Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Pat Jackson, Councillor Carol Melvin was substituting.

Councillor John Hensley declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Items 5 & 6 as an ex Don and Academic Advisor to Brunel University and left the meeting whilst the items were discussed.

All items were to be considered in Part 1 except Item 8, which would be considered in private.

reserved matters (details of siting, design, external

appearance and landscaping) of a new eastern gateway

building (zone a 10 (phase 1) - gateway), together with

details of landscaping, landscape maintenance, screening

of plant, waste storage facilities, access to building

entrances, car parking provision for wheelchair disabled

people, external lighting, scheme for protecting the

proposed building from noise and external lighting, in

compliance with conditions 3, 12, 13, 23, 25, 26, 30, 32 and 62 (as

they relate to zone a10 (phase 1)) of outline planning

permission ref: 532/app/2002/2237 dated 19/04/2004 'master plan

proposals'

Recommendation : Approval of details in compliance with conditions and reserved matters of outline planning permission 532/APP/2002/2237

Reserved matters (details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping) of a new eastern gateway building (zone a 10 (phase 1) - gateway), together with details of landscaping, landscape maintenance, screening of plant, waste storage facilities, access to building entrances, car parking provision for wheelchair disabled people, external lighting, scheme for protecting the proposed building from noise and external lighting, in compliance with conditions 3, 12, 13, 23, 25, 26, 30, 32 and 62 (as they relate to zone a10 (phase 1)) of outline planning permission ref: 532/app/2002/2237 dated 19/04/2004 'master plan proposals'

A member asked whether condition 10 on the Management Plan could comeback to committee for a final decision to ensure that it was robust.

Officers advised that it was unusual to have conditions coming back to committee but because at this stage there is no detailed information this was a justified request in this instance.

The Legal adviser asked for the wording of the condition on the addendum sheet to be amended to make it clear that the area should not be used after 10 p.m. at night.   The amended wording was agreed by the committee.

In answer to a question raised in relation to the parking officers advised that .  Visitors to the site would park within the existing extensive parking areas already approved and would be managed by Brunel.

The recommendation was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved –

1.         That details in compliance with conditions 12 'Landscape Maintenance', 13 'Screening of plant', 23 'Details of waste storage facilities', 25 'Details of access to building entrances', 26 'Details of car parking provision for wheelchair disabled people', 30 'External lighting scheme', 32 'Scheme for protecting the proposed building from noise' and 62 'External lighting' of outline planning permission 532/APP/2002/2237 dated 19/04/2004 as they relate to Phase 1 of development within Zone A10 be approved.

2.         That the reserved matters of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping of a new Eastern Gateway Building (Zone A10 (Phase 1) in compliance with condition 3 of outline planning permission ref: 532/APP/2002/2237 dated 19/04/2004 be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and the condition on the addendum sheet amended as follows:-

That the café facility and external seating area identified on the plans hereby approved shall be permitted to operate within the hours of 0700 hrs and 2200 hrs seven days a week, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To safeguard residential amenity in accordance with Policy OE1 of the Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007.

Retention of a single storey portakabin building for a temporary period.

(Retrospective planning application)

Recommendation : Approval

Retention of a single storey portakabin building for a temporary period (Retrospective Planning Application)

Members asked for a condition to be added to ensure that the external treatment of the portakabin was completed within 3 months of the date of the planning permission.

The recommendation with the added condition was moved seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and an additional condition added as follows:-

Within one month from the date of this decision details of the colour scheme of the portacabin shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  Once approved the colour scheme shall be implemented within three months of approval and shall remain for so long as the development remains on site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON

In the interests of visual amenity in compliance with policy BE13 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007.

Demolition of all existing buildings and erection of an eight storey building

compromising a 623 bedroom hotel (with ancillary restaurant/bar facilities)

incorporating associated landscaping, parking for 367 cars (22 disabled

spaces), 4 coaches and 20 cycles

Recommendation : Delegate approval subject to a S106 agreement to Director of Planning & Community Services subject to referral to Mayor for London and Secretary of State

Demolition of all existing buildings and erection of an eight storey building comprising a 632 bedroom Hotel (with ancillary restaurant/bar facilities) incorporating associated landscaping, parking for 367 cars (22 disabled spaces). 4 coaches and 20 cycles.

The Chairman asked for a condition to be added on the provision of electric charging points.  The addendum sheet also stated that conditions 30 & 31 were to be replaced it was suggested that these should remain and additional conditions added on sound insulation and air conditioning.  These amendments were agreed by the committee.

In answer to a question raised on the possibility of the car park being used for airport parking officers advised that condition 38 dealt with this issue.  It was asked that condition 38 be amended to include the provision of CCTV for the car park.

A member raised concerns about the visual impact this proposal would have on the Green Belt and the Air Quality.  In relation to the air quality an assumption had been made that there would be a drop in air quality levels but evidence showed that levels would be exceeded.  If levels set by the European Union are exceeded what sanctions would be taken.

The mandatory elements of the European directives identify various maximum levels and targets. Those targets are subject to an extended deadline beyond the date of this determination. The Legal Advisor suggested it would be preferable for the committee to proceed on the basis of planning policy considerations relating to air quality rather than on the basis that the UK was not currently in compliance with European law."

A member stated that if the air quality levels are damaging the health of our residents we are their representatives and it is our responsibility to ensure that we take these issues in to consideration.

Officers reported that it would be appropriate to consider the bulk and mass of the building but in relation to the air quality it was felt to be unreasonable to refuse on this ground.  In relation to the Green Belt although this is a material consideration the proposed building is located to the front of the site to lessen the impact on the Green Belt.  This is a large building but it is considered to be a sufficient distance away from the Green Belt. 

In answer to an issue in relation to the height of the building members were informed that there were none higher than 8 storeys in the surrounding area.

It was suggested that the application should be refused on grounds of bulk, height and massing and reference made to the impact on the street scene and openness of the surrounding area.

The recommendation for refusal on grounds of bulk, height and mass and impact on the street scene and the openness of the surrounding area was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be Refused for the following reasons:-

The development by reason of its height, bulk and massing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Resolved –

1.                  That enforcement action as recommended in the officer’s report, addendum sheet and as amended at the meeting was agreed.

2.                  That the decision and the reasons for it outlined in this report into the public domain, solely for the purposes of issuing the formal enforcement notice to the individual concerned.