Agenda item

Redevelopment of site for mixed use development comprising a 44-unit apartment hotel, 1,320 m² of office space and 135 m² restaurant/bar, with associated access, car parking and landscaping (Outline application for approval of access)

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a S106 agreement.

Redevelopment of site for mixed use development comprising a 44-

unit apartment hotel, 1,320 m² of office space and 135 m² restaurant/bar, with associated access, car parking and landscaping (Outline Application for approval of access)

26628/APP/2009/2284

Officers in introducing the report advised the committee that resolution 2a (i) needed to be amended to change the wording to encompass all three uses.

A Member asked whether it was acceptable to add a condition limiting the use of the bar and restaurant to the apart hotel and not the general public as it was not felt that it needed to be open to the general public.  This had been successfully done on an application for a Hotel in Hayes.

Officers advised that the application in Hayes had been for a Hotel not an Apart Hotel and it was not felt that the amount of demand would make it viable and should also open to the public as well as the residents occupying the Apart Hotel.

Concerns were raised about the height of the proposed building in relation to those in the surrounding area .  The existing buildings are all 4 storeys and this development was proposing 6 storeys and this was not felt to be  appropriate in this area.  The proposal was felt to be unacceptable in the street scene and the adjoining developments and out of character with the area.

The Chairman reported that there was a lot of conflicts with this development and the committee need to make sure that the conditions are correct if members are considering refusing this application. Issues were raised in relation to whether delivery vehicles would be able to access the site satisfactorily. 

In answer to the issues raised in relation to the refusing the application officers advised that Members needed to have regard to the previous reasons for refusal and whether this application overcame those reasons.  In regard to the height the current application had been reduced overall and had been set back to address the visual appearance and out of keeping issues that formed part of the previous reasons for refusal.  In relation to the delivery issues raised there was no specific allocated loading bay and deliveries would be managed within the site.  The maximum weight for Lorry’s accessing the site would be 7.5 Tonnes.

A member suggested that the application should be refused as there needed to be a better separation between the various uses on the site and sufficient area within the site to accommodate all the uses.   It was suggested that an informative be added to reflect this if the application was to be refused.  

Officers advised that this was an outline application and the issues raised by members could be addressed at the detailed stage.  Members were reminded that they needed to be mindful of the previous reasons for refusal and consider whether this scheme overcame those reasons.

A member stated that it was not the uses on the site that was causing concern but the amount of development on the site was felt to be inappropriate and did not relate well with the other buildings in the surrounding suburban area.

It was suggested that the application be refused for the previous reasons for refusal set out on page 127 of the report omitting the reference made to the Grand Union Canal, with the final wording of the reason for refusal to be agreed by the Chairman and Labour Lead.  On being put to the vote this was agreed by the committee. 

The recommendation with an additional 3 informatives added was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

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

The proposed development by reason of the size, scale and design of the proposed building represents an overdevelopment of the site and would have an adverse impact on the appearance of the street, the character of the area and highway safety. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to policies AM7, AM 14, BE13, BE19 and BE32 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) and policies 4B.1, 4B.3 and 4C.1 of the Mayors London Plan ( February 2008).

2.  The development has not secured provision through planning obligations, for contributions towards public realm/town centre/canal side improvement to address the impact of the development on its surroundings, construction training or project management and monitoring. Neither has the applicant agreed through a planning obligation the provision of a comprehensive travel plan to TFL's latest guidance. The application is therefore contrary to policies R17 and BE32 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies September 2007 and the Councils Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for Planning Obligations and policy 3C.2 of the Mayors London Plan (February 2008).

Additional Informatives added  I52. I53, and

'You are advised that the application does not provide adequately for onsite car parking and service/delivery vehicles.'