Agenda item

Part retrospective change of use from Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) to use as a higher educational college.  (Deferred from Central & South Committee 06/03/2012.)

Recommendation : Approval

Part retrospective change of use from Class B8 (Storage and Distribution) to use as a higher educational college.  (Deferred from Central & South Committee 06/03/2012).

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to page 157 paragraph 22 of the report to note that the third line after the word “relative” should read “need of…”

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting in support of the proposal.  The agent also spoke in support of the application.

The petitioner made the following points in support of the application:

• Members had attended a site visit in April 2012
• The courses provided at graduate levels by the college were accredited with the appropriate professional and educational examination bodies
• The college also provided leadership development programmes and was proactive in helping young people to secure employment
• The college worked closely with local businesses, Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), and Children’s Learning company to support its students.

Members asked the petitioner about the number of home (UK passport) students that were from the local area.  The petitioner responded that a maximum of up to 200 students who attended the college were home students and were from the local area.

In response to a question as to what improvements/changes had been made regarding disable access to the building since the application was deferred in Mach 2012, the petitioner responded that a company had conducted a survey and an order had been placed for equipment but no changes had yet been made.

The agent made the following points in support of the proposal:

• The application had been re-submitted as the three reasons for the previous refusal had been addressed
• Had made their best efforts to amend the plans, such as widening doors as quickly as possible
• Members of the Committee had attended a site visit
• Had met with Planning officers and the Access officer regarding the issue of disable access
• The recently published National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  supported the proposal which complied with disabled requirements
• Considered that the proposal was a positive scheme.

A Member stated that the application had been previously refused for three reasons and suggested that the concerns in the previously refused scheme had not been addressed. The issue of the proposed development being located in an established Industrial Business Area was seen as a particular concern, as Members failed to see how with 200 local students, the parking proposal would work in a crowded area which did not already have adequate parking. Members noted that the applicant intended to change from mainly overseas students to mainly local students which may have an even greater impact on parking.

A Member reiterated that it was clear that the site of the proposed development was within a very long standing business area which should not be compromised.

The Committee indicated that the IBA should be retained and expressed their regret that the proposed development was sited in the heart of this area.

Members stressed that no clear reasons had been given as to why the Committee should allow this application, which would go against the requirements of the IBA and considered that the industrial area should be maintained. The Committee expressed grave concerns that allowing this proposal would lead to demand for other businesses in the area.

Officers advised that Condition 4 limited the use for higher education use only and otherwise to be reverted back to its original use.

The Committee highlighted that there was currently a recession and the sites for future growth in employment land may be affected by this and considered therefore, that it was not clear that there was not demand for the site to be used for employment purposes.  Members expressed grave concerns about parking issues in the area and considered strongly that the proposed development was inappropriate for an IBA.

The Committee also raised concerns as to whether the transport assessment was robust enough to cope with the prediction of the increase of home students and those going to work. Officers advised that the transport assessment was based on the current provisions and the Travel Plan submitted by the applicant (with supporting documents) would enable the Committee to look at any potential changes.

A Member added that to base predictions on the current situation, given that there was currently a recession did not equate to good planning. The member expressed concerns that if such uses were allowed during times of recession, the whole area would be compromised and may prevent major industrial occupiers from moving in the development due to lack of availability.

It was moved and seconded that the officer’s recommendation for approval be overturned and on being put to the vote, the application was refused for the following reasons:

1)     The Committee was not satisfied that the proposed development was sited in an Industrial and Business Area.

2)     The Committee considered that the Transport Assessment did not demonstrate the future problems that may arise from the predicted student increase.  On being put to the vote, the application was refused.

The Committee agreed that officers would develop the formal wordings in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.  

At the meeting held on 14 June 2012 the committee made a correction to point 1) above to delete ‘not’ in the first line as Members had clearly stated at the meeting that they were satisfied that the proposed development was in an Industrial and Business Area.

Resolved – That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1)     The application site falls within the Nestles Avenue Industrial and Business Area and is designated as a Strategic Industrial Location in the London Plan.  The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of employment land contrary to Policy LE2 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September( 2007), Policy 4.4 of the London Plan (July 2011) and recommendations within the Council's Employment Land Study (July 2009).

2)     The application fails to demonstrates the change of use to the proposed educational college scheme (including the proposed and future college expansion programme and its impact on the mix and numbers of students) will not have an adverse impact on highways safety, traffic congestion or amenity due to the volume of traffic movements on the surrounding streets or a resultant increase in on-street car parking on neighbouring residential streets contrary to OE1, AM7 and AM14 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September (2007).

The changes in the Addendum circulated at the meetings were attached.