Discount food store at The Orchard Inn, Ruislip

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing building and constructing a discount food store with parking, landscaping and associated works.

“Proposal: Construction of a discount food store (Use Class E) with car parking, landscaping works, and other associated works, following the demolition of the existing building.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contained the former Orchard Pub and Premier Inn, lay in the Ruislip Village Conservation Area, and included a locally listed Spitfire memorial.

“The front garden (southeast of the Site), which served as a pub garden, accommodates the Orchard Spitfire War Memorial (temporarily removed for maintenance). The War Memorial is a one-third-scale model of a Spitfire plane with a stone plinth commemorating the Polish Airmen. The Spitfire model in front of The Orchard is locally listed. The setting of the Spitfire within a spacious garden covering approximately 1,275 sq. m.”

“Area Tree Preservation Order (TPO 217) immediately adjoins the site's northeast corner. There are two statutory Listed buildings within 100 metres of the Site - The White Bear Public House (Grade II Listed) and the Orchard Cottage, 65 Kingsend (Grade II Listed). Fiveways is a locally listed building on the opposite side of Ickenham Road from the Site. An Air Quality Management Area is approximatel y 500 metres southwest of the Site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier permissions included a two-storey rear extension and conversion creating a hotel with restaurant, with later approvals for related details and signage.

“62963/ADV/2015/65The Orchard Ickenham Road Ruislip Installation of 3 x externally illuminated fascia signs, 4 x externally illuminated stand alone signs and 1 x internally illuminated menu light box Decision: 18-02-2016Approved 62963/APP/2007/1056The Orchard Ickenham Road Ruislip ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO PROVIDE 13 BEDROOMS AND CONVERSION OF FIRST FLOOR TO PROVIDE 10 BEDROOMS TO CREATE A 23- BEDROOM HOTEL WITH RESTAURANT AT GROUND LEVEL (INCLUDING…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found insufficient evidence for the out-of-centre retail space and public-house loss, alongside harm to heritage, highways, biodiversity, air quality, drainage and planning obligations.

“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 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.”

Officer report

What people said

Objections cited heritage, design, traffic, road safety, parking, trees, biodiversity, drainage, pollution, noise, lighting, retail impact and the loss of the pub, while supporters cited jobs, choice and use of a vacant building.

“Remaining 663 objections (1) Harm to heritage assets. (2) Harm to outlook. (3) Loss of trees/planting. (3) Harm to landscaping. (4) Loss of biodiversity. (5) Traffic congestion. (6) Road safety. (7) Retail impact. (8) Insufficient drainage. (9) Design. (10) Noise. (11) Air pollution. (12) Loss of pub. (13) Sufficient supply of supermarkets already in the area. (14) Light pollution. (15) Harm the town centre.”

“(1) Better than a vacant building. (2) Need for additional supermarkets in the area. (3) Employment opportunities. (4) Locals could walk instead of driving to the shop. (5) Shopping choice. (6) Design. Noted. Material planning considerations discussed in relevant section of assessment below.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three ward councillors addressed the committee, raising concerns about heritage, highways, traffic, sustainability, air quality, drainage, biodiversity and the need for another store.

Members’ debate

Members noted the strong opposition, substantial refusal reasons and that too much would be lost for little gain if the proposal proceeded.

“Members noted the strength of opinion through the number of petition signatures; the number of separate objections received; and the objection of the three Ward Councillors. There were substantial reasons for refusal.”

“Members suggested that too much would be lost for little gain if the application was approved.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

“Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused in accordance with the officers’ recommendations.

“RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officers’ recommendations…”

Minutes