Agenda and minutes

Apologies had been received from Councillor Dominic Gilham. Councillor Carol Melvin attended in his place.

Councillor Dave Allam declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 7, South of Ballinger Way and East of Broadmead Road, Yeading by virtue of having previously supported residents concerning this development. He withdrew from the meeting and did not take part in the decision of this item.

There were no matters notified in advance or urgent.

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

Application for new planning permission to replace extant planning permission dated 14th September 2010, reference 382/APP/2010/1404 for Erection of a three storey bedroom wing extension to hotel to provide 54 bedrooms and 15 bathrooms, involving demolition of existing bedroom wing (Application to replace extant appeal decision ref: APP/R5510/A/07/2047304 dated 23/10/2007).

Recommendation: Approval

Application for new planning permission to replace extant planning permission dated 14th September 2010, reference 382/APP/2010/1404 for Erection of a three storey bedroom wing extension to hotel to provide 54 bedrooms and 15 bathrooms, involving demolition of existing bedroom wing (Application to replace extant appeal decision ref: APP/R5510/A/07/2047304 dated 23/10/2007).

Officers introduced the report and directed Members to note the changes in the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

The petitioners objecting to the application had indicated that they would not be addressing the Committee in respect of this application. Neither the agent nor the applicant was present at the meeting.

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

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

Erection of a part single, two, three and 4 storey building to provide 23 residential units, consisting of 14 x 2 bedroom, 9 x 1 together with 250sqm of retail/commercial space, with associated parking, cycle and bin storage and amenity space, involving demolition of existing buildings.

Recommendation: Approval subject to S106 Agreement

Erection of a part single, two, three and 4 storey building to provide 23 residential units, consisting of 14 x 2 bedroom, 9 x 1 together with 250sqm of retail/commercial space, with associated parking, cycle and bin storage and amenity space, involving demolition of existing buildings.

In introducing the report, officers advised that this application had been deferred at the meeting on 30 October 2013 for a site visit and for further clarifications. The site visit had taken place and the queries and concerns previously raised had been addressed in the officer’s report. The Committee was directed to note the changes in the addendum circulated at the meeting.

The Chairman asked whether the plans shown on the PowerPoint presentation were listed on the plans that Members were being asked to approve. Officers responded affirmatively.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting. The petitioners objecting to the proposed development made the following points:

• Objected to the commercial premises being located in a residential area, which by reason of its use was likely to result in noise, disturbance and nuisance which would be detrimental to the residents.
• Suggested that the proposed A1 premises should be located in the High Street to improve and aid regeneration.
• Suggested that the car wash that was currently in operation was operating without a licence and creating unnecessary problems. This area could be used to improve amenity for residents and pedestrian using the rear access of station.
• The change of use from commercial premises to residential would have a detrimental impact on existing properties (2, 4, & 6) at Warwick Road.
• Suggested that a restrictive covenant should be put in place to prevent occupiers of the proposed development objecting to any future development proposed by the affected properties in Warwick Road.
• Objected to the proposed development due to its height, sitting, design, layout, size, mass and bulk, which would result in a cramped and overdeveloped site.
• The proposal would be visually incongruous and over dominant.
• The elevation of the proposed scheme would have a negative impact on the privacy and skyline.
• Advised that most council’s applied the 21 metre rule for 2/3 storey-building, which was not the case with regard to this proposal.

The agent spoke raising the following points:

• Felt that the officer’s report was thorough and satisfied that issues raised at the last meeting had been addressed.
• Emphasis had been placed on the sunlight and daylight assessment and had taken advice from consultant to ensure that it clearly passed guidelines.
• Had provided drawings to demonstrate how the front garden would work and to show that there was enough space for residents and this was also observed by Members during the site visit.
• The distance quoted were back to back distances which were not relevant to the front distance.
• Suggested that the document circulated by the petitioner included background information relating to a very different council to London Borough of Hillingdon.
• The scheme fully respected residential amenity.
• The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Erection of a Class A1 food store (1,476 sq.m. gross; 990 sq.m. net) with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of a Class A1 food store (1,476 sq.m. gross; 990 sq.m. net) with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Councillor Dave Allam withdrew from the room.

Officer introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to changes in the Addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting. The petitioners objecting to the proposed development made the following points:

• Lived in the Grand Union Village and was speaking about the adjoining areas as a whole, as signatures to the petition had also been collected from people from the other side of Broadmead Road.
• Residents living on the three sides of the proposed development were against the scheme.
• Suggested that issues of concern had been thoroughly covered in the officer’s report.
• The area was meant to be an urban sustainable village and did not see how the proposed scheme would make it more appealing.
• Acknowledge that if a supermarket was built in the area, it would be used by residents.
• Had found an alternative site where such a development would be more appropriate on the same bus route.
• Advised that the initial proposal was for a sports centre and suggested that the people living in the Grand Union Village could be consulted on more appropriate options for the site.
• Advised that a nature reserve was currently being populated.
• Did not see how building a supermarket would enhance the village.
• Welcomed officer’s recommendation for refusal.

The agent made the following points:

• The application had been thoroughly prepared including relevant justification for the proposed scheme on green belt site.
• Transport assessment had been undertaken and provided.
• Had gone through a pre-application process with officers and the local community.
• Suggested that the site formed part of the proposal for the wider planned village.
• The principle development was supported by the Council as well as Members.
• The proposal was put forward in 2004 when a much larger building was refused.
• Suggested that there was no prospect for such a site and at present, it contributed nothing to residents or the green belt.
• The site was currently not opened to public access and this scheme instead offered a new proposal for a supermarket, which would create employment.
• There were no alternative sites to provide significant development.
• The proposed development exceeded policy requirement for renewable energy.
• Asked Members how they might like to see this site brought back into use and subject to client’s agreement, may be able to bring back alternative development that was acceptable.

A Member added if the applicant wanted to bring the site back into use, they could consider providing a sports and leisure centre, which would be more appropriate for the site.

A Member stated that it was not acceptable to have a supermarket in green belt land.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons sent out in the officer’s report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Change of use from Class B8 (storage and distribution) to a flexible Class use comprising B1(C) (light industrial) or B2 (general industry) or B8 (storage or distribution).

Recommendation: Approval

Change of use from Class B8 (storage and distribution) to a flexible Class use comprising B1(C) (light industrial) or B2 (general industry) or B8 (storage or distribution).

Officer introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to changes in the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

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

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

Variation of condition 4 (hours of use of gate to Warrender Way) of planning permission 19731/APP/2006/2811 (Amalgamation of upper and lower school sites to create one school campus. Redevelopment of upper school site including demolition and refurbishment of existing buildings, erection of new school buildings, new parking areas, access provision including a drop off point in Hume way and playground/sports facilities).

Recommendation: Refusal

Variation of condition 4 (hours of use of gate to Warrender Way) of planning permission 19731/APP/2006/2811 (Amalgamation of upper and lower school sites to create one school campus. Redevelopment of upper school site including demolition and refurbishment of existing buildings, erection of new school buildings, new parking areas, access provision including a drop off point in Hume way and playground/sports facilities).

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to changes in the Addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting. The petitioners objecting to the proposed development made the following points:

• Suggested that officer’s presentation appeared to be based on the misunderstanding of the implications of the school’s request.
• A survey conducted had found that 120 sixth form students currently left the school during the day via the sports centre; 30 would turn right and 50 would turn left and go through Warrender Way into Ruislip, and the remaining 40 would continue on along Merton Avenue.
• To allow the students to go through Warrender Way would make no difference.
• Students accessed and exited by using swipe cards and if the gate was not supervised, there was a likelihood of the public going through the gate, as it took time to close.
•  The proposal would allow the use of the gate in Warrender Way to make it safer.
• Residents living closest to the gate supported the school’s request.
• Advised that the current sports entrance was secluded and created safeguarding issues.
• The suggestion of installing CCTV would only assist in catching culprits and not solving the issue of crime.
• The school did not have the resources to man the gates and did not wish to wait until a serious incident occurred before taking action.

A Member expressed concerns about the detrimental effect lifting the restriction on the hours of use of the gate would have on the amenity of nearby residents. The Member stated that officers had indicated in the report, that security issues could be addressed through alternative measures.

The petitioner explained that the closest resident at No. 46 had indicated that they were happy with the proposal.

The Chairman advised that two ward Councillors who were unable to attend the meeting had sent in letters to be read at the meeting.

The letter from the Ward Councillor objecting to the proposal raised the following points:

• Planning permission was previously granted with the condition that pupils arriving by car should use the entrance off Hume Way and this was facilitated by the installation of a drop-off point within the Highgrove Pool car park.
• These measures were introduced specifically to reduce the congestion and obstruction caused by parents and visitors parking when they arrived at the Warrender Way entrance.
• The proposed application would result in increasing unnecessary obstruction and seriously be detrimental to the amenity of local residents who continued to suffer from the increasing number of vehicles already using the Warrender Way entrance.
•  This increased  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

Part outline, part full planning application for a proposed hotel development of up to 660 bedrooms (approximately 25,000sq.m) with ancillary café, bar and restaurant facilities, car parking, service access, courtyard space, landscaping and improved ground level pedestrian access including public realm improvements (all outline application) and a perimeter veil structure wrapping around the hotel buildings (in full application detail).

Recommendation: Delegated powers to approve a legal agreement and subject to the outcome of the Mayor’s Stage 2 referral

Part outline, part full planning application for a proposed hotel development of up to 660 bedrooms (approximately 30,000sq.m) with ancillary café, bar and restaurant facilities, car parking, service access, courtyard space, landscaping and improved ground level pedestrian access including public realm improvements (all outline application) and a perimeter veil structure wrapping around the hotel buildings (in full application detail).

Officers introduced the report and directed Members to note the changes in the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting. Officers verbally added an additional condition requiring that the building achieved a ‘Secure by Design’ accreditation.

Concerns were raised about the requirement for the plans to show clearly where the proposed entrance to the vale would be located and plans showing elevations of what it would look like. Officers clarified that the Vale did not go down to ground level and advised Members that Condition 4 required the applicant to provide further details of how the Vale would work, prior to the commencement of the development.  

The Legal Advisor suggested that Members could require condition 4 to be discharged by Planning Committee. However, as this was a hybrid application, the design and layout of the main building was something that would come forward in detail at a future point.

A Member added that they were concerned, as it was not clear which part of the proposal was outline and what part related to reserved matters.

A Member noted that motor cycle parking bays would be displaced and asked whether there was any proposal to reposition the motor cycle parking bays. Officers advised that the Committee could add an additional condition requiring repositioning of motor cycle parking bays.

In response to the indication that the application should be deferred for greater clarification, officers advised that clear elevation was shown on all fronts with sections showing where cars would go and where the entrance would be.

The Legal Advisor clarified that the Vale would be attached to the proposed building and because that main building would be subject to a reserved matters application where features such as the access and means of attaching the Vale to the building would be the subject of a future reserved matters application.  

The Committee amended Condition 15 to include cycle parking bays and Condition 20 to include barriers, directions and signage.

The recommendation for approval (with the requirement for Condition 4 to be discharge by Planning Committee) and amended conditions was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved

1. That subject to the Mayor not directing the Council under Article 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 to refuse the application, or under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application, delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to grant planning permission, subject to any relevant amendments agreed by the Head of Planning Green Spaces and Culture

and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Section 73 Application for the Variation of Condition 2 and 3 of planning permission 11838/APP/2011/553 dated 1/12/2011 for the Erection of a three storey care home comprising 58 rooms with associated parking.

Recommendation: Delegated powers to approve subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation to the legal agreement associated with planning permission 11838/APP/2011/

Section 73 Application for the Variation of Condition 2 and 3 of planning permission 11838/APP/2011/553 dated 1/12/2011 for the Erection of a three storey care home comprising 58 rooms with associated parking.

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

Resolved

1. That the application be determined by the Head of Planning, Sport and Culture under delegated powers, Subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation to the legal agreement associated with planning permission 11838/APP/2011/ for the following obligations:

i.                    Health: A contribution towards local health care facilities in the sum of £216.67 per person. Given that there are 58 beds proposed in this scheme and basing the calculation on one person per bedroom the level of the contribution will be in the sum of £12,566.86.

ii.                  Construction Training: A construction training contribution will be sought equal to £2,500 for every £1 million build cost.

iii.                Libraries: £1,334 as contribution towards the local library.

iv.                Project Management and Monitoring Fee: in line with the Planning Obligations SPD a contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contributions is required to enable 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 278 Agreements 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) If the Legal Agreement/s have not been finalised within 3 months, 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 deliver necessary offsite highway works and to provide contributions towards the improvement of services and facilities as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development (in respect of healthcare, construction training and libraries). The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy AM2, AM7 and R17 of the adopted Local Plan and the Council's Planning Obligations SPG.'

E) That if the application is approved, the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report be imposed subject to any changes negotiated by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture prior to issuing the decision.

Change of Use of existing office (B1) building to create 170 bedroom hotel (C1) use with ancillary car parking and landscaping.

Recommendation: Delegated powers to approve a legal agreement and subject to the outcome of the Mayor’s Stage 2 referral

Change of Use of existing office (B1) building to create 170 bedroom hotel (C1) use with ancillary car parking and landscaping.

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting.

Condition 8 was amended to require 60 cycle spaces with 4 electric charging points.

The recommendation and amended condition 8 was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved

1. That subject to the Mayor not directing the Council under Article 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 to refuse the application, or under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application, delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to grant planning permission, subject to any relevant amendments agreed by the Head of Planning Green Spaces and Culture and also those requested by the Greater London Authority and the following:

A) The Council enters into an agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and/or Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and/ or other appropriate legislation to secure:

i.                    S278 and S38 Highways Works: to secure all necessary works, the provision of a Green Travel Plan.

ii.                  Air Quality Monitoring: A contribution in the sum of £12,500.

iii.                Construction Training: A contribution in the sum of £119,266.96 or deliver an in-kind scheme to the value of the financial contribution.

iv.                 Hospitality Training. A contribution in the sum of £18,133.33 or deliver an in-kind scheme to the value of the financial contribution.

v.                  Green Travel Plan.

vi.                Project Management and Monitoring: 5% of total cash contributions.

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 278 Agreements 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) If the Legal Agreement/s have not been finalised within 6 months, 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 agree to undertake all necessary highway works and to provide contributions towards the improvement of air quality and construction and employment training. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy EM8 of the Local Plan Part 1 and Policy R17 of the adopted Local Plan and the Council's Planning Obligations SPD.'

E) That subject to the above, the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture under delegated powers, subject to the completion of the legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

F) That if the application is approved, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) in compliance with conditions 2 and 3 for Phase 2A of the 'Southern Area' (93 dwellings - 24 x 1-bed flats, 16 x 2-bed flats, 7 x 2-bed houses, 33 x 3-bed houses, and 13 x 4-bed houses), of planning permission ref: 585/APP/2009/2752 dated 18/01/2012, for the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the former RAF Uxbridge site.

Recommendation: Approval

Reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) in compliance with conditions 2 and 3 for Phase 2A of the 'Southern Area' (93 dwellings - 24 x 1-bed flats, 16 x 2-bed flats, 7 x 2-bed houses, 33 x 3-bed houses, and 13 x 4-bed houses), of planning permission ref: 585/APP/2009/2752 dated 18/01/2012, for the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the former RAF Uxbridge site.

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to changes in the Addendum sheet circulated at the meeting. Members were asked to also note two revised plans circulated at the meeting, which showed that the proposed development had solar panels at the back and not at the front. Officers highlighted that not every house would have solar panels and the houses that would be having the solar panels removed were shown in the plans circulated.

The Committee added an additional condition regarding noise mitigation and an additional informative to advise the applicant to safeguard the reduced amenity space.    

The recommendation and additional informative was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and addendum sheet circulated at the meeting and the following additional condition and informative:

Additional Condition

‘The scheme hereby approved shall not be occupied until the noise mitigation measures approved under Condition 13 of outline planning permission reference 585/APP/2009/2752 have been carried out and completed.

Reason

To protect the amenity of occupiers in accordance with Policy OE5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Saved UDP Policies (November 2012).’

Additional Informative

‘You are advised that the Local Planning Authority has permitted lower levels of external amenity spaces than required by the Hillingdon Design and Accessible Statement – Residential Layouts in this case. This decision was made having regard to the individual circumstances of the case which include but are not limited to, the increase in internal floorspace standards, since the grant of the outline consent and the large amount of public open space provided within the development. This decision does not set a precedent for other applications which will be considered on their individual merits.’

Reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) in compliance with conditions 2 and 3 for the construction of the northern access and works to the Chippendale Roundabout of planning permission ref: 585/APP/2009/2752 dated 18/01/2012, for the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site.

Recommendation: Approval

Reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) in compliance with conditions 2 and 3 for the construction of the northern access and works to the Chippendale Roundabout of planning permission ref: 585/APP/2009/2752 dated 18/01/2012, for the proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the RAF Uxbridge site.

In response to a query raised about safety, officers advised that various road safety aspects would have to be met and these would be addressed in the detailed matters, which were being considered by the Council’s Highways Department.  The application currently before the Committee showed detailed layout of the proposed highway works.

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

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