Agenda item

Demolition of existing 2-3 storey teaching block; construction of new 3-storey University Technical College (UTC); car parking; landscaping; retention of existing pedestrian and vehicular access; and ancillary development.

Recommendation - That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the officer’s report.

Demolition of existing 2-3 storey teaching block; construction of new 3-storey University Technical College (UTC); car parking; landscaping; retention of existing pedestrian and vehicular access; and ancillary development.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting. The petitioner supporting the proposals made the following points:-

• The design of the proposed building was innovative and original.
• There was a demand for this type of school.
• UK needed more young people to pursue a career in engineering.
• Increase in apprenticeships.
• Would meet the growing local need for technically competent young people.
• Sponsors for the proposals included RAF Northolt, Brunel University, Uxbridge College, Northwood and Queensmead Schools, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.
• Graduates would be highly employable life long learners.

Members were keen to know how the proposed college would enforce their no car policy and whether staff would also be encouraged to adhere to this policy.   The petitioner informed the Committee that students would sign an agreement not to drive to college and regular checks in residential streets would be carried out by staff.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting. The petitioner objecting the proposals made the following points:-

• Local residents generally supported the development of the new college which was likely to be a good thing for the area.
• Concerns were specific to the proposed design.
• Officers’ report goes a long way to address many of the concerns raised by local residents.
• Requested an amendment to condition 20 to reduce the noise level by a further 5dB.
• Requested an additional condition which limited the use of the lower ground floor engineering workshops to the hours of 9am – 5pm Monday to Friday during school term time only.
• Would like the floodlighting replaced with a low-level lighting scheme.
• Would like the suspension of parking on Potter Street limited to a maximum of 6 weeks during the construction period.
• Requested deferral until the applicant had demonstrated how these concerns would be addressed.

The applicant /agent made the following points:-

• Sport England had supported the proposals.
• Were not increasing the overall height of the proposed building.
• The proposed college was not a factory; use of equipment was expected to change over time and was likely to become lighter rather than louder.
• The building was a bespoke design.
• The lighting in the car park was approved Secure by Design.
• Parking suspension was proposed during construction period as a matter of health and safety.
• Happy to comply with conditions as laid out in the officers’ report. 
• Northwood School and UTC had a good relationship.
• Proposals were a fantastic opportunity for Hillingdon.

Members questioned how the use of equipment would be restricted to certain hours of the day.  The agent stated that UTC were committed to ensure there was not a noise impact on residents.  Windows on the west side of the proposed building would be closed shut. 

Members asked whether there was intention to implement sustainable lighting.  The agent informed the Committee that all the lights in the building would switch off automatically apart from lights in the engineering room for health and safety reasons.

Members were concerned that parking could potentially be suspended for a year and questioned whether any alternative arrangements could be provided on site for residents.  The agent explained it was unlikely this could be accommodated for health and safety reasons.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that the suspension of parking was a matter for the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling, Cllr Keith Burrows, to decide.  The Chairman informed petitioners present that they would have to petition Cllr Burrows separately for any parking or road safety requests. 

Two local Ward Councillors addressed the meeting and made the following comments:- 

• The parking in Northwood Hills was becoming an increasing problem.
• Agreed that the proposals were a good idea in principle although there were flaws.
• Agreed with petitioners concerns regarding noise impact and requested that the noise be below 10Db.
• Concern the school or college could expand in the future.
• Requested the car park lighting is switched off at night.
• Residents complain that teachers currently park in their road.
• Requested a robust travel plan that was extended to teachers as well as pupils.

Members discussed the application and agreed the proposals were exciting and welcomed the proposals in Hillingdon.  Members questioned whether there would be two travel plans as there would be two lots of students and teachers. 

Members agreed that the old building was being replaced with an innovative design and should either the school or college wish to expand any future proposals would have to come back to Committee for determination.

The Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture informed the Committee that the noise officer was satisfied that condition 20 was enforceable, however Members agreed for this condition to be reworded to include different periods of the day, evening and night.

The Committee agreed for the Chairman and Labour Lead to agree the rewording of conditions 10 and 13, 2c.  Members requested that the travel plan was brought back to Committee for consideration.

Cllr Morgan informed the Committee that the wording of the report on page 355 was incorrect as he had not entered discussions regarding the application and requested this error in the officers’ report be minuted and corrected.

Members agreed to add the following conditions:

‘The lower ground floor of the development hereby approved shall not be used other than between the hours of 09.00 to 17.00 Mondays to Fridays, and at no other times.’

‘No development shall commence until details of measures to prevent light spillage from windows and other glazing in the new building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The new building hereby approved may not be occupied until the measures to prevent light spillage have been implemented in accordance with the approved details.  With the exception of lighting of machinery at the lower ground floor level, the submitted details shall include the use of automated lights (which shall switch off when no in use).  Thereafter, the measures approved shall be permanently retained and maintained in good working order.’

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

Resolved - That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to grant planning permission, subject to the following:

A. That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following:

1. Traffic Impact Studies: To be undertaken at 50% and 85% occupation of the UTC.  The studies to examine actual highway conditions (including parking demand in residential streets), the full scope of work to be agreed by the Council.  Within 6 months of the studies, the applicant is required to identify, agree and implement appropriate remediation measures (if any), which shall be first agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The studies and identified mitigation works shall be undertaken and funded by the developer.

2. Travel Plan: Prior to first occupation a full travel plan to be submitted and approved by the council. The Travel Plan shall also include the previously agreed mini bus collection service from local tube stations. Thereafter, the Travel Plan is required to be reviewed at regular intervals to monitor and if required, update and/or amend the document in order that the aims and objectives are achieved.  Therefore, a travel plan review should be undertaken and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% occupation of pupils and staff. A Travel Plan bond in the sum of £20,000 is also to be secured.

That the Travel Plan is brought back to Committee for consideration.

3. Project Management and Monitoring Sum: a contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contributions or a sum of £1,000 (which ever is the greater) secured to enable the management and monitoring of the resulting agreement.

B. That the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in the preparation of the Section 106 agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

C. That the officers be authorised to negotiate the terms of the proposed agreement.

D. That, if the S106 agreement has not been finalised within 3 months, under the discretion of the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture, the application is refused under delegated powers on the basis that the applicant has refused to address planning obligation requirements.

E.  That if the application is approved, the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report be attached and the changes in the Addendum.