Rear plant and fencing at 30-34 Station Road, West Drayton

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the works would not harm neighbouring amenities, the area’s character or highway safety, subject to conditions.

“The proposed development is considered to have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the existing property and surrounding area. It is not considered to cause harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents, nor would it impact highway safety.”

“The proposal is considered to comply with the Development Plan, and no material considerations indicate that a contrary decision should be taken. Consequently, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

A petition and 20 objection letters raised concerns including noise, parking, deliveries, congestion, air quality, highway safety and store concentration.

“An assessment of the proposed development on highway safety has been made in paragraphs 7.24- 7.32 of this report. 20 letters of objection have been received. I. Concerns regarding parking, delivery management, congestion, air quality and highway/pedestrian safety. These comments are noted; however, the proposed development relates solely to the installation of plant equipment and boundary trea tment.”

“Parking and highway safety matters are discussed at paragraphs 7.24-7.32 of this report. II. Concerns regarding impact to neighbouring amenities (noise, disturbance, light pollution). This is discussed at paragraphs 7.11 -7.23 of this report . III. Overconcentration of Tesco stores/supermarkets in local area. The impact on local pubs, restaurants etc needs to be considered. These comments are noted.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A petition representative, the application’s agent and a ward councillor addressed the committee about noise, operations, highways and community effects.

Members’ discussion

Members examined plant locations, operating times, noise limits, monitoring, parking, permitted development and whether the conditions were enforceable.

“Members enquired whether the new fencing and plant enclosure would reduce rear access or increase pressure on on-street parking. Officers responded that the location in question was not an area used for parking by the unit. It was explained that a sufficient amount of pay-and-display parking was located directly outside the premises.”

“In response officers confirmed that the Council did not have discretion to determine whether development constituted permitted development. Reference was made to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, which set out what did and did not constitute development. It was explained that the former bank operated under Use Class E(c), and movement to retail within Use Class E(a) remained within the same overarching use class.”

Minutes

The vote

The officer recommendation was moved and seconded, then agreed with six members voting in favour and one abstaining.

“No further concerns were raised. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with six Members voting in favour and one abstention.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was approved subject to the conditions, including enforceable limits on noise from the plant equipment.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.”

Minutes