Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Edwards, who was substituted by Cllr Chamdal.

Cllrs Curling, Morgan, and Yarrow declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 11 and left the meeting for the duration of the item.

Minutes of the meetings held 5 January 2016 and 20 January 2016 were agreed.

None.

It was confirmed that all business was Part I and to be considered in public.

Proposed development of a Solar Energy Farm for the local generation of low carbon electricity to the Local Distribution Network, including the installation of solar photovoltaic panels and associated infrastructure.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: Application was refused.

Officers introduced the application, and noted the addendum.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, and with the permission of the Chairman circulated to the committee images and evidence to support his argument. The petitioner raised the following points:

·         Green fields surround Harmondsworth on all sides, and current usage of land had ensured that it can be returned to grade 1 farm land once used.

·         The slope of the hill and height of the panels suggest a total height of 5.5 metres.

·         The applicant has suggested that sheep can graze around the solar panels, but research by Reading University has suggested that this is not financially viable.

·         Government ministers have stated that they wish to see more land used for farming, and not used for development. The subsidy for solar panels on farmland has been scrapped.

·         This application has even more solar panels than a previously rejected application.

A representative of the applicant spoke in support of the application, and raised the following points:

·         Sites are designed for sheep grazing under panels, and to encourage biodiversity.

·         The site would supply much needed green energy, and local authorities are required to contribute to targets for carbon reduction.

·         The site is already screened by hedgerows and not generally visible or damaging to the view of the surrounding area.

·         A site north of Holloway Lane was recently rejected, but this was very different, and there is a national precedent for approving developments of this sort.

·         The project is totally reversible and will not result in the permanent loss of farm land.

·         A search has been made for other viable sites in the area, and none have been found to be suitable. Hillingdon has very few viable locations for a solar farm.

·         Financial contributions to local residents groups have been offered.

In response to a member question regarding the specifics of the financial contributions, the representative of the applicant replied that these had not been discussed in detail with residents but could take the form of community benefits depending on what the community requested. Examples had in the past included one-off payments, yearly payments, and solar panels installed on community centre roofs. Initial discussions with residents had centred on paying for CCTV.

A member requested clarification of the suitability of the land for grazing, to which the applicant responded that the high elevation of the land would allow grass to grow to feed sheep, and the company founder had put sheep on a Cambridgeshire solar farm.

Members discussed building on farm land, and whether this was appropriate. Officers contributed that appeals over refused applications had previously been rejected by the inspector on green belt land, and this application was in an area of high agricultural value.

Multiple Members stated that they wanted to encourage sustainable energy generation, but doing so on good agricultural land created a conflict.

The motion for refusal was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote

was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

-       that the application was refused.

Erection of multi-deck car park for use by gate gourmet and British Airways staff. (Outline application with details of access, appearance, layout and scale).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: Application was approved.

Officers introduced the report, noted the addendum and that the item had been moved in the order due to the submission of petition. It was noted that the car park would be a permanent building, on land that was currently a temporary, informal car park. This represented a reduction in the total land used for parking, but not a net increase in parking space. Once the multi-storey was in place, it was planned to remove the informal surface parking. As this was tenanted land it fell outside of the Heathrow parking cap.

A petitioner spoke in support of the application, and raised the following points:

·         280 spaces of the car park would be for Gate Gourmet, and the remaining for British Airways. The site owner are obliged to provide spaces for Gate Gourmet, but are permitted additional functions.

·         The site had a previous approved application for a hotel and 2 restaurants which did not come to fruition.

·         A late objection by Gate Gourmet was believed by the petitioner to be a spoiling tactic.

In response to a member question requesting clarification of what the Heathrow parking cap applied to, the petitioner responded that this was largely airline passengers, and the cap did not include ancillary parking for staff. In this instance, the tenanted parking for a specific employer was outside the cap.

The Chairman confirmed that a letter of objection submitted by gate Gourmet had been circulated to Members of the Committee on 1 March 2016.

Officers confirmed that there was no impact on the Heathrow parking cap, and that the application had been judged to have no adverse impact on the highway. It was also noted that the current application was only for a redistribution of current parking, in the hope that it be quickly approved.

A member raised a concern that the disabled parking was stated to cover 5% of the total spaces (50 of 1,000), but only 28 could be identified. Officers responded that the top deck of the car park was not covered by parking spaces yet, and that there was a condition for the applicant to provide 5%. In response, the Member requester that a specific number of disabled parking bays was made a condition of the application.

The motion for approval was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote

was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

-       That the application was approved, subject to the addendum and change to Condition 3 to state actual number of disabled spaces required.

Change of Use of Unit 4 to Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHP) Recycling Facility.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: Application was withdrawn.

RESOLVED:

-       That the application was withdrawn.

The redevelopment of the site to accommodate a 6 storey 90 room hotel with a basement level and associated parking, breakfast area, bar and landscaping.

Recommendation: Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

RESOLVED: Application was approved.

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum. The application had previously been refused due to scale and the colour scheme, but this application was one storey less and had a more neutral exterior. The application also entailed payment of a £20,000 Travel Plan bond.

A Member referenced their concerns about the earlier application, and stated that the new plans addressed this. Another Member agreed, and pointed out that it was now very similar to neighbouring buildings.

The motion for approval was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

-That the application was approved.

Reserved matters (appearance and landscaping) in compliance with conditions 2 and 3 for Phase 3B (Southern area) of planning permission ref: 585/APP/2009/2752, dated 18-01-12 (Outline application (all matters reserved, except for access) including demolition of some existing buildings and mixed used redevelopment of the Former RAF Uxbridge site).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: Application was approved.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application.

The motion for approval was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

-       That the application was approved.

Demolition of existing fassnidge community dining hall and garage, and erection of part 4, part 7, part 8 storey building to provide a replacement community dining facility and 73 self-contained residential units with associated undercroft car and cycle parking, new vehicle access point, communal and private amenity areas, and landscaping.

Recommendation: Approval subject to a S106 Agreement

RESOLVED: Application was approved.

Cllrs Curling, Morgan, and Yarrow declared a non-pecuniary interest and left the meeting for the duration of the item.

Officers introduced the report and noted the addendum. Members were informed that there was very little difference between this and a previous application, except for the loss of larger units for an increase in affordable housing.

Members requested clarifications over visibility into facing rooms and light, to which officers responded that the building was compliant.

A Member commented that there were 5 disabled units, but only 2 disabled parking bays. Officers clarified that as the site was in a central area it was assessed that shared rather than allocated parking bays would suffice. Though members were dissatisfied with this aspect of the building, the Highways officer advised that there was no correlation between disabled people and car requirements.

The motion for approval was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote

was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

-       That the application was approved.