COMMITTEE REPORT PROFORMA - London Borough of Hillingdon

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.
(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations
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.
(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, Members must make their decision on the basis
of relevant planning considerations and 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.
Hayes Planning Committee – 1 May 2003 Page 34
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS