Agenda item

Construction of a residential-led, mixed-use development comprising buildings of between 2 and 11 storeys containing 514 units (Use Class C3); flexible commercial units (Use Class B1/A1/A3/D1); associated car (165 spaces) and cycle parking spaces; refuse and bicycle stores; hard and soft landscaping including a new central space, green spaces, new pedestrian links; biodiversity enhancement; associated highways infrastructure; plant; and other associated ancillary development.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

Construction of a residential-led, mixed-use development comprising buildings of between 2 and 11 storeys containing 514 units (Use Class C3); flexible commercial units (Use Class B1/A1/A3/D1); associated car (165 spaces) and cycle parking spaces; refuse and bicycle stores; hard and soft landscaping including a new central space, green spaces, new pedestrian links; biodiversity enhancement; associated highways infrastructure; plant; and other associated ancillary development.

Officers introduced the report, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for refusal.

Representatives from the Ickenham Residents Association and Oak Farm Residents Association spoke in objection of the application and submitted that the proposed plans amounted to an overdevelopment of the site. The residential density level were double the acceptable levels set out in the Hillingdon development plans. The design of the development was discordant with the setting of the current location, far too tall and bulky, and would do substantial harm to the settings of the heritage assets. The development would cause insufficient parking and additional traffic. It was noted that the applicants had not shown how the development would be protected from noise and air pollution and it did not meet amenity space and sunlight standards. The proposal failed to recognise local needs and it was submitted that the GLA’s opinion of the development was “at odds” with the local plan guidance. The officer’s report was endorsed and the Committee was asked to refuse the application.

Representatives of the application addressed the Committee and submitted that the residential led mixed use scheme intended to positively regenerate the long term vacant site to deliver substantial benefits to the public. It was explained that the planning application was the outcome of over 12 months work in collaboration with officers and other stakeholders in the community. There had been consultations events, face to face meetings and leaflet drops in the surrounding areas. The scheme would include a number of benefits including sustainable regeneration of the vacant site, the creation of new residential neighbourhood providing much needed new homes, 182 affordable new homes, provision of mixed commercial uses that would promote enhanced vitality of the local centre leading to long term employment opportunities, landscaping improvements, a net gain in biodiversity, improvement in public services and an urban greening factor. The proposal would be pedestrian and cycle led. It was noted that the site in question was a challenging site however the proposed development could accommodate the more ambitious proposals as detailed in the application.

Responding to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that the air quality impact assessment supported the site and was based upon associated traffic assessment data alongside additional monitoring as discussed with the Local Authority. The applicant had also identified mitigation in terms of damages contribution to support the scheme. The approach on how to manage air quality was explained to the Committee.

The Chairman read an email from Councillor Alan Chapman, Ward Councillor for Hillingdon East. Concerns were raised regarding the scale, height, size and density of the proposals as they were not in character with the local area. Further, the proposals had a negative impact on the local Green Belt, the parking provisions were inadequate and the added vehicle movement would increase traffic flows. There was also concerns in relation to the increase in both air and noise pollution in the surrounding area. The Committee was asked to support the officer’s recommendation and refuse the application.

The Committee supported the officer’s recommendation and welcomed refusal reason five on air quality. It was emphasised that air quality could not be compromised. Concerns were raised regarding the size of the development, air pollution and, overall, Members considered that the application was out of character with the local area.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation, subject to the changes in the addendum.