On Wednesday evening the London Borough of Hillingdon Planning Committee will make their decision on Lidl’s application to buy, knock down The Orchard and replace it with a new supermarket and carpark.

Before each Planning Committee meeting, council officers produce a report which gives a recommendation to the committee as to what they should decide.  In a 48-page report which is now published and on the LBH website, the officers recommend that the application be REFUSED.

The meeting will be livestreamed and you’ll be able to watch it live in the YouTube video below.

You can attend the committee meeting and watch in person

The public are also able to watch in person – the meeting will be in Committee Room 5 at the Civic Centre: to get there, go the Civic Centre’s main entrance (at the top of the ramp nearest to the High Street, or at the top right of the main set of stairs) at around 18:45, sign in at the Security desk and they’ll send you up the stairs opposite the desk: turn left and keep walking along the corridor and following the signs – the committee rooms are at the far end of the corridor.

Livestream video will be live from 19:00 on Wednesday

EXCERPTS from the report

Below we have extracted the conclusions and the eight reasons for refusal given by the officers as recommendations.

Officer’s Report Conclusions

The Local Planning Authority cannot support the principle of development as the Applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to justify the out-of-centre retail floor space and the loss of the public house.

The proposed development would be an uncharacteristic form of development that would fail to harmonise with the Conservation Area’s character and would unduly harm designated heritage assets (Ruislip Conservation Area and the Grade II Listed White Bear Public House) and non-designated heritage assets (locally listed Old Orchard and locally listed Spitfire war memorial). The public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm it would cause to the heritage assets.

The proposed development would not adequately facilitate walking, cycling, or public transport and would include an oversupply of car parking. The Applicant has failed to submit a Parking Management and Design Plan to detail the car park’s management. Furthermore, the application has not demonstrated that the proposal would not increase road danger.

The proposed development would result in an inappropriate net loss of biodiversity and an unacceptable loss of trees. The Applicant has not submitted sufficient details regarding the proposal’s Urban Greening Factor and the development’s potential impact on onsite roosting bats.

The proposed development would contribute to unacceptable pollutant emissions in the Ruislip Town Centre Air Quality Focus Area. It would not be air quality neutral or air quality positive, and the measures proposed are insufficient to mitigate the total emissions. Furthermore, the Council has not secured an agreement with the Applicant regarding the pre-commencement planning conditions necessary to mitigate the air quality harm that the proposed development would cause. The Applicant has confirmed their agreement to pay the air quality mitigation contribution (£987,271) that would have been required had approval been recommended.

At the time of writing, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the application includes sufficient flood risk and drainage details. Albeit the applicant has recently submitted further information which is currently being assessed by the Council’s Flood-Risk and Drainage Consultant. As noted previously, an update on this matter will be provided through the Addendum Report/at the Committee meeting.

For the reasons explained throughout this report, the proposal conflicts with the Development Plan. The benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the significant harms which would arise from the proposal. Moreover, there are no material considerations which indicate that the policies of the Development Plan should not prevail. Accordingly, it is recommended that the planning application be refused.

Recommended Reason(s) for Refusal

Design and Heritage

The proposed development, by reason of the demolition of a locally listed building and the replacement building’s design, scale, and prominence, and proposed landscaping, including the removal of Conservation Area trees, would result in an uncharacteristic form of development that would fail to harmonise with the local character of the Conservation Area and harm designated and non-designated heritage assets whereby the public benefits would not outweigh the harm. The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the area’s character, appearance, and visual amenities.

Retail Impact

The Applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to justify the out-of-town centre location of retail floor space and has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an unacceptable harmful impact upon the vitality and viability of town centres and local parades.

Loss of Public House

The planning application has failed to demonstrate through the submission of authoritative marketing evidence that there is no realistic prospect of the locally listed building (the Old Orchard Public House) being brought back into use as a public house in the foreseeable future.

Highways

The proposed development would not adequately facilitate walking, cycling, or public transport and would include an oversupply of car parking. The Applicant has failed to submit a Parking Management and Design Plan to detail the car park’s management, and the application has not demonstrated that the proposal would not increase road danger.

Biodiversity

The proposed development would result in an inappropriate net loss of biodiversity and an unacceptable loss of trees. The Applicant has not submitted sufficient details regarding the proposal’s Urban Greening Factor and the development’s potential impact on onsite roosting bats.

Air Quality

The proposed development would contribute to unacceptable pollutant emissions in the Ruislip Town Centre Focus Area. The proposed development would not be air quality neutral or air quality positive, and the measures proposed are insufficient to mitigate the total emissions. The Applicant has not agreed to the recommended pre-commencement air quality planning conditions.

Flood Risk/Drainage

The Applicant has submitted insufficient flood risk and drainage details to ensure that surface water is managed appropriately to mitigate risk of flooding.

Planning Obligations

In the absence of a Section 106 Agreement, the Applicant has failed to mitigate the impacts posed by the proposed development (in respect of Air Quality, Employment, Energy Monitoring and Carbon Offsetting and Obligation Monitoring).