Agenda item

Erection of 12 flats (8 two-bedroom, 4-person flats, 3 two-bedroom 3-person flats and 1 one-bedroom 2-person wheelchair accessible flat), in a single block with 12 associated car parking spaces; demolition of existing garages adjacent to Melbourne House and number 83 Perth Avenue; and provision of 3 open car parking areas

 

Recommendation : Approval subject to a S106 agreement

 

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of 2 petitions received objecting to the proposal and the agent addressed the meeting.

 

The petitioners made the following points:-

 

• There are two schools within 20 yards of the site and the dust from the removal of the concrete will have an impact on the playgrounds as they are in constant use.
• The proposal would not be a benefit to the estate.
• The estate is already overcrowded with a number of occupiers needing re-housing.
• Traffic problems due to the construction traffic entering and leaving the site.
• There are 4 schools within 10 minutes walk of the site and construction traffic would cause congestion throughout the school drop off and pick up times.
• Perth Avenue is used as a rat run for everyday traffic without the additional construction traffic for this site.
• Parking problems already exist in the area and speed of traffic already an issue.
• Where are the cars displaced by this development going to park.
• Vandalism to cars already occurs due to the current situation in relation to parking.
• Demolition of 59 garages and creation of two car parks would mean decrease of parking places available .
• Replacement parking spaces were being provided for leaseholders and not tenants.
• Quality of life for residents of Melbourne House would be affected by disturbance, noise and pollution.
• Demolition of garages should not be allowed as hillingdon has double the average car crime.
• There was a lack of parking for people with disabilities.
• The five storey block would be out of character with the surrounding area.
• The effect the proposal would have on the school should be taken into account. 
• An application to extend the school would conflict with the proposed plans for this site.
• If this proposal was allowed the school playing field would flood.
• There are no facilities for young people in the area.

 

The agent made the following points:-

 

• Site has been securely fenced and not used as a car park for many years.
• Funding has been secured for the proposal from Homes and Community Agency and would be an opportunity to stop the site from deteriorating still further.
• The development proposes 12 units and a condition restricting the occupiers to over 55s would be acceptable.
• There would be lift access to all floors.
• Council standards have been met in regard to sustainability.
• There would be no overlooking from the development to existing properties.
• The proposal would improve the appearance of the site with the ball court being relocated.
• The proposal would provide 72 car parking spaces at no cost to residents.
• Consultation has been undertaken with the Head Teacher at the school and concerns regarding the construction process discussed.
• Calming measures have been welcomed by the school.

 

The Ward Councillor addressed the meeting making the following points:-

 

• Supported the petitioners objecting to the proposal
• BE13 not complied with in regard to layout and appearance
• The proposal does not complement or improve the area.
• The flat roof would be out of keeping with the surrounding area as the building adjoining the site had pitched roofs.
• If allowed the proposal would give the feeling of a ghetto effect.
• All neighbouring residents affected by the proposal had objected to the proposals.

 

The Chairman asked officers for clarification of the points raised in relation to construction management, anti social behaviour, parking provided and the Clean Air Act.

 

In regard to the construction management, officers reported that condition 25 covered the concerns raised by the petitioners in relation to noise, vehicle movements and hours of use. 

 

Officers acknowledged that the school was a sensitive neighbour and the traffic management contained in condition 25 v should be amended to include avoidance of school drop off and pick up times.  The committee agreed the amendment to condition 25 v.

 

In regard to the concerns raised in relation to vandalism and anti social behaviour conditions 19 and 26 sought to address these issues.  Condition 19 – Secure by design would require sign off by the Police.

 

A question was raised in relation to density to which officers advised that page 32 contained the information requested at the previous meeting.  The density for the proposal was within the range contained in the London Plan.

 

The parking provided replaced the 72 garages lost as a result of this development.  There are currently only 17 garages occupied.

 

Members were informed that in regard to the query in relation to the Clean Air Act this was included as an informative as there was more powers under separate legislation to enable immediate action.

 

A member raised concerns in relation to the openness of the site and that if allowed this application would close this visual gap changing the character of the estate.  The flat roof would be out of keeping and would not harmonise with the surrounding area.  It was acknowledged that the school had flat roofs but the buildings were lower. 

 

In answer to a number of issues made in relation to security and flooding, officers reported that:

 

i)   the Crime Prevention Officer was aware of the Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) in the area.  In the light of this a robust condition was sought to address the issues of ASB.  This application gave the opportunity to redesign the parking to improve the security of the area providing security lighting and CCTV.  It was suggested and agreed that condition 26 be amended to include additional parking for people with disabilities.

 

ii)                  In relation to the issue raised in relation to flooding officers advised that

the site was not the subject of any Environment Agency Flood Hazard.  The site was historically subject to poor drainage but there was no evidence of excessive flooding from the school playing field. 

 

The recommendation with conditions 25 and 26 amended and an additional condition added was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote there were 4 in favour and 2 against.  The recommendation was therefore agreed. 

 

The dissent of Councillors Allam and Duncan was recorded against this decision.

 

Resolved

 

(This authority is given by the issuing of this notice under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 and shall enure only for the benefit of the land)

 

a)         That the applicant being the local authority and being the only legal entity with an interest in the land which is the subject of this application, and hence being unable to enter into a section 106 Agreement with the local planning authority, completes a Statement of Intent (Statement) to make provision for the following matters as would a third party developer under a section 106 planning obligation:

 

i) The provision of 100% affordable housing by habitable room.

ii) A refuse/recycling management strategy.

ii) The provision of a contribution of £41,020 towards educational facilities.

iii) The provision of a contribution of £3,902 towards healthcare facilities.

iv) The provision of a contribution of £10,000 toward community facilities.

v) The provision of a contribution of £414 towards local library facilities

vi) A contribution of £2,500 for every £1 million build cost to provide for construction training.

vii) A cash contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contribution to enable the management and monitoring of the requirements of the legal agreement.

 

b)        That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Statement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

 

c)         That planning officers be authorised to negotiate and agree details of the proposed Statement.

 

d)        That if by 17th March 2010, the Statement has not been completed, delegated powers be given to the Director of Planning and Community Services, at their discretion, to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

 

                        1.         The applicant has failed to provide, through an        appropriate Statement of Intent or other appropriate          legal agreement, an adequate provision of on site             affordable housing. The proposal is therefore          contrary to Policy Pt1.17 of the London Borough of   Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies             September 2007, Policies 3A.10 and 3A.11 of the     London Plan (February 2008) and the London       Borough of Hillingdon's Supplementary Planning             Document on Planning Obligations.

 

2.         The development is not considered to have made adequate provision, through planning obligations, for contributions towards educational facilities, healthcare facilities, community facilities, library facilities, construction training and monitoring. Given that a Statement of Intent, or other appropriate legal agreement, has not been secured to address this issue the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy R17 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) and the Council's Supplementary Planning Document for Planning Obligations (Adopted July 2008).

 

                        3.         The development has failed to provide adequate                                         facilities for the storage and collection of refuse and                           recycling contrary to policy 4A.22 of the London                                             Plan.

 

e)         That subject to the above, the application be deferred for determination by the Director of Planning and Community Services under delegated powers, subject to the completion of the Statement.

 

f)       That if the application is approved, the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report, addendum sheet condition 25 and 26 as amended and an additional condition be attached.

 

Amend condition 25 replacing the words:

 

"Prior to development commencing, the applicant shall submit a demolition and construction management plan to the Local Planning Authority for its approval"

 

with the words "Prior to development commencing, a demolition and construction management plan shall be submitted to and (in consultation with the adjoining school) be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority."

 

Also amend condition 25 (v)  - by inserting the words "and to avoid school drop off and pick up times" after the words "peak hours"

 

Amend condition 26 by - inserting the words "The final approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellings" after the words "approved details" which are at the end of the second sentence.

 

Also amend condition 26 - by inserting the words "and provision of 10 percent of all the spaces being designed for use by disabled persons"

 

Additional Condition –

 

None of the dwelling units hereby approved shall be occupied at any time by any person other than:

(a) A person or persons aged 55 years of age or over; or
(b) A person aged 45 years of age or over residing in the same unit with their spouse or partner aged 55 years or over, as "a couple"; or
(c) A person falling wholly within the scope of (b) above who continues to reside in the same unit upon and following the demise of such older spouse or partner.

Reason:

To safeguard the residential amenities of the occupiers of the units and surrounding area, to safeguard the adequacy of ancillary vehicular parking provision at the site and to mitigate the impacts of the development on local educational facilities and to accord with policies BE19, AM14, R17 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan, Saved Policies (September 2007)."