Agenda, decisions and minutes

Major Applications Planning Committee
Tuesday, 19th February, 2019 6.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge UB8 1UW. View directions

Contact: Anisha Teji  01895 277655

Link: Watch a LIVE or archived broadcast of this meeting here

Items
No. Item

120.

Addendum pdf icon PDF 307 KB

121.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies received from Cllr Steve Tuckwell, with Cllr Nicola Brightman substituting, and also Cllr Janet Duncan, with Cllr Robin Sansarpuri substituting.

122.

Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

Minutes:

Councillor David Yarrow declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 6 as he had prior involvement with the application. He did not vote and left the room during discussion of the item.   

 

Councillor Alan Chapman declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 9 as he had prior involvement with the application. He did not vote and left the room during discussion of the item and did not vote.

 

123.

To sign and receive the minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 138 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes from the meeting held on 30 January 2019 be approved as a correct record.

 

124.

Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent

Minutes:

None.

125.

To confirm that the items marked in Part 1 will be considered inpublic and those items marked in Part 2 will be heard in private

Minutes:

It was confirmed that all items were marked Part I and would be considered in public.

 

126.

10-12 Harefield Road, Uxbridge - 16299/APP/2018/1849 pdf icon PDF 319 KB

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 blocks (part 4, 5, 8, 9 and 12 storeys) to provide 267 self-contained units (32 x studios, 107 x 1- bedroom, 115 x 2-bedroom and 13 x 3-bedroom) with commercial floorspace at ground floor level (Use Classes A1, A2, A3 and B1) and associated landscaping, including public realm improvements, provision of 9 accessible car parking spaces and ancillary works. (Amendments include design changes and increase of 3 units)

 

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

 

Minutes:

Councillor David Yarrow declared a non-pecuniary interest as he had prior involvement with the application. He did not vote and left the room during discussion of the item.   

 

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 blocks (part 4, 5, 8, 9 and 12 storeys) to provide 267 self-contained units (32 x studios, 107 x 1- bedroom, 115 x 2-bedroom and 13 x 3-bedroom) with commercial floor space at ground floor level (Use Classes A1, A2, A3 and B1) and associated landscaping, including public realm improvements, provision of 9 accessible car parking spaces and ancillary works. Officers made a recommendation for refusal and highlighted the addendum.

 

Three petitioners spoke in objection of the planning application. Members had regard to the additional photographs submitted by the petitioners which were circulated to Members, officers and the agent prior to the meeting.

 

The first petitioner took the Members through the photographs and explained what each photograph showed.  In summary, the petitioner submitted that the proposed development would overlook a number of back gardens on Lancaster Road and the height and rear access of the development would mean a constant flow of people accessing walkways close to the already existing properties. Families on Lancaster Road would feel vulnerable with their children playing outside and there were also concerns raised about light pollution. The size, height and bulk of the proposed development would be unsympathetic to the local area and there would also be a large amount of shadowing to local gardens. To conclude, the petitioner stated that the current development would be an eye sore to the current town centre landscape, it was not in keeping with the local surroundings and there were no other buildings in the area that imposed on resident properties in such a way. There would be a loss of natural light and there would be disturbance and a detrimental impact on residents.

 

The second petitioner submitted that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site, as it was too large, too high, not in keeping with the local surroundings and adding pressure to local services and infrastructures. It also involved the loss of two valued retail outlets which had been used by local residents for some 25 years. The nearest equivalents were six miles away.  There was already a huge pressure on the area with the substantial growth of housing stock in Uxbridge. St Andrews Park was an example where there was already an impact on GPs, schools and other essential services. Until there was an enhancement of in the size and scope of GP practice services, additional strains should not be allowed. The addition of 500 sum occupiers would add additional pressure on roads and pavements. The scale of the proposed development disregarded the local buildings, conservation areas and diminished the local character adversely. Concerns were also raised about the privacy of occupiers and there was a worry that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

127.

John Crank Building, Brunel University, Kingston Lane, Hillingdon - 532/APP/2018/3375 pdf icon PDF 217 KB

Erection of a new 7 storey 7,300m2 learning and teaching centre (Use Class D1) with associated landscaping and access works, involving the demolition of the existing John Crank building.

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

 

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the erection of a new 7 storey 7 learning and teaching centre with associated landscaping and access works, involving the demolition of the existing John Crank building. Officers made a recommendation for approval and highlighted the addendum.

 

Members noted that this was good work between the developer and officers and the results of a productive working relationship. In response to Member questions, officers confirmed that drainage and water management issues were governed by proposed conditions.

 

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED – That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation and variations in the addendum.

 

128.

Axis House, 242 Bath Road, Sipson - 43794/APP/2018/2779 pdf icon PDF 211 KB

Erection of a 6-storey 157-bedroom hotel including plant room on the roof, the excavation of a basement to provide car parking and associated landscaping.

 

Recommendation: Approve + Sec 106

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be approved and sec 106.

 

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the erection of a 6 – storey 157 bedroom hotel including plant room on the roof, the excavation of a basement to provide car parking and associated landscaping. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

 

Members moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation.

 

RESOLVED: That the application and section 106 be approved, subject to the amendments in the addendum. 

 

129.

Former Master Brewer Site, Freezeland Way, Hillingdon - 4266/APP/2017/3183 pdf icon PDF 396 KB

Construction of a residential-led, mixed use development comprising buildings between 4 and 9  storeys to provide 437 residential units (Use Class C3); employment floor space (Use Classes B1(a-c)); flexible commercial floor space (Use Classes A1/A3); associated car and cycle parking; and hard and soft landscaping, plant and other associated ancillary development.

 

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Alan Chapman declared a non-pecuniary interest as he had prior involvement with the application. He did not vote and left the room during discussion of the item.

 

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the construction of a residential-led, mixed use development comprising buildings between 4 and 9  storeys to provide 437 residential units (Use Class C3); employment floor space (Use Classes B1(a-c)); flexible commercial floor space (Use Classes A1/A3); associated car and cycle parking; and hard and soft landscaping, plant and other associated ancillary development. Officers made a recommendation for refusal and highlighted the addendum.

 

Three petitioners addressed the Committee for a period of ten minutes.

 

The first petitioner spoke on behalf of the Ickenham Residents Association, and submitted that the application should be refused as it was gross overdevelopment of the site. In summary, this application was against the current London Plan, and this site was in suburban area and the density was a problem. The tall buildings would dwarf neighbouring buildings and was out of character with the neighbouring area. The tall building would form a blot on the landscape and views would be permanently marred and the local plans sought to protect these issues. The quality of living would be low for residents as a result of air and noise pollution. Parking pressure and traffic congestion concerns were raised. Ickenham played its part in creating housing. The petitioner asked the Committee to reject the application by way of its height, bulk and design. The profile would mar the skyline, the quality of life for residents would deteriorate, parking and traffic congestion had not been considered and it went against plans. The petitioner requested that the developer listened to resident concerns.

 

The second petitioner spoke on behalf of Oak Farm Residents Association. The petitioner submitted that the proposed development would need to harmonise with the local area, in order to be considered acceptable by residents. The proposed development would heavily impact on the local character of the area. The proposed increase in scale was too great and the blocks would dwarf its surrounding. There had been no assessment of the impact on local wildlife.

 

The third petitioner spoke on behalf of the occupants on Ickenham Manor and Long Lane Farm. The petitioner submitted that the applicant had not assessed the impacts of the proposed development on Long Lane farm and their Ickenham Manor assessment was flawed. The sensitivity of Ickenham Manor was very high due to its architectural importance. A high adverse impact was the case in this application as the development would add towers up to 30 metres in height. Long Lane Farm was also a historic building and was the heart of Ickenham’s community. The petitioner requested that the application be refused.

 

The agent of the application addressed the Committee. In summary, the agent submitted that the applicant had undertaken extensive consultations with the planning authority for a period of some 25 months. The application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

130.

297 Long Lane, Hillingdon - 4860/APP/2018/3719 pdf icon PDF 176 KB

Redevelopment of the former dairy depot to provide a 4 storey block containing 36 residential units (comprising 4 studios, 21 x 1 bedroom and 11 x 2 bedroom units) with associated access, car parking and landscaping

 

Recommendation: Approval

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

 

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the redevelopment of the former diary depot to provide a 4 storey block containing 36 residential units with associated access, car parking and landscaping. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

 

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the redevelopment of the former diary depot to provide a 4 storey block containing 36 residential units with associated access, car parking and landscaping. Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

 

Officers confirmed that the s106 parking permits condition needed amendments and requested for this to be delegated to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration

 

Members considered that there was no impact on residents, outlook or street scene.

 

Members moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the application be approved subject to:

 

1)    delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to amend the condition regarding permit parking; and

2)    the variations in the addendum.