Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings for residential-led mixed use development comprising buildings between 3 and 10 storeys to provide residential units (Use Class C3) and ground floor commercial floorspace (Use Class B1/A3) with associated access and car and cycle parking, landscape and amenity areas and associated servicing (AMENDED June 2020).

Details: Comprising 400 residential units (Use Class C3) and 1,130 sqm of commercial floorspace (Use Class B1) at ground floor including 308 sqm (Use Class B1/A3) with associated access and car parking for 195 vehicles and 674 cycle parking, landscape and amenity areas and associated servicing

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED That: the application be approved +Section 106, subject to the additional information in the addendum.

Demolition of existing buildings for residential-led mixed use development comprising buildings between 3 and 10 storeys to provide residential units (Use Class C3) and ground floor commercial floorspace (Use Class B1/A3) with associated access and car and cycle parking, landscape and amenity areas and associated servicing (AMENDED June 2020).

Details: Comprising 400 residential units (Use Class C3) and 1,130 sqm of commercial floorspace (Use Class B1) at ground floor including 308 sqm (Use Class B1/A3) with associated access and car parking for 195 vehicles and 674 cycle parking, landscape and amenity areas and associated servicing.  

Councillor John Morgan declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 9 as he had visited the site when he was Mayor of Hillingdon and had been contacted by residents about the application. He did not take part in the discussion or the voting on this item.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the information in the addendum. Members were informed that, on the day of the meeting, the Council had received a late letter of representation from TfL. The Council’s Committee report on page 289 stated that it was not deemed that TfL had met the regulatory tests prescribed when seeking planning obligations to mitigate the harm resulting from a development proposal. This specifically related to the request by TfL for £370,500 for the A312 Healthy streets Scheme. 

It was confirmed that the additional information received clarified that the monies requested met the tests prescribed by the CIL regulations 2010. The Council therefore wished this clarification to be minuted to allow it to be corrected. However, the scheme already secured local highways mitigation ?by way of the Clayton Road Healthy Streets Scheme and, whilst there were no additional monies available for the strategic A312 Bulls Bridge Project, some of the works secured under this obligation were also securing the objectives of the A312 Healthy streets scheme and would therefore be of benefit to the strategic programme.  The Council’s recommendation therefore remained unchanged, and no additional monies could be secured for the A312 Heathy Streets scheme.

Members welcomed the inclusion of family homes, affordable housing and amenity space – notably a child play area and public park.

In response to Members’ requests for clarification, it was confirmed that the car parking ratio was considered adequate as people were being actively encouraged to walk and cycle more and be less reliant on cars.

Further clarification was sought by the Committee in relation to the daylight / sunlight report as set out on page 267 of the agenda pack. It was confirmed that, with regards to VSC and the properties on Clayton Road, all but 2 windows had passed. It was therefore considered that there would be insufficient harm to warrant a reason for refusal.

Members expressed concern regarding the proposed non-affordable / affordable housing ratio. It was confirmed that the split should be 70 / 30 yet in this case it was 77 / 23; this was not policy compliant but the scheme would deliver a considerable amount of family housing and was therefore deemed acceptable in terms of housing delivery. The proposed development was considered strong in terms of landscaping and canal enhancements.

Members expressed further concerns regarding the addition of 400 residential units in an air quality focus area.

The officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded. When put to a vote, 4 Members voted in favour and 3 abstained.

RESOLVED That: the application be approved +Section 106, subject to the additional information in the addendum.