Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide a food store with ancillary cafe (total floor area of 8,539sqm) (Class A1) and ancillary petrol filling station, cinema (floor area of 5,937sqm) (Class D2), 5 x restaurant units (total floor area of 2,405sqm) (Class A3), 4 x shop units (total floor area of 382sqm) (Class A1 and/or A2), and residential development consisting of 104 units (21 x 1-bed flats, 67 x 2-bed flats, 12 x 3-bed houses, 4 x 4-bed houses), together with new vehicle and pedestrian accesses, car parking, servicing areas, landscaping arrangements, and other associated works.

Officers introduced the report and directed Members to note the changes in the addendum circulated at the meeting. Officers also asked for recommendation refusal 3 to be amended by deleting reference to Victoria Road and Long Drive junction, to take account of any further validation works undertaken, which might affect further issues that may be raised.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, representatives of the petitioners and agent were invited to address the meeting. The representative of the petitioners objecting to the application was unable to attend the meeting and asked for their submission to be read out. The following points were raised:

• Concerns relating to the proposed development had already been made known to the Planning Department
• The scheme would result in unacceptable levels of additional traffic, as well as air pollution in South Ruislip, which already suffered from heavy traffic congestion and air pollution
• Fully endorsed and welcomed Officer’s recommendation for refusal
• Accepted that the site would have to be re-developed and suggested that for national interest and for residents living in South Ruislip, it would be more appropriate to build affordable housing and a 24/7 walk-in medical centre similar to that in Pinner on the site.

The Following points were raised in support of the application:

• Spoke as Vice-Chairman of South Ruislip Residents’ Association with approximately 2,000 household membership
•  Notice/publicity regarding the development of the site had been on-going for over 3 years where initial proposals had included a bowling alley, public house and a hotel, which were removed on request
•  Developers were also invited to present their proposal for the development of the site at the Association’s quarterly meetings where presentations were well received by those that had been present
•  Updates on the scheme had subsequently been placed on the associations agenda over the 3 year period
• The South Ruislip Residents’ Association members had agreed that the proposed development would be a great asset to the area
• People of different opinions had had the opportunity to make their views known
• Acknowledged that it would be naïve to assume that the proposed development would not impact on existing traffic problems
• The proposed development would give local residents the opportunity to recreational enjoyment.

In response to a point raised about there being a suggestion that the scheme should consist of housing and a medical centre, the petitioner responded that this suggestion was put to the vote and dismissed by a majority at Association meetings. Residents believed that Sainsbury’s needed some competition but were mainly concerned about the issue of traffic, which they indicated would inevitably be affected, even if the proposal had been for a housing scheme with over 1,000 houses.

A Member commented that some residents would like a cinema and a choice of leisure facilities. The petitioner stated that residents wanted shopping facilities and the proposed development had been shaped by developers from this requirement. Residents were looking for amenities on their doorstep which had been lacking in South Ruislip for the past 30 years.

The applicant raised the following points:

• Outstanding issues could be addressed by condition
• The proposal would provide 650 new jobs as well as homes for families
• With regard to the statement in the report that a comprehensive survey of the findings of the retail impact assessment on retail centres in Hillingdon and Harrow had not been completed, advised that this had been undertaken by the applicant
• It had been demonstrated that South Ruislip Town Centre would not be affected
• Sainsbury’s had been granted planning permission since 2006 and had not commenced work but then submitted an even larger application for scheme and only just started discussions for a temporary store
• This proposal would cause no harm to Uxbridge Centre
• Had approached local businesses and 24 had signed the petition supporting this application, as they felt that it would support South Ruislip
• Did not accept points of issue relating to adverse effect, as these could be overcome
• This was a family orientated scheme and did not accept the issues raised regarding Block D
• The restaurant units would be separated from residential units by 18metres andsecurity ramp would be at ground level, not significantly raised, and separated by a retained boundary fence. Planting would be provided to add additional screening
• If necessary, hours of delivery could be conditioned and suggested that the trees and landscaping comments were pre-dated
• There were no trees at the moment, due to surface water and attenuation but these could be provided.

Comments had been received from a Ward Councillor in support of the proposal.

A second Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and made the following points:

• Supported the points raised by the Vice-Chairman of the South Ruislip Residents Association
• The scheme was extremely popular with South Ruislip residents
• South Ruislip was a very run down area at present and would benefit from such a development
• Subject to a number of conditions, would support this proposal.

Officers clarified that no objection had been raised against the proposed mix of cinema, housing, restaurants and retail; rather, the main concern was with the scale of the commercial development, which was centred on refusal reasons 1 and 2. Reduction of the scale would allow officers to move forward and be proactive towards moving the recommendation for approval.

Officers confirmed that the measured distance between existing restaurants and the proposed buildings was greater than that stated at 14.5 metres in the report.

In response to concerns raised about the location of parking spaces, including disable parking; officers advised that parking would be scattered around the residential units served and the requirement for disabled parking would be covered by a condition.

A Member added that they would support the development had it been smaller and included more housing and amenity spaces instead of the currently proposed huge cinema and supermarket. Supermarket of this size would impact on other supermarkets around the Borough and suggested the scheme should be more local rather than major as currently proposed. 

A Member stated that a local centred development would be welcomed in the area, however, the proposed commercial development definitely needed to be reduced, as it this would inevitably impact on other supermarkets.

The Committee indicated that whilst the development of the site was welcomed, the commercial aspect of the current proposal was unacceptable within this area and a scheme in line with that required by local residents would be more beneficial.

In response to a query raised about the size of tracking for delivery vehicles to the area, officers advised that in terms of vehicle size, these were acceptable.

The Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture advised that once the Committee had made its decision, this would be referred to the Mayor of London. Should any of the refusal reasons give rise for further information/details, requested the Committee to give delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to take a view if further documents were submitted.

Members requested that the wording of Refusal reason 2 be strengthened in relation to the impact on the position of South Ruislip in the Hierarchy of Town Centres and that the amended reason be agreed by the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

 Members asked that the wording ‘(in particular the Victoria Road/Long Drive junction)’ be removed from Refusal reason 3.

The recommendation for refusal, additional informative, amended wording and changes in the refusal reasons was moved, seconded, and on being put to the vote, was agreed.

Resolved:

1. That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report, subject to the above changes and that delegated powers be granted to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to remove Refusal reasons 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 should he feel these were overcome by amended plans or additional information prior to the issue of a decision notice.

2.That should the Mayor not direct the Council under Article 6 to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local  Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application, delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the officer’s report (or asamended under 1 above) and subject to the addendum and the followingamended wording for refusal reason 2 and additional informative:

Revised refusal reason 2

The scale of the development would result in the existing local centre increasing in scale to that of a centre with more retail floorspace than other Major Town Centres within the borough, which would result in a local centre out of scale with its position in the borough's retail hierachy.  This would result in impacts on other centres within, and outside the borough (Harrow) in terms of trade draw. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies E4 and E5 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1, Policies 2.15, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 of the London Plan (July 2011), Policy PR23 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 and the provisions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework..

Additional Informative

 'You are advised that the Local Planning Authority expects all development proposals to accord with guidance contained within the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement - Residential Layouts.  Should you be minded to lodge a new or amended application you should ensure that the development fully accords with this guidance including with respect to separation distances.'