Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

None.

None.

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in Part 1 public.

Redevelopment of the site to provide a foodstore with ancillary cafe (Class 1) and ancillary petrol filling station, cinema (Class D2), 5 x restaurant units (Class A3), and residential development consisting of 132 units, together with new vehicle and pedestrian accesses, car parking, servicing areas, landscaping arrangements, and other associated works.

Recommendation : Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

Redevelopment of the site to provide a foodstore with ancillary cafe (Class 1) and ancillary petrol filling station, cinema (Class D2), 5 x restaurant units (Class A3), and residential development consisting of 132 units, together with new vehicle and pedestrian accesses, car parking, servicing areas, landscaping arrangements, and other associated works.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

Members were aware that the application was a resubmission following the previous application that was refused in February 2014.  The previous application had been refused for four reasons relating to sequential testing, retail scale, highways and planning obligations.  Members noted that the key difference between the current scheme and the previously refused scheme was that the supermarket was smaller and the site layout had been improved.

The Chairman asked officers to clarify the vehicular access to the site.  Officers informed the Committee that there were two vehicular accesses.  One access was for the commercial side of the site and the other for residential.

Officers explained that the revised application had overcome the previous reasons for refusal.  The proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on the town centre or others nearby.  It was not considered that the development would lead to significant traffic impacts such that refusal could be justified on highway grounds. 

The Council's highway officer explained to the Committee that the highways aspect of the scheme was still work in progress.  A number of changes were needed which included road widening and reconfiguration of junctions subject to obligations of the S106.  Officers further advised that any highway or traffic improvements would need to be approved by the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling, Cllr Keith Burrows.

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners both supporting and objecting the proposals addressed the meeting.

The petition submitted by Sainsbury's objecting to the proposals was addressed by Mr Bruno Moore who made the following points:

·         There were two main points to the petition of objection which had been submitted by Sainsbury's.  The first was to inform the Committee of the benefits Sainsbury's approved development would have and the second related to planning policies and the Arla site.

·         Sainsbury's had given a long term commitment to South Ruislip.

·         Sainsbury's proposals which included a new improved store with increased parking spaces would advance the retail experience at Sainsbury's.

·         The existing petrol station would be refurbished.

·         The Arla proposals had an impact on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres and should be refused.

·         Sainsbury's was a preferential site.

·         Arla proposals had failed to pass the sequential test.

·         The application on the Arla site was at odds with the objectives of the NPPF and Hillingdon's own local plan.

·         Full information on the effect of the proposed development on the existing South Ruislip Local Centre had been omitted from the Committee report which was a crucial omission.

·         The proposal had failed 3 key tests.

·         The Arla application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.