Agenda item

Partial demolition of the existing building, followed by refurbishment, side extensions and upwards extensions, alongside erection of perimeter blocks around a podium level, to increase hotel capacity (Class C1) whilst introducing industrial uses (Class E(g)(ii) and E(g)(iii)) at ground and first floor level.

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, further noting that the £160,000 as a financial contribution to be used towards Active Travel Zone improvements in the vicinity of the site.

Partial demolition of the existing building, followed by refurbishment, side extensions and upwards extensions, alongside erection of perimeter blocks around a podium level, to increase hotel capacity (Class C1) whilst introducing industrial uses (Class E(g)(ii) and E(g)(iii)) at ground and first floor level.

Officers presented the application and noted that this item had been deferred from the April Committee meeting. Officers highlighted the addendum, which noted an amendment to the Active Travel Zone Head of Term. Officers presented additional information that had been received by the applicant which sought to clarify points raised at the previous Committee meeting around hotel use, length of stay, a Hotel Management Strategy, shuttle minibus, green credentials, and some additional conditions that had been agreed.

Before the meeting, comments had been received from Councillor Stuart Mathers and Councillor Kamal Kaur as Ward Councillors of the application site (Wood End ward). These comments included a request to extend the non-delivery hours to the site to the later time of 18:30 and requested enforcement to ensure that Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) did not wait on local residential roads during non-delivery times. The comments also noted that the shuttle bus did not alleviate concerns over potential increased traffic and parking at the site. The Ward Councillors believed that the insufficient on-site parking provision would have a detrimental impact on local residents and other businesses in an area with existing heavy traffic and very limited parking provision, which may result in an overspill of parking into the surrounding residential streets.

In response to this, officers noted that a restriction of 5.5 hours for deliveries was excessive and unreasonable. Usual hours of 07:00-09:00 and 15:00-17:00 were already in place. Increasing this to 15:00-18:30 would cause more harm as it would lengthen the construction process. Officers further noted that enforcement was usually policed through the Construction Management Plan, and so was added to Condition 3.

The Chairman noted that this application had been extensively debated at the previous Committee meeting, which included discussion around the 90-day stay and other points on which the Committee wanted further clarification.

Officers further noted the extensive debate at the previous Committee meeting, and noted the advice summarised on page 10-11 of the agenda. It was noted that the proposal was not for dwellings; and hotel bedrooms had no independent access; and guests could not use the site to register to vote. There were no restrictions on length of stay under the use classes order, and the Committee had to judge the application on its merits.

On extending the delivery restrictions to 5.5 hours, the Committee would need a very clear basis on which to impose this. It was noted that there had been one resident objection to the application since the previous Committee meeting.

Members thanked officers and the applicant for the quick turnaround in being able to bring this application back to Committee so soon. Members asked what the standard restrictions on deliveries were. Officers noted that usual restrictions were 07:00-09:00 and 16:00-18:00, or if near a school, 15:00-18:00. The current afternoon/ evening restriction on this site were 15:00-17:00.

Regarding the stated use as a hotel for business and leisure, Members asked if there was a rigid definition of this. Officers noted that while this was loosely defined, it was the role of the Committee simply to approve or reject planning permission for the hotel. The Committee could consider planning matters, not commercial matters. It was noted that the applicant had noted the concerns of Members at the recent Planning Committee and wished to respond in a positive and collaborative manner and had agreed to the request to fund the monitoring of the Hotel Management Strategy over a 10-year period at a cost of £20,000, as requested by officers.

Members asked if there was a hotel strategy for Hillingdon. Officers noted that there was a need to deliver a certain number of hotel rooms. There was the London Plan, which was, in itself, a strategy, and a local policy for the delivery of hotel rooms. This application went towards meeting some of that need. Members also asked about housing density, and whether this was sustainable. Officers clarified that as this was not a residential dwelling, density would not be relevant.

Members asked about fire access and escape routes and whether, because the site was above 30M, it required an additional escape route. It was noted that this was for residential dwellings, not hotels. Officers further clarified that as this application was a class C1 as opposed to class C3 for example. Members further asked about the construction management plan, and whether a specific decibel limit could be included within the noise plan. Officers noted Point 11 of the criteria and highlighted the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 regulations, and so there was no arbitrary limit. Members asked whether there would be a restriction on rental properties from having a postal address. Officers noted that the Hotel Management Strategy, in which no postal addresses are given.

Members noted that the shuttle bus route listed the option of a route from either Southall Station or Hayes and Harlington Station, and Members asked why there would not be one definitive option. Officers noted that there was a preference for the route to be flexible to demand.

Members asked about hours of work on site, and officers clarified that there was an industry standard of 08:00-18:00 Monday-Friday; 08:00-13:00 Saturday.

A verbal update was given to add a new condition to have mechanical ventilation throughout the building. Condition 3 was amended to add no waiting and idling of delivery vehicles in the surrounding residential roads. Condition 3 (xi) would be amended to impose a specific decibel level from the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 of 80 dB(A) and 85 dB(A) and 135 dB(C) and 137 dB(C). A new informative was added regarding construction hours: Demolition and construction works which are audible at the site boundary shall only be carried out between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 hours Monday to Friday and between the hours of 08:00 hours and 13:00 hours on Saturday. No works shall be carried out on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Officer’s recommendations were moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, further noting that the £160,000 as a financial contribution to be used towards Active Travel Zone improvements in the vicinity of the site.