Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

None.

There were no matters notified in advance or urgent.

It was confirmed that all items would be heard in public.

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

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.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitions received in objection and support to the proposals were invited to address the meeting.

Note – Concerns raised by petitioners relate to both items 5 and 6.

The lead petitioner from the Ickenham Residents Association in objection to the application raised the following points:

• The proposals in 2004 were refused for various reasons.
• Traffic impact was a concern.
• The new design was improved and much smaller than the previous proposals.
• The 7 storey hotel was too high and would dwarf buildings opposite.
• The onus should be on the applicant to show that the traffic and air pollution impact was not severe.
• The surrounding roads could not cope with the traffic.
• There was an assumption that traffic would not join the road network.
• There would be longer journey times for longer periods in the day.
•  Hillingdon Circus exceeded EU pollution limits, toxic levels increasing are unacceptable.
• The health of Hillingdon residents should be a priority.
• The phasing of the traffic lights could put pedestrians at risk.
• Council policy should encourage walking and not make it more dangerous.

The lead petitioner from the Oak Farm Residents Association in objection to the application raised the following points:

• There were over 7000 houses south of the A40 between the proposed site and the Uxbridge Road.
• Oak Farm was the closest housing area to the Tesco site.
• There were already issues with land drainage in the area and the proposals could make things worse, including flooding.
• The average house price in the area was £250,000, which the minimum wage could not afford.
• The area was already heavily polluted. 
• A40 traffic had increased over the years from Hillingdon to Acton.
• Noise was measured at 80dBa at the entrance to Hillingdon station.
• There was no continuous bus route between the north and the south of the Borough.
• There were often queues to get on to Long Lane from residential side roads.
• Tesco have proposed a 4^th traffic queue which would not help.
• The Oak Farm Residents Association requested a full assessment on conditions in the area.

The petitioners in support to the application raised the following points:

• Since the Master Brewer had been knocked down trade in the shopping parade was down by 40%.
• The general area was in need of repair, including the slip roads.
• There were more shops than people.
• Wanted life back to the area.
• Would love a supermarket within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

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

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).

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum.

The concerns and comments raised by petitioners in both objection and support are noted in Item 5 of the minutes, including comments from the applicant/agent.

Members discussed the size, scale and bulk of the proposals.  Members were not satisfied with the height of the hotel and suggested it would appear too large and overshadowed buildings located opposite the proposed site, which included the hotel and health centre on Freezeland Way.

Members discussed the traffic impact the proposal would have on the local area.  Members questioned the number of entry and exits on to the site and whether they met visibility requirements. Members also questioned the speed limits as they varied between the A40 and slip road.  Officers informed the Committee that the visibility requirements had been met and vehicle activated speed signs could be used to lower the speed of vehicles.

Members questioned the pedestrian crossings and stated that there was a risk for pedestrians should they have to cross 4 lanes of traffic.  Members were concerned that pedestrians would not use the crossing and could put their lives at risk. 

Officers informed the Committee that there had been 3^rd party highway consultants employed to carry out the transport assessments.  Transport for London (TfL) used the same expert consultants.  Officers stated that there was confidence in the external highway consultants, although additional traffic surveys would be carried out through the legal agreement.  Officers informed Members that it was not common practice to include the whole detailed wording of the legal agreement in the officer’s report.

Members stated that the cumulative reports clearly indicated that it would be wrong to approve both applications due to the impact on town centres, traffic and air quality in the local area.  Members also stated that there were 2 local schools in local proximity and concern was raised about an additional minute being added to pedestrian waiting times on the crossing.

The Chairman stated that further detailed traffic surveys would need to be agreed by the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling.

Members discussed the proposed park on the site and that there were no designated parking spaces for the park.  Members discussed the planting of trees, including species that absorb pollution. Officers stated an informative could be added.  Members questioned whether the landscaping condition could be altered so that the boundary could act as a buffer zone.

Members raised concerns as to how residents living on the site would gain access.  It was noted that residents would need to follow a one-way system and go back on themselves which Members thought was impractical.

Members had concerns in relation to the use of the other 3 retail units proposed for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

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

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.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitions received in objection and support to the proposals were invited to address the meeting.

The lead petitioner from the Ickenham Residents Association in objection to the application raised the following points:

·        Agreed with the officer recommendation for refusal.

·        It was felt that the applicant was likely to appeal.

·        Reasons for refusal were not strong or broad enough.

·        The proposals were very similar to those rejected in the 2004 application by Tesco.

·        The scale and size of the proposals were overbearing.

·        There would be an affect on the Uxbridge Town Centre.

·        Inclusion of a butcher in the proposed premises would threaten shops in Ickenham.

·        The main concern was the impact on traffic and air pollution.

·        Traffic models needed to validated against existing traffic conditions.

·        There were often long traffic queues on Long Lane.

·        The traffic flow from Hercies Road would be limited.

·        Major concern for pedestrians, especially from local schools.

·        Inadequate data relating to journey times and traffic pollution.

·        There were already tailbacks on the A40 due to traffic; a store would exasperate the problem.

The lead petitioner supporting the application raised the following points:

• Had been a local resident since 1938.
• The site had been derelict for over 20 years.
• The applicant had been forthcoming and consulted with local residents.
• The proposal was in the right place.
• The proposals would enhance the local area.
• The proposed entrance would link with Hillingdon Station and be more accessible than the application on the old Master Brewer site.
• There would be separate entrances to the site.
• The proposals were larger than the Former Master Brewer site because food would be freshly prepared on the premises.
• Jobs would be offered to local and unemployed people.
• These proposals were better than those proposed on the Former Master Brewer site.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

• The Premier Inn hotel was committed to the development and had confidence in this application.
• Had included more parking at the site as requested by the local Chamber of Commerce.
• There was more support from local residents and businesses for this application.
• Was committed to local employment and would work with Uxbridge College and the local Job Centre Plus.
• 150 jobs would be offered to local unemployed people.
• Applicants for the Former Master Brewer site had used old traffic data from 2008 whilst this applicant had used data from 2011.
• Even with a smaller store the applicant for the Former Master Brewer site would have a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

This item represents the assessment of cumulative impacts associated with Items 5, 6 and 7.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum.

The Legal Advisor present reminded the Committee that the purpose of the report was to consider whether it would be appropriate to approve both schemes together.

Members discussed the effects the proposals would have on the local area if both schemes were approved.  Member concerns concurred with those already given during the discussions on the individual applications.

Resolved – The Committee agreed that both schemes should not be approved together, and therefore cumulative reasons for refusal should be imposed on all applications.

This item represents a comparative assessment of proposals set out in Items 5, 6 and 7.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum.

The Legal Advisor present reminded the Committee that the purpose of this report was to consider which scheme was the preferable option of the two.

Members discussed both the Spenhill scheme (Master Brewer site) and the Bridehall scheme (Land adjacent to Hillingdon Station).  Members comparatively preferred the Bridehall application over the Spenhill applications.

Resolved – The Committee agreed that the Bridehall application was the preferred scheme.