Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor John Hensley declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 11, as he was an Academic Advisor at Brunel University, and left the room during the consideration thereof.

The Chairman advised that Items 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 had been withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture due to extensive additional information being received relating to the applications which officers would not have had time to consider before the meeting.

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

Mixed use redevelopment comprising the erection of a 3,543 sq.m foodstore (GIA) (Use Class A1), (inclusive of delivery areas) with 181 car parking spaces and 32 cycle spaces; 3 additional retail units, totalling 1,037 sq.m (GFA) (Use Class A1 to A5); a 100 sq.m safer neighbourhoods unit (Use Class D1); a 7 storey (plus plant level) 84 bedroom hotel (Use Class C1), with 18 car parking spaces and 16 cycle spaces; together with associated highways alterations and landscaping.

Recommendation – Approval

This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture due to extensive additional information being received relating to the applications which officers would not have had time to consider before the meeting.

Erection of 5 part 4, part 5 storey blocks to provide 125 residential units (Use Class C3) with 99 car parking spaces and 150 cycle parking spaces and associated highways alterations, together with associated landscaping (outline application).

Recommendation – Approval

This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture due to extensive additional information being received relating to the applications which officers would not have had time to consider before the meeting.

Demolition of the existing public house and timber yard, and the erection of a mixed use redevelopment comprising a foodstore (7829m2 GEA) (Use Class A1); a 6 storey 82 bed hotel (Use Class C1); a 720m2 restaurant/public house facility (Use Class A3/A4); and 107 residential units (Use Class C3), together with reconfiguration of the existing commuter car park, and associated landscaping, car/cycle parking and ancillary works.

Recommendation - Refusal

This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture due to extensive additional information being received relating to the applications which officers would not have had time to consider before the meeting.

This item represents the assessment of cumulative impacts associated with Items 6, 7 and 8.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture due to extensive additional information being received relating to the applications which officers would not have had time to consider before the meeting.

This item represents a comparative assessment of proposals set out in Items 6, 7 and 8.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture due to extensive additional information being received relating to the applications which officers would not have had time to consider before the meeting.

Demolition of existing 2-3 storey teaching block; construction of new 3-storey University Technical College (UTC); car parking; landscaping; retention of existing pedestrian and vehicular access; and ancillary development.

Recommendation - That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the officer’s report.

Demolition of existing 2-3 storey teaching block; construction of new 3-storey University Technical College (UTC); car parking; landscaping; retention of existing pedestrian and vehicular access; and ancillary development.

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

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting. The petitioner supporting the proposals made the following points:-

• The design of the proposed building was innovative and original.
• There was a demand for this type of school.
• UK needed more young people to pursue a career in engineering.
• Increase in apprenticeships.
• Would meet the growing local need for technically competent young people.
• Sponsors for the proposals included RAF Northolt, Brunel University, Uxbridge College, Northwood and Queensmead Schools, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.
• Graduates would be highly employable life long learners.

Members were keen to know how the proposed college would enforce their no car policy and whether staff would also be encouraged to adhere to this policy.   The petitioner informed the Committee that students would sign an agreement not to drive to college and regular checks in residential streets would be carried out by staff.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting. The petitioner objecting the proposals made the following points:-

• Local residents generally supported the development of the new college which was likely to be a good thing for the area.
• Concerns were specific to the proposed design.
• Officers’ report goes a long way to address many of the concerns raised by local residents.
• Requested an amendment to condition 20 to reduce the noise level by a further 5dB.
• Requested an additional condition which limited the use of the lower ground floor engineering workshops to the hours of 9am – 5pm Monday to Friday during school term time only.
• Would like the floodlighting replaced with a low-level lighting scheme.
• Would like the suspension of parking on Potter Street limited to a maximum of 6 weeks during the construction period.
• Requested deferral until the applicant had demonstrated how these concerns would be addressed.

The applicant /agent made the following points:-

• Sport England had supported the proposals.
• Were not increasing the overall height of the proposed building.
• The proposed college was not a factory; use of equipment was expected to change over time and was likely to become lighter rather than louder.
• The building was a bespoke design.
• The lighting in the car park was approved Secure by Design.
• Parking suspension was proposed during construction period as a matter of health and safety.
• Happy to comply with conditions as laid out in the officers’ report. 
• Northwood School and UTC had a good relationship.
• Proposals were a fantastic opportunity for Hillingdon.

Members questioned how the use of equipment would be restricted to certain hours of the day.  The agent stated that UTC were committed to ensure there was not a noise impact on residents.  Windows on the west side of the proposed building would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Conversion and refurbishment of the Manor House to provide 4 x 2-bed flats, construction of 9 x 3-bed three-storey houses and 10 x 4-bed four-storey houses and a three-storey building comprising 6 x 2-bed flats, refurbishment of the Long Room for continued office use, together with associated car parking and landscaping.

Recommendation - Grant planning permission subject to the Environment Agency not raising an objection to the scheme.

Conversion and refurbishment of the Manor House to provide 4 x 2-bed flats, construction of 9 x 3-bed three-storey houses and 10 x 4-bed four-storey houses and a three-storey building comprising 6 x 2-bed flats, refurbishment of the Long Room for continued office use, together with associated car parking and landscaping.

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

Members discussed parking allocation and agreed for amendments to be made to conditions 27 and 11, 2d with condition 27 to be agreed by the Chairman and Labour Lead.

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

Resolved - Subject to the Environment Agency not raising an objection to the scheme, delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions, and any additional conditions and/or informatives which may be required by the Environment Agency:

A) That the Council enters into an agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and/or other appropriate legislation to secure:

1. Education: a financial contribution in the sum of £147,710 towards educational facilities.

2. Health: a financial contribution in the sum of £16,984.76 towards health provision.

3. Libraries: a financial contribution in the sum of £1,802.97 towards library provision.

4. Highways: any and all required highways works are to be adhered to and the cost met by the developer.

5. Affordable Housing Review Mechanism: 15% of units as affordable housing and a review mechanism which can be applied in the event the development  s not substantially commenced within 18 months of the grant of planning permission.

6. Construction Training: either a financial contribution, or an in-kind scheme delivered during the construction phase of the development, should be secured (in either event the 'obligation' should be delivered equal to the formula of £2,500 for every £1 million build cost + 14/160 x £71,675 = total contribution).

7. Project Management and Monitoring Fee: a financial contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contributions towards the management and monitoring of the resulting agreement.

B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval.

D) That if any of the heads of terms set out above have not been agreed and the S106 legal agreement has not been finalised within 3 months of the date of this Committee resolution, or such other date as agreed by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture, delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

'The applicant has failed to provide contributions towards the improvement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

Listed Building Consent for the conversion and refurbishment of the Manor House to provide 4 x 2-bed flats, together with associated car parking and landscaping works.

Recommendation – Approval

Listed Building Consent for the conversion and refurbishment of the Manor House to provide 4 x 2-bed flats, together with associated car parking and landscaping works.

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

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

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and changes in the addendum.