Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

None.

None.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 11 October 2022 be approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 11 October 2022 be approved as a correct record.

None.

None.

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

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

HS2 request for approval of Plans and Specifications under condition imposed by Schedule 17 to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017, relating to a site area of 65,977.4m2 comprising; the realignment of approx. 96m of the River Pinn with associated works including a new footbridge, a flood compensation area, drainage stepped outlets, outfalls, ditches, access stairs and fencing; an attenuation pond for the approved Gatemead Embankment track drainage with an associated road vehicle parking area, access junction and fencing; and two further access junctions for maintenance access with associated access strips and fencing.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

HS2 request for approval of Plans and Specifications under condition imposed by Schedule 17 to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017, relating to a site area of 65,977.4m2 comprising; the realignment of approx. 96m of the River Pinn with associated works including a new footbridge, a flood compensation area, drainage stepped outlets, outfalls, ditches, access stairs and fencing; an attenuation pond for the approved Gatemead Embankment track drainage with an associated road vehicle parking area, access junction and fencing; and two further access junctions for maintenance access with associated access strips and fencing.

Officers introduced the application summarising the context of the application and giving an overview of the site. Members were informed that they were considering the proposed building works for the River Pinn footbridge, the earthworks for the River Pinn realignment, security fencing and planting works, and the Gatemead Embankment attenuation pond road vehicle parking area. Members were informed that the application had originally been submitted in 2018 and through negotiations with officers, officers were now happy with the realignment path. The proposed footbridge was to be built by HS2 Limited and eventually passed on to the Council to be maintained by the Council’s Green Spaces Team.

The Committee were informed that final details regarding the landscaping would be agreed at a later date through the land restoration and bringing into use proposals, that the Environment Agency would sign off the final hydrological impact of the river. Members also heard that works for the additional maintenance access route of Breakspear Road South would come at a later date.

The Legal Officer outlined the legislative context for the application and highlighted that a lot of work and negotiation had taken place between officers and the applicant to design a proposal that officers were happy with, emphasising that officers were recommending approval with no additional planning conditions.

The Committee thanked officers for the extensive work that had gone into preparing the application for the Committee’s determination. Although it was noted that details regarding landscaping would come at a later date, Members sought to ensure that any replacement trees would be mature and therefore would have the ability to effectively soak up flood water.

Members also sought clarification on lighting in the area, specifically if a lighting survey had been carried out. Officers informed the Committee that there was no lighting associated with the application, however, discussions were ongoing regarding rights of way in the vicinity and pedestrian lighting would be picked up as part of those further discussions.

The officers recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 2,116 sqm of flexible Class E(g)(iii), B2 and B8 use floorspace, along with associated access, servicing areas, car parking and soft landscaping (amended plans received 02.09.22)

Recommendation: Approval + Section 106 and GLA stage 2

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment of the site to provide 2,116 sqm of flexible Class E(g)(iii), B2 and B8 use floorspace, along with associated access, servicing areas, car parking and soft landscaping (amended plans received 02.09.22)

Officers introduced the application giving Members an overview of the plans and outlining that the site was situated on green belt land. The Committee were informed that the applicant had worked proactively with officers to reduce the quantity of the development; comparisons between the initial proposals and the refined proposals were shown. Officers noted that there were a number of dilapidated structures currently on site which were considered am eyesore on greenbelt land and that the proposals were deemed to be an improvement to the current condition; further to this it was highlighted that the applicant’s fallback position was to operate an open storage facility from within the site which could be undertaken within the existing use class and would not require any planning permission, this scenario was deemed to potentially have a much greater impact on the residential amenities of local residents and the greenbelt.

A verbal update was provided with regard to the revised transport assessment in that, the number of car parking spaces had been reduced from 36 to 31 spaces; as such, a revised masterplan and planting plan would be secured subject to the recommended condition four. Condition four, part 2d, in addition to condition two, would also be amended to reflect the correct number of parking spaces. Members’ attention was also drawn to the addendum which included an amendment to the heads of terms in section 13 of the officer report. The application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

A petition had been submitted objecting to the application. One of the petition organisers was present and addressed the Committee, key points raised in their address included:

• 50 residents had signed the petition objecting to the application in the space of two days.
• Petitioners believed the application had not been assessed on a holistic manner.
• Residents were not necessarily against the development of the site but they were objecting to the industrial scale commercial development proposed and sought a more locally serving development.
• Concerns were raised regarding the potential for increased traffic to the site, including HGVs.
• Petitioners stated that resident consultation was poor with little engagement.
• Concerns were raised regarding a lack of satisfactory screening between the site and a number of adjacent residential properties, 389 High Street was specifically highlighted and appropriate screening was requested, should the application be approved.
• It was highlighted that residents of High Street had, on their deeds, access to park outside the access to the site. Should the application go ahead as proposed this would also add to existing parking pressures locally.
• The bus stop opposite the site access point was highlighted as a potential choke point when buses stop and other vehicles attempt access or egress to and from the site.
• Concerns were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 165.

Demolition of the public house (Sui Generis) and erection of a part-three, four and five-storey, purpose built student accommodation (Sui Generis) comprising 61 studio rooms, and associated common areas and facilities, landscaping, amenity space, bicycle and motorcycle parking, and refuse storage.

Recommendations: Approval + Section 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Demolition of the public house (Sui Generis) and erection of purpose-built student accommodation (Sui Generis) and associated common areas and facilities, landscaping, amenity space, bicycle and motorcycle parking, and refuse storage.

Officers introduced the application noting that the current building was deteriorating and had been vacant since 2018, the building was becoming increasingly dilapidated. The proposals would meet a local need for student accommodation, and it was deemed that student accommodation was an appropriate use of the site. A major benefit of the proposals was that they would provide affordable accommodation, affixing rental prices and allowing a diverse range of people to attend university. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which featured amendments to section two and paragraph 14 of section 7.07 of the officer report. The application was recommended for approval subject to the planning conditions highlighted in the report.

Officers informed the Committee that a 2019 request to have the existing building locally listed was unsuccessful, due to the deterioration of the building, it was no longer proposed for locally listed status.

The Committee were generally supportive of the application although noted that it was a shame to see the loss of a unique public house building with sentimental community value, however it was understood that, due to the dilapidated nature of the building and the lack of market interest, there was no realistic prospect of the building being used in future as a public house again.

Members raised concerns regarding the potential for excessive noise emanating from the amenity area should the students on site host parties. Officers mentioned that the requirement for a management plan could be imposed in an effort to ensure neighbouring residents were not negatively impacted by the use of the proposed amenity space.

The Committee discussed the on site motorcycle parking availability of three spaces and suggested that this may be better served by local cycle hire bicycles which were frequently used by students at Brunel University. Officers noted that the scheme had a policy compliant level of cycle parking on site and that, should there be a need for less motorcycle and more bicycle parking, this could be reviewed through the car park management plan. There was also a limited need for a cycle hire docking station due to the proximity between the site and Brunel University.

Officers clarified that the application was for purpose built student accommodation and therefore any future change of use would not be permissible unless granted by the local planning authority.

The Committee raised concerns regarding the pick up and drop off of students at the start and end of the academic year and that, with 61 occupants and limited parking availability, this could cause an unprecedented level of congestion should students be dropped off and picked up at similar times. Officers highlighted that the pick up and drop off of students would be controlled so as to minimise congestion at the start and end of semesters. In addition to this, a contribution would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

Demolition of three dwellings (Nos. 14 and 16 Pield Heath Road and 2 Pield Heath Avenue) and one Bed and Breakfast (No. 18 Pield Heath Road), and the subsequent erection of a part two, part three storey (plus basement) 60-bed care home, with 14 car parking spaces, landscaping and external amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval + Section 106

RESOLVED: That determination of the application be deferred for a site visit.

Demolition of three dwellings and one Bed and Breakfast, and the subsequent erection of a care home.

Officers introduced the application and gave an overview of the site and proposals. Members’ attention was drawn to the addendum which featured the recommendation for an additional planning condition regarding the mitigation of overheating impacts to residents in the event of more extreme heat events. The application was recommended for approval.

The Committee raised concerns regarding the size and scale of the development, particularly its elevations in relation to adjoining properties. Officers highlighted that through the application process, the building roof heights had been lowered to aid in relation to neighbouring properties, it was also noted that neighbouring properties predominantly utilised their roof space for additional living space.

Members queried the demolition and construction management logistics plan noting that Pield Heath Road was known to become very congested at times and there didn’t appear to be any restrictions on construction site delivery times, this could pose a further congestion risk considering the site’s proximity to Hillingdon Hospital. Officers noted that the hours of construction would form a part of the demolition and construction management logistics plan, Members sought to ensure that construction was in accordance with the code of considerate construction practice.

The Committee discussed the possibility of deferring determination of the application for a site visit to ascertain the relationship between the proposed development and the surrounding properties. This was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed with five votes for, one vote against, and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That determination of the application be deferred for a site visit.