Agenda, decisions and minutes

Major Applications Planning Committee - Wednesday, 22nd February, 2023 7.00 pm

Venue: Committee Room 5 - Civic Centre. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  01895 250636 or email (recommended):

No. Item


Apologies for Absence


Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Darran Davies with Councillor Farhad Choubedar substituting. Apologies for absence were also received from Councillor Tony Gill and Councillor Jas Dhot.


Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting


Councillor Adam Bennett declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda item 6 as he lived very close to the application site and the master developer was the freeholder of his apartment. Councillor Bennett left the meeting for this item.


To sign and receive the minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 271 KB


RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting dated 18 January 2023 be agreed subject to an amendment to include the sentence “Members and officers further noted that S106 monies for carbon offset would be spent within Hillingdon rather than surrounding Boroughs”.


Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent




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


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


Land East of Mons - 585/APP/2022/665 - Hillingdon West pdf icon PDF 11 MB

Reserved matters (internal access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) pursuant to Condition 2 of planning permission reference 585/APP/2017/2819 dated 14-03-19 (Outline planning application with means of site access from the central access road (internal access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval) for the erection of up to 90 dwellings (Use Class C3), sustainable urban drainage features and all other necessary ancillary and enabling works).


Recommendations: Approval


RESOLVED: That the application be approved.


Councillor Bennett left the room for this item as he had declared a non-pecuniary interest.


The application was presented by officers, who noted that when outline planning permission was granted, some matters were reserved for later approval. On this item, these matters were internal access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping.


Officers noted that the S106 legal agreement attached to the outline consent set out that the scheme would either provide 35% affordable housing itself or, should the Town Centre West phase come forward, it would provide 35% affordable housing for the uplift in habitable rooms. This was because the affordable housing provision for the 27 Town Houses was to be provided elsewhere within the Town Centre West phase and therefore it would be unreasonable to require affordable housing to be provided twice for the habitable rooms of the 27 units. Officers further noted that the Town Centre West phase was now under construction, and therefore the current proposal would provide 35% affordable housing on the uplift. 


Officers noted the addendum, which contained three points. The first was to note that Section 7.13, page 46, noted the tenure spilt of affordable housing referenced as 30:70 affordable rented and intermediate, should be 70:30 affordable rented and intermediate. The second was to note that Section 7.14, page 47, referred to the removal of Tree T40 and T49. It was noted that Tree T40 sat outside the application site boundary. The third was to note that Planning History, page 19, stated that the Reserved matters consent for Town Centre West approved 23 Town Houses on the area of land East of the Mons Barrack block, these should have stated 27 Town Houses as correctly referred to elsewhere in the report.


It was noted that there were no petitions on this item.


Members thanked officers for the report and questioned if there was only access to the car park via one entrance, and whether the agreed 35% affordable housing was already being built. Officers confirmed in both instances that this was the case.


Members further noted the addendum; that this was a reserved matters application; and noted the helpful comment on affordable housing.


The application was proposed, seconded and, when put to a vote, approved.


RESOLVED: That the application be approved.


Shurgard House - 49467/APP/2022/2801 - Belmore pdf icon PDF 10 MB

Partial demolition and extension to existing building to provide additional self-storage floorspace (Use Class B8) with associated new car and cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping and other associated works ancillary to the development.


Recommendations: Approval


RESOLVED: That the application be approved.


Officers introduced the item and noted the addendum comments from the Policy team. It was noted that Condition 3 had been significantly expanded to secure protections requested by the Canals and Rivers Trust, and to include wheel washing facilities. Further reference was made to the addendum, which included additional comments from the Flood and Drainage Officer. Officers clarified via the addendum that the submission of these details would be secured by Condition 6. A verbal update was given in that the final plan in the addendum plan list (Condition 2), drawing number WLA/2107/03/TCP had been revised from Revision A to Revision B. It was noted that the proposed extension would be 38 meters from the closest properties on Delamere Road.


It was noted that there were no petitions on this item.


Members questioned the possible inclusion of an electric charging point and officers clarified that this was noted in the plans pack. Members also suggested the inclusion of a condition around biodiversity. Officers clarified that biodiversity would be added to Condition 11 as a criterion.


Members also questioned the sufficiency of the provisions of fire lifts, and how many additional storage units there would be in the extension. Officers clarified that there was not a requirement for a specific number of internal divisions within the extension. Officers also clarified that Condition 19 stated that the development shall include at least one suitably sized fire evacuation lift, and that the development would have to have met building control regulations. Condition 7 – Fire Strategy was also referenced, which noted Building Control in Section B.


Members noted that the site catered for individuals and businesses and asked which type of businesses these were. Officers clarified that this included small and medium enterprises, and that the units could also be used for family storage. Members asked if it would be possible to condition against the use of the units for habitable use, and officers clarified that while it would be possible to condition for this, enforcement of the condition would be difficult. Officers also noted that they could enforce against a change of use, which habitual use would fall under.


Members asked how the rear access point on Tollgate Drive was currently being used and officers clarified that it was not currently used and there were no proposals to use it in the future. Members asked if it would be possible to safeguard against this access point being used as a main access point and officers noted that Condition 14 would be amended to prevent the regular use of the Tollgate Drive access point and for it to be used for emergency access only.


The application was proposed, seconded and, when put to a vote, approved with amendments to Condition 11 to include biodiversity as a criterion, and to Condition 14 to state emergency access only.


RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the amendments to Condition 11 and Condition 14.


Woodlands Park Landfill Site, Land South Of Slough Road - 39707/APP/2022/3243 - Other Borough pdf icon PDF 4 MB

Out of Borough consultation for Buckinghamshire County Council: Outline planning application with all matters reserved except for principal points of access for the redevelopment of the former landfill site to comprise a data centre development (Use Class B8 (Data Centre)) of up to 163,000 sq.m (GEA) delivered across 3 buildings to include ancillary offices, internal plant and equipment and emergency back-up generators and associated fuel storage. The scheme includes site wide landscaping and the creation of parkland, and may also include cycle and car parking, internal circulation routes, soft and hard landscaping, security perimeter fence, lighting, earthworks, District Heating Network, sustainable drainage systems, ancillary infrastructure and a substation.


Recommendations: Objection


RESOLVED: That the application be objected.


The application was introduced by officers. It was noted that the application site was within Buckinghamshire County and immediately adjoined the western boundary of Hillingdon. This application was seeking Hillingdon’s comments. Officers also noted that this was a second application for the same proposals, and Hillingdon had objected to the previous application on 14 March 2022.


It was noted that applications to build on the Green Belt would only be granted in very special circumstances. This second application differed from the first in that additional details had outlined the reasons for the very special circumstances. Officers noted that these additional details still did not justify building on the Green Belt. No further changes were proposed to the development which was previously objected.


Three reasons for objection were noted: The first was inappropriate development on the Green Belt without very special circumstances. The second was unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. The third was unacceptable impact on local air quality conditions without sufficient mitigation.


There was no addendum on this item. A verbal update was given to add an informative that any approval or subsequently allowed appeal should make the necessary requisite contributions towards air quality damage arising from the development. It was noted that the proportion of air damage quality costs received was based on average wind direction.


Members further noted the adverse impact on the Green Belt, and on air quality. It was also noted that no alternative sites had been suggested.


The application was proposed, seconded and, when put to a vote, objected.


RESOLVED: That the application be objected.