Agenda item

Demolition of the existing public house and timber yard, and the erection of a mixed use redevelopment comprising a foodstore (7829m2 GEA) (Use Class A1); a 6 storey 82 bed hotel (Use Class C1); a 720m2 restaurant/public house facility (Use Class A3/A4); and 107 residential units (Use Class C3), together with reconfiguration of the existing commuter car park, and associated landscaping, car/cycle parking and ancillary works.

Recommendation – Refusal

Demolition of the existing public house and timber yard, and the erection of a mixed use redevelopment comprising a foodstore (7829m2 GEA) (Use Class A1); a 6 storey 82 bed hotel (Use Class C1); a 720m2 restaurant/public house facility (Use Class A3/A4); and 107 residential units (Use Class C3), together with reconfiguration of the existing commuter car park, and associated landscaping, car/cycle parking and ancillary works.

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petitions received in objection and support to the proposals were invited to address the meeting.

The lead petitioner from the Ickenham Residents Association in objection to the application raised the following points:

·        Agreed with the officer recommendation for refusal.

·        It was felt that the applicant was likely to appeal.

·        Reasons for refusal were not strong or broad enough.

·        The proposals were very similar to those rejected in the 2004 application by Tesco.

·        The scale and size of the proposals were overbearing.

·        There would be an affect on the Uxbridge Town Centre.

·        Inclusion of a butcher in the proposed premises would threaten shops in Ickenham.

·        The main concern was the impact on traffic and air pollution.

·        Traffic models needed to validated against existing traffic conditions.

·        There were often long traffic queues on Long Lane.

·        The traffic flow from Hercies Road would be limited.

·        Major concern for pedestrians, especially from local schools.

·        Inadequate data relating to journey times and traffic pollution.

·        There were already tailbacks on the A40 due to traffic; a store would exasperate the problem.

The lead petitioner supporting the application raised the following points:

• Had been a local resident since 1938.
• The site had been derelict for over 20 years.
• The applicant had been forthcoming and consulted with local residents.
• The proposal was in the right place.
• The proposals would enhance the local area.
• The proposed entrance would link with Hillingdon Station and be more accessible than the application on the old Master Brewer site.
• There would be separate entrances to the site.
• The proposals were larger than the Former Master Brewer site because food would be freshly prepared on the premises.
• Jobs would be offered to local and unemployed people.
• These proposals were better than those proposed on the Former Master Brewer site.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

• The Premier Inn hotel was committed to the development and had confidence in this application.
• Had included more parking at the site as requested by the local Chamber of Commerce.
• There was more support from local residents and businesses for this application.
• Was committed to local employment and would work with Uxbridge College and the local Job Centre Plus.
• 150 jobs would be offered to local unemployed people.
• Applicants for the Former Master Brewer site had used old traffic data from 2008 whilst this applicant had used data from 2011.
• Even with a smaller store the applicant for the Former Master Brewer site would have a larger impact on the local community.

Members discussed the traffic impact that the proposal could have on the local area. Officers informed the Committee that there was an issue with Hercies Road and the proposed traffic lights to allow traffic flow from Hercies Road.  Members spoke about rat-running on Vine Lane and the impact it had on Long Lane.

Officers informed the Committee that information had been received at a very late stage on several occasions.  The latest submission was so late that it could not be considered as it would have taken time to investigate. 

Members suggested that traffic was the key issue and some residents felt that the new information submitted had not been validated.

The agent informed the Committee that the data was validated by Transport for London (TfL) and Hillingdon Council officers.  There were currently trucks and diggers parked in the area where they were planning to make 2 lanes of traffic.

Members questioned whether the queuing on Hercies Road could be overcome by altering the phasing of the traffic lights.

Members requested that reason 6 for refusal be removed and transferred to item 5.  The Chairman requested that the reasons for refusal were brought back to Committee before 7 January 2014.

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

Resolved - Refused