The Planning Committee met and approved the construction of a shop and flats on the site of 1 Spring Grove Corner, and the retrospective amendment of the plans for the construction of a garage block at Garth Court.

Land adjacent to 1 Spring Corner

The committee considered an application¹ for the construction of a shop and flats on land next to 1 Spring Grove Corner.

You can find the planning application on the Hounslow Council planning portal by searching for application number P/2023/2376.

The committee heard that the developers intended the retail unit to only serve the local community. They were told that a sequential assessment² had been carried out in line with the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires that local authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and that local planning authorities should apply a sequential approach to planning applications for out-of-centre supermarkets, food stores, and other main town centre uses to ensure that they are located in the most sustainable locations . The meeting heard that the parking for the development complied with the London Plan, which sets out how much parking should be provided for new developments.

Councillor Dan Bowring said:

I request a note or condition to speak to Oasis Church to accurately measure noise levels on Sundays on behalf of future residents of the flats, to allow adequate mitigation.

After considering the report, the application was approved unanimously, subject to conditions.

Garage Block at Garth Court

The committee considered a report on the construction of a garage block at Garth Court.

This application had previously been approved by the committee. However, when the application was originally approved, the committee had been given incorrect information about the height of the development. As a result, the development was 20cm taller than the plans that had been approved.

The committee was asked to consider whether they would have approved the original application if they had known the true height of the development.

The committee heard from the Legal Adviser, Simon Cowley, that they should decide the application on its merits, and should not consider the views of the Councillor who called it in.

Councillor John Stroud-Turp said that he believed the scheme was still acceptable even though it was 20cm taller than the original application.

[The application] had been thoroughly debated when first heard and [I] believed the scheme was just as acceptable at 20cm taller than first set out.

Councillor Dan Bowring said:

[I] agreed that the development, which he had visited, was still acceptable

The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.