Agenda item

Class A1) (inclusive of delivery and back of house areas) with 179 car parking spaces and 32 cycle spaces; 3 retail units totaling 1,037 sq.m (GIA) (Use Class A1 to A5); a 6 storey (plus plant level) 70 bed hotel (Use Class C1), with associated car parking and cycle spaces; together with highways alterations and landscape improvements.(Additional information relating to Transportation, Ecology, Energy and Landscaping)

 

Recommendation :

Mixed use redevelopment comprising the erection of a foodstore, measuring 3,543 sq.m (GIA) (Use Class A1) (inclusive of delivery and back of house areas) with 179 car parking spaces and 32 cycle spaces; 3 retail units totalling 1,037 sq.m (GIA) (Use Class A1 to A5); a 6 storey (plus plant level) 70 bed hotel (Use Class C1), with associated car parking and cycle spaces; together with highways alterations and landscape improvements.(Additional information relating to Transportation, Ecology, Energy and Landscaping).

 

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

 

Both items 5 and 6 related to a suite of two applications on the former Master Brewer Hotel Site and the land adjacent to it.  Item 6 was an outline application for a residential development of a maximum of 125 residential units.

 

The application sites had a very recent and extremely relevant planning history comprising a suite of two similar applications which were refused on 2 December 2013. Notably at the time, there were live planning applications relating to the redevelopment of another site on Hillingdon Circus, which was no longer the case.

 

The previous full application for the commercial component of the application was refused for eight reasons. Four of these reasons related to cumulative impacts with the other development on Hillingdon Circus. Two of the reasons related to there being no legal agreement in place to secure necessary obligations.  It was explained that the two main issues for consideration were the individual highways impact of the scheme and the visual appearance of the hotel.

 

The previous outline residential scheme was refused for 6 reasons. Again four of these reasons related to cumulative impacts with the other development on Hillingdon Circus. The other two reasons for refusal were due to the lack of a legal agreement to ensure planning mitigation and that the two sites (residential and commercial) were delivered to provide a comprehensive redevelopment.  A legal agreement had now been drafted to address all planning mitigation and accordingly these reasons had now been addressed.  The main issue outstanding for the outline residential scheme was the individual highway impact.

 

The proposals would also secure off site landscaping enhancements to provide a new publicly accessible open space with an area of approximately 5 hectares which would be accessible to all members of the local community.  Both applications would also secure highways mitigations measures to improve the operation of the road network in order to mitigate the impact of the proposed development.

 

Notable highway changes included enhancements to the signage in the area and a 30mph speed limit.  There would also be provision of a through vehicle route within the residential development which would enable residents of the residential blocks to access the east of the site without having to travel through Hillingdon Circus.

 

In relation to the design concern of the hotel, the reason for refusal was very specific and was limited to the height of the proposed hotel in this location.  The height of the hotel had now been reduced from 7 storeys to 6 storeys (a 14% reduction in height). The height of the hotel as proposed was considered to be of an appropriate scale for the location of the hotel within the site and its relationship with the large junction at Hillingdon Circus.

 

The applicant had provided additional information to the Council which had enabled the Council’s Highways Engineer to undertake further assessment of the highways works.  The applicant had also proposed some minor changes to the site layout to reduce unnecessary trips going through the junction and to improve safety.  With regard to the changes and the additional information provided the Council’s Highways Engineer was satisfied that the development proposals within Items 5 and 6 would not result in any unacceptable impacts on the operation of the highway network.

 

In accordance with the Council's constitution representatives of the petitioners both objecting and supporting the proposals addressed the meeting, including the agent.

 

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:

 

·         Residents still had concerns regarding the proposed Tesco site.

·         Despite design improvements a mandate still existed.

·         Pedestrian safety was one of the previous reasons for refusal with regard to traffic signalling and increased pedestrian crossing times.

·         The previous application did not reflect current traffic conditions.

·         There was limited evidence to enable Members to change their view with regards to the traffic impact.

·         There would be an impact on local businesses.

·         Traffic was already an issue in the area.

·         There had been many transport assessments and all had different outcomes.

·         Additional traffic would increase the pollution levels which were already as high as Heathrow Airport.

 

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

 

·         Oak Farm was the closest housing area to the proposed site.

·         Residents opposed both applications.

·         Tesco should specify their opening hours.

·         Previous traffic assessments could not give a true indication of the traffic flow in the area or the impact the proposals would have on the traffic.

·         There were often queues of traffic from the Uxbridge Road to Ickenham.

·         There was no continuous bus route from the Uxbridge Road to Ickenham.

·         A reduced left turn from Freezeland Way to Long Lane would increase.

·         Yeading Brook could potentially flood.

·         The A40 had recently been flooded due to bad weather and was closed for hours.

·         If the Mayor of London became a local MP would his decision on applications such as these be a conflict of interest.

 

The lead petition in support to the application raised the following points:

 

·         Had lived on the Oak Farm Estate since 1968.

·         Used to shop once a fortnight now needs to shop every day.

·         Would welcome the convenience of a local store.

·         The nearest Tesco store was Yiewsley or Yeading which was far away.

·         The proposals would improve the appearance of the area.

·         Would become a place to drive to rather than drive past.

 

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

 

·         Had worked with the Council to address previous concerns raised.

·         Had made key changes to the application which included the reduction of the height of the hotel and transport measures.

·         There would be a substantial investment to the area.

·         New jobs would be created with a percentage offered to local residents.

·         15% of the residential units would be for affordable housing.

·         Had worked with TfL and the Council to address traffic concerns.

·         Environmental improvements had been made.

·         There had been extensive traffic studies and models.

·         The pedestrian crossings would be renewed and improved.

·         Speed limits would be reduced on Freezeland Way.

·         There would be further TfL traffic surveys which was a common practise to ensure the proposals were fine tuned.

·         There would be bus service and coach stop improvements.

 

A Ward Councillor for Hillingdon East informed the Committee that all three Hillingdon East Councillors objected to the proposals.

 

Members questioned whether the applicant had considered pedestrians leaving Hillingdon Station who wanted to access the store.  It was explained that the existing pedestrian crossings would be improved.  In addition improvements to the existing coach stop and an extension to the U10 bus service would be made.  These improvements were made as part of the S106 agreement.

 

The Chairman asked for clarification in regards to the recent news that the Mayor of London could be standing as an MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip.  The Legal Advisor present advised the Committee that the Council had a legal obligation to refer certain planning applications to the Mayor of London.  Any potential conflict of interest would not be for the Council to determine and the Mayor of London would have to seek advice from his advisors as necessary.

 

With regard to the 24 hour opening of the store Members were advised that due to the location of the site there had been no concerns.  The site was situated and surrounded by busy roads.  Members were concerned that future residents could be disrupted by noise created by delivery vehicles from the commercial site or lighting due to the site being open 24 hours.  Officers informed the Committee that these concerns had been addressed with conditions in the officers' report and were acceptable.

 

Officers informed the Committee that whilst there had been issues concerning flooding there were conditions attached to the application which would address the issues and would improve the area, not be detrimental.

 

The Council's Highway Engineer explained that there needed to be a fine balance as there was both heavy traffic and pedestrian demand.  Increases of crossing times had been kept within safety margins ensuring pedestrians got from A to B safely whilst catering for traffic demand.  Most of the increases in pedestrian crossing times were minimal.  There would be different staging of the signals which run parallel to each other which would include a phase delay. 

 

It was further explained that there were guard railings and visible crossing points for pedestrians to cross and was unlikely that pedestrians would attempt to cross such busy roads.  

 

Concern was raised about 2 lanes of traffic merging into one.  Members questioned whether there would be queues of traffic trying to access the site.   The Council's Highway Engineer explained that the proposed site had a long access road with no barrier at the access point.  There would be a continuous steady flow of traffic.

 

The Committee were pleased to see that a Woodland Park was proposed but questioned why it was outside of the red line of the site.  The Legal Advisor present informed Members that this was part of S106 public realm works and that the park was considered off site.  Members noted that the Council owned the proposed Woodland Park not the applicant, and it would be maintained by the Council's Green Spaces Team.  Members agreed that the heads of term vi to the public realm including open space and landscaping. 

 

Members were in agreement that previous concerns had been addressed by the applicant and by conditions attached in the officers' report.  Additionally traffic proposals would still need to be approved by TfL and would need further technical approval from the Council. 

 

Members agreed that the wording of condition 9 be delegated to the Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture to ensure motorcycle parking was secured on the site.

 

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

 

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

 

1. That the application be referred back to the Greater London Authority.

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, the Council enters into an agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or Section 278 Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and all appropriate legislation to secure:

 

(i). Transport: All on site and off site highways works as a result of this proposal. These include the following:

·         Measures to stop the non-residential vehicles exiting from the proposed through vehicle route for Blocks C to E;

·         Highway Improvements listed below to be agreed in detail before commencement and works to be completed before occupation of the development;

·         Improvements at/in vicinity of the service road approach to Freezeland Way subject to road safety audit;

·         Re-introduction of the right turn for traffic at the Hillingdon Circus junction from the Long Lane northbound approach;

·         Modifying the existing right turn into the western site access for traffic coming from the A40 westbound;

·         Introduction of a southbound left turn flare at the Hillingdon Circus junction from the Long Lane southbound approach. The left turn lane requires a widening of the Long Lane carriageway and footway, taking land from part of the south west corner of the development site;

·         Narrowing of the island to the west of the Hillingdon Circus junction, to allow provision of two westbound traffic lanes on Freezeland Way to the west of the Hillingdon Circus junction;

·         Provision of an informal pedestrian refuge crossing at the western site access;

·         Provision of a shared cycle/footway into the site from the western site access towards the proposed food retail store and three non-food retail units;

·         Traffic signal timings and operations;

·         Review lighting and the visibility of signs and road markings at and in the surrounding of Hillingdon Circus junction (extent of review to be agreed with the Council's Highways Engineer) and implement works required by the Council;

·         Coach parking enhancements on Freezland Way;

·         Provide carriageway and footway resurfacing, anti-skid surfacing, and upgrade pedestrian islands and road markings (extent of works to be agreed with the Council's Highways Engineer);

·         Vehicle actuated signs and road markings to enforce the 30mph speed limit on Freezeland Way (westbound).

·         Revised traffic modelling of the highway network (extent to be approved by the Council's Highways Engineer) to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council before commencement of the development and any works reasonably required by the Council to be completed before occupation of the development;

·         Contribution to real time information system at bus stops prior to commencement;

·         Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) to include (but not limited to):

* Construction traffic generation by development phase;

* Access routes;

* Contractor parking;

* Deliveries to avoid highway network peak hours and traffic sensitive hours;

* Construction staff travel plan;

* Measures to manage localised priorities.

* Delivery & Servicing Plan (DSP)

 

(ii). Public Transport Infrastructure: A financial contribution in the sum of £220,000, being an annual contribution of £40,000 towards improvements to bus services for a period of 5 years and 2 bus stop upgrades at £10,000 each.

(iii). Travel Plans for both the store and hotel.

(iv). Employment and Hospitality Training: An employment strategy to be entered into and adhered to address how local people will gain access to employment opportunities.

(v). Construction Training: either a construction training scheme delivered during the construction phase of the development or a financial contribution secured equal to the formula as contained in the SPD (£2,500 for every £1m build cost + (total gross floor area/7,200m2 x £71,675) = total contribution).

(vi). Landscape Screening and Ecological Mitigation: a financial contribution in the sum of £252,308.88.

(vii). Air Quality: a financial contribution in the sum of £25,000.

(viii). Carbon Fund: a contribution of £100,800 for a carbon fund to make up for the shortfall for this development and to make it policy compliant.

(ix). Delivery of the residential development which is subject to a separate outline application:

(x) The applicants pay a sum to the Council equivalent to 2% of the value of contributions for compliance, administration and monitoring of the completed planning (and/or highways) agreement(s).

(xi).The applicants pay a sum to the Council of up to 3% of the value of contributions for specified requirements to project manage and oversee implementation of elements of the completed planning (and/or highways) agreement(s).

3. That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreements.

4. If the above Section 106 agreement has not been finalised within 6 months, then the application is to be referred back to the Planning Committee for determination.

5. That subject to the above, the application be deferred for the determination by Head of Planning, Green Spaces and Culture under delegated powers to approve the application, subject to the completion of legal agreement(s) under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

6. That the conditions outlined in the officers' report and addendum be imposed.