Agenda item

Mixed use redevelopment comprising the erection of a 3,543 sq.m foodstore (GIA) (Use Class A1), (inclusive of delivery areas) with 181 car parking spaces and 32 cycle spaces; 3 additional retail units, totalling 1,037 sq.m (GFA) (Use Class A1 to A5); a 100 sq.m safer neighbourhoods unit (Use Class D1); a 7 storey (plus plant level) 84 bedroom hotel (Use Class C1), with 18 car parking spaces and 16 cycle spaces; together with associated highways alterations and landscaping.

Recommendation – Approval

Mixed  use  redevelopment  comprising  the  erection  of  a  3,543 sq.m  foodstore  (GIA)  (Use  Class  A1),  (inclusive  of  delivery areas)  with  181  car  parking  spaces  and  32  cycle  spaces;  3 additional  retail  units,  totalling  1,037  sq.m  (GFA)  (Use Class A1  to A5); a 100 sq.m safer neighbourhoods unit  (Use Class D1); a 7 storey (plus plant level) 84 bedroom hotel (Use Class C1), with 18 car parking spaces and 16 cycle spaces; together with associated highways alterations and landscaping.

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.

Note – Concerns raised by petitioners relate to both items 5 and 6.

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

• The proposals in 2004 were refused for various reasons.
• Traffic impact was a concern.
• The new design was improved and much smaller than the previous proposals.
• The 7 storey hotel was too high and would dwarf buildings opposite.
• The onus should be on the applicant to show that the traffic and air pollution impact was not severe.
• The surrounding roads could not cope with the traffic.
• There was an assumption that traffic would not join the road network.
• There would be longer journey times for longer periods in the day.
•  Hillingdon Circus exceeded EU pollution limits, toxic levels increasing are unacceptable.
• The health of Hillingdon residents should be a priority.
• The phasing of the traffic lights could put pedestrians at risk.
• Council policy should encourage walking and not make it more dangerous.

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

• There were over 7000 houses south of the A40 between the proposed site and the Uxbridge Road.
• Oak Farm was the closest housing area to the Tesco site.
• There were already issues with land drainage in the area and the proposals could make things worse, including flooding.
• The average house price in the area was £250,000, which the minimum wage could not afford.
• The area was already heavily polluted. 
• A40 traffic had increased over the years from Hillingdon to Acton.
• Noise was measured at 80dBa at the entrance to Hillingdon station.
• There was no continuous bus route between the north and the south of the Borough.
• There were often queues to get on to Long Lane from residential side roads.
• Tesco have proposed a 4^th traffic queue which would not help.
• The Oak Farm Residents Association requested a full assessment on conditions in the area.

The petitioners in support to the application raised the following points:

• Since the Master Brewer had been knocked down trade in the shopping parade was down by 40%.
• The general area was in need of repair, including the slip roads.
• There were more shops than people.
• Wanted life back to the area.
• Would love a supermarket within walking distance.
• It was about time the Master Brewer site was developed.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

• Recognised that the scale of the previous application was too big.
• Thanked officers for introducing the report.
• There would be less impact on the local community and traffic with a smaller store.
• There had been recognition from residents that these proposals were improved since the 2004 application.
• Wanted a store that was right for customers.
• There had been a huge effort from the transport consultants.
• Had recently worked with Lambeth Council on a mixed use development in Streatham, which had not caused problems.
• Tesco offered exceptional employment opportunities and invested in their staff with degree courses.
• Tesco had a good pension scheme.
• The hotel was proposed to be a landmark building in a good location.
• There would be landscaping to compliment the Green Belt.
• Hoped the Committee would accept officers’ recommendations.

A Hillingdon East Ward Councillor also spoke in objection to the proposals and made the following comments:

• Was speaking on behalf of his fellow Ward Councillors.
• Thanked Oak Farm Residents’ Association.
• Objections must be based on planning guidelines.
• Supported more housing and employment opportunities in the area.
• Traffic was the overriding factor why the proposals were not practical.
• Long Lane, A437, was a major north to south route.
• Traffic was a daily problem not just at peak times.
• In 2004 a previous application was refused. 
• Hillingdon had more cars per person than any other London Borough.
• A new development would increase traffic in the area.
• Correspondence from Tesco suggested there would be less traffic.
• Did not believe there would be less traffic than there currently is.
• The plans conflicted with policy AM7.

Members debated the current traffic in the local area.  Members noted that traffic was an issue outside of peak times and worse at peak times.  Members did not accept that traffic impacts would be acceptable.

Members discussed the effect the proposals would have on buildings opposite the proposed site, namely the hotel and health centre on Freezeland Way.

Approval was moved and seconded and on being put to the vote was lost.

Refusal was then moved and seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.  The reasons for refusal were to be brought back to Committee to be agreed before 7 January 2014.

Resolved – Refused.