Agenda item

Construction of a residential-led, mixed use development comprising buildings between 4 and 9  storeys to provide 437 residential units (Use Class C3); employment floor space (Use Classes B1(a-c)); flexible commercial floor space (Use Classes A1/A3); associated car and cycle parking; and hard and soft landscaping, plant and other associated ancillary development.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Councillor Alan Chapman declared a non-pecuniary interest as he had prior involvement with the application. He did not vote and left the room during discussion of the item.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the construction of a residential-led, mixed use development comprising buildings between 4 and 9  storeys to provide 437 residential units (Use Class C3); employment floor space (Use Classes B1(a-c)); flexible commercial floor space (Use Classes A1/A3); associated car and cycle parking; and hard and soft landscaping, plant and other associated ancillary development. Officers made a recommendation for refusal and highlighted the addendum.

Three petitioners addressed the Committee for a period of ten minutes.

The first petitioner spoke on behalf of the Ickenham Residents Association, and submitted that the application should be refused as it was gross overdevelopment of the site. In summary, this application was against the current London Plan, and this site was in suburban area and the density was a problem. The tall buildings would dwarf neighbouring buildings and was out of character with the neighbouring area. The tall building would form a blot on the landscape and views would be permanently marred and the local plans sought to protect these issues. The quality of living would be low for residents as a result of air and noise pollution. Parking pressure and traffic congestion concerns were raised. Ickenham played its part in creating housing. The petitioner asked the Committee to reject the application by way of its height, bulk and design. The profile would mar the skyline, the quality of life for residents would deteriorate, parking and traffic congestion had not been considered and it went against plans. The petitioner requested that the developer listened to resident concerns.

The second petitioner spoke on behalf of Oak Farm Residents Association. The petitioner submitted that the proposed development would need to harmonise with the local area, in order to be considered acceptable by residents. The proposed development would heavily impact on the local character of the area. The proposed increase in scale was too great and the blocks would dwarf its surrounding. There had been no assessment of the impact on local wildlife.

The third petitioner spoke on behalf of the occupants on Ickenham Manor and Long Lane Farm. The petitioner submitted that the applicant had not assessed the impacts of the proposed development on Long Lane farm and their Ickenham Manor assessment was flawed. The sensitivity of Ickenham Manor was very high due to its architectural importance. A high adverse impact was the case in this application as the development would add towers up to 30 metres in height. Long Lane Farm was also a historic building and was the heart of Ickenham’s community. The petitioner requested that the application be refused.

The agent of the application addressed the Committee. In summary, the agent submitted that the applicant had undertaken extensive consultations with the planning authority for a period of some 25 months. The application has evolved over time which had resulted in a series of amendments. The current proposals responded to the representations received from local and strategic determining authorities and it was noted that the applicant also sought to respond to technical comments received from the planning authority in the last two weeks, which informed the reasons for refusals. However, it was confirmed that the responses would not be considered by officers and not included in the final decision on the application. The applicant’s vision for the development was to provide a high quality development that would revitalise the long term vacant site. It was aimed to be a vibrant site including creation of a new neighbourhood, the delivery of a mix of uses for a sustainable location, new homes and opportunities for local people. The planning authority did not object to the principle of the development of the site. Some of the refusal reasons could be governed by conditions or clarifications. The application was in line with all policies and requested for it to be approved.

In response to Members questions, the agent confirmed that the applicant had engaged in lengthy discussions with the officers.

Councillor Wayne Bridges, Ward Councillor for Hillingdon East, addressed the Committee and stated that the height and density of the application would have a significant and negative impact on the community. Many residents considered that this was an overdevelopment and would be out of character. It did not take into account the impact on local public services, traffic congestion and the impact of overflow. Also residents of the development could also be impacted as a comprehensive noise impact report had not been provided. The Ward Councillor understood the concerns of residents in relation to traffic on Long Lane which was soon to become worse with the construction of HS2. There would be a significant impact on the grid locked area. The Ward Councillor recognised that this site was vacant for many years and hoped that a sensible and pragmatic approach would be used in the development of this site. The Ward Councillor encouraged the Committee to refuse this application.

Members considered that this application ought to be looked at in the context of planning policies. The interests of Hillingdon was crucial and the Committee noted the concerns raised by the local Ward Councillor in respect of detrimental impacts to local residents. Members noted the parking standards and the reliance of vehicles in the Borough. Members were not against development on this site but considered that it had to be the right development in accordance with relevant policies.

The Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration advised the Committee, that ecological mitigation was included as part of refusal reason number 10.

Members moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation and amendments in the addendum, subject to Stage 2 referral.