Agenda item

Variation of condition 1 of planning permission ref. 64445/APP/2008/1295, dated 03/09/2008 (Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref. 3953EG/96/1602 dated 09/05/1997, to allow for extension of the range of goods available for sale from the premises to allow for the sale of sports goods and equipment, bicycles and associated equipment, play equipment, baby equipment and products, electronic games and equipment and other products associated with toys and children's entertainment), as it relates to Unit A, to allow for the sale of food and drink.

Recommendation: Approval

Variation of condition 1 of planning permission ref. 64445/APP/2008/1295, dated 03/09/2008 (Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref. 3953EG/96/1602 dated 09/05/1997, to allow for extension of the range of goods available for sale from the premises to allow for the sale of sports goods and equipment, bicycles and associated equipment, play equipment, baby equipment and products, electronic games and equipment and other products associated with toys and children's entertainment), as it relates to Unit A, to allow for the sale of food and drink.

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

The application related to 428A, Victoria Road, Ruislip. Planning permission was sought to allow a larger range of goods to be sold from a vacant retail warehouse.

The application was one of three related applications for consideration by the Committee regarding 428A and 428B Victoria Road. It was noted that the approval of the application would enable a unit that had been vacant for six years to be brought back into use. The application site covered 1.57 hectares and comprised two retail units (Unit A and Unit B). There had been previous planning applications to use the site for retail use but these had not led to any development.

Permission had been granted previously to allow the sale of a range of goods from the unit. The application under consideration sought to vary the existing condition to allow for the sale of food and drink from the retail unit. The proposal was considered to comply with Hillingdon Local Plan and with the National Planning Policy Framework.

It was noted that the proposed refurbishment of Units A and B would involve extensive layout changes and alterations to parking at the site. 196 parking spaces would be provided in a car park at the front of the site, although it was noted that this figure could be reduced by landscaping provision.

A sequential assessment had been undertaken in South Ruislip and nine other retail centres. This was required as the application related to premises outside an existing town centre. The assessment had concluded that there were no other suitable, available or viable sites or units that could accommodate the proposals. The application site was therefore the most suitable and viable option for the applicant.

The retail assessment submitted by the applicant had considered existing food store provision within the study area. Aldi was the proposed occupier of Unit A. Provision had been considered in line with neighbouring Arla Foods proposal that included the construction of an Asda store. The study concluded that there would be a 21.4% trade diversion from South Ruislip if both proposals went ahead in addition to an extension to the Sainsbury store within the study area. The majority of the impact of the proposals would be incurred by the Sainsbury store. Overall, it was considered that the impact on local centres would be relatively small and would be significantly detrimental.

It was considered that the proposals would not have a significant impact on traffic in the local area. They would increase energy efficiency and it was anticipated that 65 jobs would be created as a result.

The Committee's attention was drawn to the addendum sheet and it was noted that condition 10 had been removed. The condition would have imposed restrictions on the opening hours of the premises. However, the units were existing retail units that currently had no planning restrictions on opening hours. In this situation, it would have been unacceptable to impose such a condition.

The Committee sought clarification about the provision of motorcycle spaces as details had been included in the officer's report, but were not in the plans. It was also questioned whether there would be provision for bicycles. Officers advised that this had been an oversight but that it had been addressed in the addendum.

Members said that a Travel Plan would normally include the requirement for a bond and it was felt that this was a crucial element of a successful travel plan. It was requested that a bond be included as standard.

The Committee agreed the following verbal changes to the Recommendation section of the Officer's report:

Amend Head of Term to include travel plan bond.

Amend condition 1 to add in an additional paragraph in the body stating: 'The net sales area shall not exceed 1,075 sq.m.'

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

Resolved - That the application be approved as per the officers' report, changes to the report noted above and the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.