANE, HAYES 

B 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

Drawing Nos: 

CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE (CLASS B1) TO 3 SELF- 

CONTAINED STUDIO FLATS (CLASS C3) 

40721/APP/2002/1200 

0228/1; 2A; 3AB & 4A 

Date of receipt: 22/5/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None 


One letter of objection has been received on the grounds of potential fire hazard 

due to the increased traffic congestion in the alleyway, and the inappropriateness 

of flats of such a small size. These matters are addressed in the report. No 

response was received from the Botwell Tenants’ and Residents’ Association. 


No 10B is a vacant three storey office building located behind a row of shops 

along Botwell Lane running from Nos. 10 to 16 (inclusive) with residential units 

above. To the north of the application site is the British Telecom telephone 

exchange. Access to the site is via a service road running off Botwell Lane, which 

provides vehicular access to the rear of the retail units. The site is within the 

primary shopping area of Hayes Town Centre. 

The proposed units are of a similar size and layout. They measure 28m 2 and 

provide a bedroom, toilet and kitchen/living room. No parking or amenity space is 

proposed. Works have commenced on site. 

The applicant has stated that the site has been vacant and marketed for 

office/industrial use over the past year without much success. The size of the 

units is not considered to lend themselves to modern office/industrial use. It is 

likely that any office/industrial use would locate to the nearby Pump Lane IBA, 

which is considered to be a more appropriate location. 

Policies H4 and H8 permit the conversion of non-residential buildings to 

residential units within town centres. The units are small. However they do 

provide satisfactory facilities for future occupiers and would assist in the 

regeneration of the centre. Town centres are identified as focal points for 

shopping, employment, leisure and related activities, which includes residential 

uses. The proposal would provide additional residential units to meet the demand 

for low cost accommodation in the Borough and would maintain the vitality and 

viability of this part of the town centre. 



No habitable windows face the existing first floor residential units at Nos. 10–16 

Botwell Lane, thereby maintaining the residential amenity of these occupiers and 

the future occupiers of the proposed units, in line with policy BE22. 

No amenity space or parking is proposed which is not uncommon in town centre 

locations with good public transport accessibility. Similar developments at 1-3 and 

5 – 19 Botwell Lane were approved in 2002 without amenity space and parking. 

Furthermore, the site is only 250m from the public open space at Botwell Green. 

The use is therefore unlikely to result in additional traffic flow on the service road. 


















2. (M2) External materials to match 2. (M2) Standard 

existing 

3. (RPD2) Obscure Glazing 

3. (RPD2) Standard 

(Staircase and bathroom 

windows facing 10 and 12 

Botwell Lane) 

4. (MCD10) Refuse facilities 4. (MCD10) Standard 

5. (RPD1) No additional windows 5. 

facing 10 and 12 Botwell lane 

6. (OM5) Bin stores 6. (OM5) Standard 

INFORMATIVES: 


2. (20) Control of Environmental nuisance. 

3. (37) Street naming & numbering 




5. (31) Sewerage Connections 

Contact Officer: RICHARD BUXTON Telephone No: 01895 250838 





Item No. 17 

Address: 


4 HAMILTON ROAD, HAYES 

B 

DEVELOPMENT (A): 

ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE 

EXTENSION 

LBH Ref Nos: 

57534/APP/2002/2327 

Drawing Nos: 0201/10 


Consultations: 

Four adjoining properties were consulted. One letter of objection has been 

received which raises the following matters: 

(i) 

(ii) 

loss of sunlight; 

bulk, height, width and length of extension. 

DEVELOPMENT (B): 

ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR 

EXTENSION (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) 

LBH Ref Nos: 

57534/APP/2002/2477 



Consultations: 

Four adjoining properties were consulted. Four objection letters have been 

received (3 from the same occupant) which raise the following matters:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

Loss of sunlight 

Overlooking 

Dominance due to bulk, height, width and length of extension. 

Wind turbulence spreading air pollution from the application site to 

surrounding properties, which have intensified due to the installation of a 

gas flue on the western elevation of the extension. 

SUMMARY: 

Planning permissions are sought for the erection of a side extension and the 

retention of a rear extension. As the side extension is proposed to be attached to 

the existing rear extension, members are advised that the side extension cannot 



e implemented without the approval of the rear extension. The site lies within 

the developed area. 


Development (A): Single Storey Side Extension 

• The proposed side extension would be setback 1m from the front of the 

existing dwelling and measures 3.5m in width, 6.5m in length and 3m in 

height. The development is considered to be in keeping with the existing 

streetscape. 

• There would be no significant additional overshadowing of adjoining 

properties. The only area materially affected would be the side of the house at 

No.2 which is occupied by a garage. 

• In this position the proposed extension would not appear dominant and as no 

side windows are proposed would not result in overlooking. 

• The proposal satisfies policies BE13, BE15, BE19, BE20 BE21 and BE24 of 

the UDP and A3 and A5 of Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”, 

Development (B): Single Storey Side and Rear Extension (Retrospective 

Application). 

• The rear extension is 8.5m wide built to both side boundaries. It has a length 

of 3 metres along the eastern boundary of the site, and then is stepped in 

0.5m to allow for the installation of a bay window which projects a further 0.8 

metres. The extension is flat roofed and has a total height of 3m. 

• It is consistent with B3.1(a) of the guidelines for single storey rear extensions, 

given that it projects 3 metres from the rear wall of the adjoining property. 

• Conditions are recommended requiring obscured glazing of the side windows 

of the bay window and screen planting along the western and eastern 

boundaries of the site, as the level of the applicant site is higher than adjoining 

properties. These works would prevent overlooking of the adjoining properties 

which is currently occurring from the application site. 

• The extension has resulted in some additional overshadowing to the rear patio 

area and rear habitable room windows at 2 and 6 Hamilton Road. However, 

this increase is not considered significant to warrant a refusal of permission. 

• The installation of a gas flue and wind turbulence spreading air pollution are 

not planning matters and cannot be considered further in this report. 

• The extension satisfies policies BE15, BE19 BE20 and BE21 of the UDP and 

A3 and A5 of Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”. A condition is 

recommended to ensure that no additional windows or doors are installed in 



the elevations facing No.2 and 6 Hamilton Road, without the written approval 

of the Local Planning Authority. 








As there are no S106 or outstanding 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 at a later stage. Hence, adopting the 



Environmental Services Group and the wider Council. 

CONCLUSION: 

The proposed side extension would not be detrimental to the visual amenities of 

the street scene. Both the proposed and existing extensions would not adversely 

affect the residential amenity of the surrounding area. They are recommended 

accordingly. 

RECOMMENDATION (A): APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions: 



Existing Buildings 

3. (RPD1) No Additional Windows or 3. (RPD1) Standard 

Doors 

(‘… facing 2 Hamilton Road’) 

4. (RPD4) Prevention of Balconies 4. (RPD4) Standard 

INFORMATIVES 

1. You are advised this permission is based on the dimensions provided on 

the approved drawings as numbered above. The development hereby 

approved must be constructed precisely in accordance with the approved 

drawings. Any deviation from these drawings requires the written consent 


2. You are advised that if any part of the development hereby permitted 

encroaches by either its roof, walls, eaves, gutters or foundations then a 

new planning application will have to be submitted. This planning 



permission is not valid for a development that results in any form of 

encroachment. 

3. You are advised that this permission does not dispense with the necessity 

to obtaining approval or consent under the Building Regulations Building 

Acts and other relevant legislation or regulations. You should contact 

Building Control Services, Civic Centre, Uxbridge (Tel. 01895 250111 

ext.3806) if you require further information. 

4. (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction 


RECOMMENDATION (B): RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL, subject to the 

following conditions:- 

1. (RPD1) No Additional Windows or 1. (RPD1) Standard 

Doors 

(‘…facing 2 Hamilton and 

6 Hamilton Road’) 


3. A 1.8 metre high close boarded 

fence or imperforate wall shall be 

maintained on the boundary with 

No.2 and No.6 Hamilton Road for a 

distance of 5 metres beyond the 

rear elevation of the extension 

hereby approved and shall be 

permanently retained for so long as 

the development remains in 

existence. 


4. Within 1 months of the date of 

approval, details of screen planting 

and landscaping along the western 

and eastern property boundaries of 

the site shall be submitted to and 

approved in writing by the Local 

Planning Authority. The agreed 

works shall be implemented within 

1 months of the details being 

approved. 

5. Within 1 month of the date of 

approval, the bay windows facing 2 

and 6 Hamilton Road shall be 

glazed with obscured glass and 

non-opening except at the top vent 

level for so long as the development 

remains in existence and to the 

satisfaction of the Local Planning 

Authority. 

4. To prevent overlooking to 

adjoining properties in 

accordance with BE24 of the 

Hillingdon Unitary 


5. To prevent overlooking to 

adjoining properties in 

accordance with BE24 of the 

Hillingdon Unitary 




INFORMATIVES 






2 You are advised that if any part of the development hereby permitted 




encroachment. 

3 You are advised that this permission does not dispense with the necessity 





4 You are advised that if the works specified in Conditions 2 and 3 are not 

completed within the specified time periods, you may be at risk of 

enforcement action from the Local Planning Authority. 

5 (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction 

6 (36) Property Rights/Rights to Light 

7 You are advised that any flue installed on the extension should not 

encroach or overhang neighbouring property. It should comply with all 

relevant legislation and practice guidance for such apparatus. 


(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan. 

5 letters making representations on both applications. 

Supplementary Design Guide – “Residential Extensions”. 






B 

Item No.18 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 


21 NORWOOD GARDENS, HAYES 


7066/APP/2003/330 




The five adjoining owner/occupiers were consulted. One objection letter has been 

received which raises the following material planning consideration:- 

• Loss of sunlight & overshadowing. 


• Planning Permission is sought for a single storey rear extension. The 

extension will be 3.3 m long, which is consistent with the length of the existing 

single storey rear extension and 2m wide. This gives a total area of 6.6 square 

metres. A new glass door and windows are proposed on the elevation of the 

extension. The site is within a developed area. 

• It is considered that the extension is of an acceptable scale, due to its single 

storey nature and will not substantially increase overshadowing to the rear 

garden and rear habitable windows of the adjoining properties, to warrant a 

refusal of planning permission. 

• The proposal complies with Design Principle B3.1(a), given the rear extension 

would only project 1.2 metres beyond the rear wall of the adjoining extension at 

No. 23. 

• The proposal is considered to be acceptable and would relate satisfactorily with 

the surrounding area. 


















RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:- 



Existing Buildings 

3. (RPD1) No Additional Windows or 

Doors 

(‘… facing 23 Norwood Gardens …’) 

3. (RPD1) Standard 

INFORMATIVES 






2. You are advised that if any part of the development hereby permitted 




encroachment. 

3. You are advised that this permission does not dispense with the necessity 





4. (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction 



(d) 

(e) 

(c) 

Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan 

1 letter making representation (the contents of which are summarised in the 

report) 

Supplementary Design Guide – Residential Extensions 






Item No. 19 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 


55 BROOKSIDE ROAD, HAYES 

ERECTION OF A PART TWO-STOREY, PART SINGLE 

STOREY SIDE EXTENSION 

55915/APP/2003/148 

B 

Drawing Nos: 141-1 

Date of receipt: 21/01/03 Date(s) of Amendment(s): n/a 


No letters of objection have been received. 


• No.55 is a semi-detached dwelling house located on the western side of 

Brookside Road. The site is located within the Developed Area. 

• Planning permission is sought for a part two storey, part single storey side 

extension. The extension will be built to boundary necessitating the need for a 

gable end wall to prevent overhang or encroachment onto the adjoining 

property. The extension projects 3.2 metres from the existing rear building line 

and 2.4 metres to the side of the existing dwelling. The extension is setback 1 

metre from the existing front building line. 

• The adjoining dwelling to the north (No.57 Brookside Road) is located 

approximately 12 metres from the proposed extension. This separation would 

ensure that a sufficient visual gap is maintained between the two dwellings. 

• It is considered that the gable end wall would not result in an adverse impact 

on the existing character of the dwelling, or on the amenities of the adjoining 

property. 

• The proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable overshadowing, loss 

of light or privacy impacts, and as such is not considered to unduly impact on 

the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers. 

• The proposal therefore complies with Policies BE13, BE15, BE19, BE20, 

BE21, BE22, BE23 AND BE24 of the adopted UDP. 








considerations into account 










RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL – subject to the following conditions: 



3. (D1) No Additional Windows or Doors 3. (D1) Standard 

(’57 Brookside Rd’) 


INFORMATIVES 


2. (7) Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works 

Contact Officer: CAMERON STANLEY Telephone Number: 01895 2503840 





Item No. 20 

Address: 

Development: 

LBH Ref Nos: 

Drawing Nos: 


35 SWANAGE WAY, HAYES 

ERECTION OF A PART SINGLE PART TWO-STOREY 

REAR EXTENSION 

2806/APP/2003/288 

Unnumbered Plans 

B 



One letter of objection was received raising a concern relating to loss of light and 

privacy. 


• No. 35 is a semi-detached dwelling house located on the east side of 

Swanage Way. The site lies within the Developed Area. 

• A shadow diagram prepared indicates the proposal will result in a slight loss of 

sunlight to the rear amenity area of No.33 Swanage Way to the west. The 

extent of shadowing is not considered so significant to justify a refusal of the 

planning permission. The proposal accords with policy BE20 of the UDP. 

• The first floor extension is setback 1.1 metres from the side boundary, is 3.9 

metres wide and is setback 2.5 metres from the party wall with No.33. This 

setback provides an adequate separation, thereby maintaining the residential 

amenity of No.33. The proposal is considered to comply with policies BE20, 

BE21, and BE22 of the UDP. 




















2. (M2) External surfaces to match 2. (M2) Standard 

existing building 

3. (RPD1) No additional doors or 3. (RPD1) Standard 

windows 


INFORMATIVES 


2. (7) Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works 

Contact Officer: CAMERON STANLEY Telephone No: 01895 250840 





21. NEW APPEALS AND APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED 

Appeal No: 4804 

01 March 2003 to 31 March 2003 

New Appeals 

Start Date: 03 March 2003 

Application Ref No: 

Location: 

Development: 

Procedure: 

Appeal Type: 

12341/APP/2002/1876 

21 Botwell Lane, Hayes 

Change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to Class A3 (Food 

and drink) 

Written Representation 

Against Refusal 

*********************** 




Location: 

Development: 

Procedure: 

Appeal Type: 

10852/APP/2002/2486 

Land at White Hart Public House, Uxbridge Road, Hayes 

Erection of 58 Residential units with associated amenity 

space, car parking and access arrangements (involving 

demolition of existing buildings) 

Local Inquiry 

Non-determination 

*********************** 




Location: 

Development: 

Procedure: 

Appeal Type: 

57945/APP/2002/2874 

Land to the rear and forming part of 62 Harmondsworth 

Lane, Harmondsworth 

Erection of a pair of two-bedroom semi-detached 

dwellinghouses, one two-bedroom detached 

dwellinghouse and associated car parking (involving 

demolition of existing garage) 

Written Representation 

Against Refusal 

*********************** 

No appeal decisions were received in March 2003. 



DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 

CONTACT OFFICER: KELVIN WILLIAMS 

EXTENSION: 3556 

22. OFFICER DELEGATED CASES - HAYES AREA 

SUMMARY 

Members expressed an interest in receiving a monthly update on the number and 

type of officer delegated decisions made each month. 

A list of planning decisions determined by the Head of Planning Services under 

delegated powers is attached. The list is available only on hard copy and can be 

obtained on request. 

RECOMMENDATION 

That Members note the content of this report. 

INFORMATION 

Between 01/02/03 and 28/02/03 there were 60 cases determined under delegated 

authority. 

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS 

Nil. 



LIST OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE USED 

IN THE PREPARATION OF REPORTS 

Title 

Date Publisher 

1 Available Premises Register (6 monthly) LBH 

2 Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest LBH 

(Being Updated) 

3 Colne Valley Park: A Vision for the future and a Strategy 1995 Colne Valley 

Park 

4 Conservation Area Study- Hillingdon Village 1981 LBH 

5 Conservation Area Study- Old Uxbridge 1990 LBH 

6 Conservation Area Study-Hayes Village 1981 LBH 

7 Ecology Handbook 4- Woodland, Wasteland, the Tidal 

Thames in two London Boroughs 

1986 London 

Ecology Unit 

8 Ecology Handbook 7- Nature Conservation in Hillingdon 1988 London 

Ecology Unit 

9 Ecology Handbook 8- London Meadows: Pastures 1988 London 

Ecology Unit 

10 Funding for Training Initiatives Policy (Initial Draft) 1999 LBH 

11 Gledwood Estate Replacement Roofs Policy 1992 LBH 

12 Government Circulars (Various) DETR/HMSO 

13 Hillingdon Census Atlas 1991 LBH 

14 Hillingdon Census Employment Monitor 1991 LBH 

15 Hillingdon Census Monitor 1991 LBH 

16 Industrial Profile (Annual) LBH 

17 LPAC: Strategic Planning Advice for London 1994 LPAC 

18 LPAC: Supplementary Strategic Advice (Various) LPAC 

19 Minerals Policy Guidance Notes (Various) DETR 

20 Outstanding Planning Permissions for Industrial, Office & LBH 

Warehousing Developments (Quarterly). 

21 Outstanding Planning Permissions for Residential 

LBH 

Developments & Hotels (Quarterly). 

22 Parking Standards 1998 LBH 

23 Parliamentary Acts (Various) HMSO 

24 Parliamentary Statutory Instruments (Various) HMSO 

25 Parliamentary White Papers (Various) HMSO 

26 Planning Brief- 40- Western Avenue- Hillingdon Circus 1990 LBH 

27 Planning Brief- Block 13, Uxbridge Town Centre 1990 LBH 

28 Planning Brief- Blocks 6 & 7, Uxbridge Town Centre 1988 LBH 

29 Planning Brief- Breakspear House, Harefield 1997 LBH 

Hayes & Harlington Planning Committee Report 1 st May 2003 Page 156 

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Title 

Date Publisher 

30 Planning Brief- British Waterways Land at Packet Boat 1997 LBH 

Lane, Cowley Peachey 

31 Planning Brief- Former Barn Hill School Site, Yeading 1998 LBH 

Lane, Hayes 

32 Planning Brief- Hayes Station Site 1996 LBH 

33 Planning Brief- Hillingdon House Farm, Park Road, 1988 LBH 

Uxbridge 

34 Planning Brief- Minet Estate 1988 LBH 

35 Planning Brief- Thorn Complex, Blyth Road, Hayes 1997 LBH 

36 Planning Inspectorate/ Secretary of State for ETR- 

HMSO 

Inspectors Decisions on Planning Appeals 

37 Planning Policy Guidance Notes DETR 

38 Regional Planning Guidance Note3 (London) 1996 HMSO 

39 Regional Planning Guidance Note9 (South East) 1994 HMSO 

40 SERPLAN: Regional Strategy and Reviews (Various) SERPLAN 

41 Standards for Canalside Development 1993 London Canals 

Committee 

42 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Changes to 1995 LBH 

Boundaries and Gradings of Sites of Importance for 

Nature Conservation 

43 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential 1999 LBH 

Layouts, Landscaping and House Design (Consultation 

Draft) 

44 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Guidance for 1998 LBH 

Seeking funding for School Places from Residential 

Development 

45 The Canal Way: A Review 1990 LBH 

46 Transport Policies and Programme 1999/2000 1998 LBH 

47 Unitary Development Plan (Adopted) 1998 LBH 

Planning Services: Friday, 05 March 1999 

Policy/Publications/Documentlist1 

Hayes & Harlington Planning Committee Report 1 st May 2003 Page 157 

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

COMMITTEE REPORT PROFORMA - London Borough of Hillingdon

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?