Decision details

Decision Maker: Development Sub-Committee

Decision status: Recommendations approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Purpose:

Decision:

Report author: Heather Morgan

Publication date: 05/01/2022

Date of decision: 05/01/2022

Decided at meeting: 05/01/2022 - Development Sub-Committee

Effective from: 11/01/2022

This decision has been called in by:

• Councillor Malcolm Beecher who writes In discussion of the Oast House / Kingston Road Car Park and Health & Well-being Centre, the Development Sub-committee resolved "to agree the preferred option for the residential element of the Oast House / Kingston Road site (Option 1)." We believe this decision ought to be reserved to Council in that: 1. The sub-committee rejected an amendment to the wording of Option 1 to allow "up to 14 and 10 storeys. 2. The sub-committee to give sufficient consideration and weight to the risk identified by the council officers that Option 1 was the only option likely to be rejected by the Planning Committee. Thus, the Asset Management team will waste time and money developing a scheme the runs the serious risk of rejection, with no appeal. 3. The sub-committee rejected the advice and recommendation of the Staines councillors not to pursue a scheme over 9 and 7 storeys. And in so doing also rejected the wishes of local residents, council tax payers, as they responded to a recent consultation by the council."
• Sinead Mooney who writes In discussion of the Oast House / Kingston Road Car Park and Health & Well-being Centre, the Development Sub-committee resolved "to agree the preferred option for the residential element of the Oast House / Kingston Road site (Option 1)." We believe this decision ought to be reserved to Council in that: 1. The sub-committee rejected an amendment to the wording of Option 1 to allow "up to 14 and 10 storeys. 2. The sub-committee to give sufficient consideration and weight to the risk identified by the council officers that Option 1 was the only option likely to be rejected by the Planning Committee. Thus, the Asset Management team will waste time and money developing a scheme the runs the serious risk of rejection, with no appeal. 3. The sub-committee rejected the advice and recommendation of the Staines councillors not to pursue a scheme over 9 and 7 storeys. And in so doing also rejected the wishes of local residents, council tax payers, as they responded to a recent consultation by the council."
• Councillor Denise Saliagopoulos who writes In discussion of the Oast House / Kingston Road Car Park and Health & Well-being Centre, the Development Sub-committee resolved "to agree the preferred option for the residential element of the Oast House / Kingston Road site (Option 1)." We believe this decision ought to be reserved to Council in that: 1. The sub-committee rejected an amendment to the wording of Option 1 to allow "up to 14 and 10 storeys. 2. The sub-committee to give sufficient consideration and weight to the risk identified by the council officers that Option 1 was the only option likely to be rejected by the Planning Committee. Thus, the Asset Management team will waste time and money developing a scheme the runs the serious risk of rejection, with no appeal. 3. The sub-committee rejected the advice and recommendation of the Staines councillors not to pursue a scheme over 9 and 7 storeys. And in so doing also rejected the wishes of local residents, council tax payers, as they responded to a recent consultation by the council."
• Councillor Joanne Sexton who writes In discussion of the Oast House / Kingston Road Car Park and Health & Well-being Centre, the Development Sub-committee resolved "to agree the preferred option for the residential element of the Oast House / Kingston Road site (Option 1)." We believe this decision ought to be reserved to Council in that: 1. The sub-committee rejected an amendment to the wording of Option 1 to allow "up to 14 and 10 storeys. 2. The sub-committee to give sufficient consideration and weight to the risk identified by the council officers that Option 1 was the only option likely to be rejected by the Planning Committee. Thus, the Asset Management team will waste time and money developing a scheme the runs the serious risk of rejection, with no appeal. 3. The sub-committee rejected the advice and recommendation of the Staines councillors not to pursue a scheme over 9 and 7 storeys. And in so doing also rejected the wishes of local residents, council tax payers, as they responded to a recent consultation by the council."
• Councillor Chris Bateson who writes In discussion of the Oast House / Kingston Road Car Park and Health & Well-being Centre, the Development Sub-committee resolved "to agree the preferred option for the residential element of the Oast House / Kingston Road site (Option 1)." We believe this decision ought to be reserved to Council in that: 1. The sub-committee rejected an amendment to the wording of Option 1 to allow "up to 14 and 10 storeys. 2. The sub-committee to give sufficient consideration and weight to the risk identified by the council officers that Option 1 was the only option likely to be rejected by the Planning Committee. Thus, the Asset Management team will waste time and money developing a scheme the runs the serious risk of rejection, with no appeal. 3. The sub-committee rejected the advice and recommendation of the Staines councillors not to pursue a scheme over 9 and 7 storeys. And in so doing also rejected the wishes of local residents, council tax payers, as they responded to a recent consultation by the council."
• Councillor Veena Siva who writes In discussion of the Oast House / Kingston Road Car Park and Health & Well-being Centre, the Development Sub-committee resolved "to agree the preferred option for the residential element of the Oast House / Kingston Road site (Option 1)." We believe this decision ought to be reserved to Council in that: 1. The sub-committee rejected an amendment to the wording of Option 1 to allow "up to 14 and 10 storeys. 2. The sub-committee to give sufficient consideration and weight to the risk identified by the council officers that Option 1 was the only option likely to be rejected by the Planning Committee. Thus, the Asset Management team will waste time and money developing a scheme the runs the serious risk of rejection, with no appeal. 3. The sub-committee rejected the advice and recommendation of the Staines councillors not to pursue a scheme over 9 and 7 storeys. And in so doing also rejected the wishes of local residents, council tax payers, as they responded to a recent consultation by the council."

Accompanying Documents:

• Dev Sub - oast house and staines HW centre 12.21 final PDF 355 KB
• Restricted enclosure  View reasons restricted
• Appendix B KGE STRATEGY 2021-v6 PDF 2 MB
• Appendix C dev Sub and CPRC 29.11.21 PDF 188 KB
• Restricted enclosure  View reasons restricted
• Restricted enclosure  View reasons restricted
• Restricted enclosure  View reasons restricted
• Restricted enclosure  View reasons restricted
• Restricted enclosure  View reasons restricted
• Timeline - Dev Sub - oast house and staines HW centre 11.21 App G PDF 11 KB
• Restricted enclosure  View reasons restricted
• Restricted enclosure  View reasons restricted
• Restricted enclosure  View reasons restricted
• Restricted enclosure  View reasons restricted