Agenda item

Erection of 17 one-bedroom and 42 two-bedroom flats and 8 three-bedroom houses with associated car parking and landscaping (modification of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 and reserved matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/ 3046 to provide a further 5 two-bedroom apartments and 2 houses.)

Recommendation: REFUSAL

At the start of the item, the Chairman explained that the five petitions which had been submitted enabled a representative of the petitioners to speak on agenda Items 6, 7 and 8 in three cases and on items 6 and 7 in 2 cases. All these items were related. The Agent was not present at the meeting.

The petitioners were informed that that they had the right to address the Committee up to three times (should their petition apply to items 6, 7 and 8 and twice when it related to items 6 and 7). The petitioners waived this right and chose to speak on Item 6 only.

In introducing the report, officers drew the Committee’s attention to the amendments in the Addendum and summarised the letter in support of local residents which had been received from a Ward Councillor. Officers also referred to a further letter which had been received from Nick Hurd MP in support of local residents.

A representative of the five petitions received in objection to the application addressed the Committee. The following points were raised:

• The proposal would adversely affect the privacy of residents due to the increased amounts of overlooking (especially from blocks C,D and W). In some cases due to land rises, the first floors of some developments would overlook the bedrooms of opposite properties.
• The proposal did not incorporate sufficient amenity space
• The proposal was an over development of the site
• The proposal did not include a sufficient number of footpaths and so there was a danger to pedestrian safety
• The proposal was out of keeping with Eastcote and Hillingdon
• The design was out of keeping with the street scene
• The infrastructure of Eastcote was already at breaking point and there were already significant pressures on local services such as schools and medical facilities
• The proposal lacked sufficient car parking spaces. Relatives and visitors would be forced to park on adjacent local roads
• The height and scale of proposal was out of keeping with the southern half of the development
• The application would increase roof heights and so the design would become more visually intrusive
• The proposal would increase traffic congestion on local roads
• The proposal would adversely affect the special character of old Eastcote
• The overdevelopment of the site would cause access problems for service vehicles, such as refuse collection and emergency services.
• The proposal would not comply with government guidance which had reduced the number of units from 50 to 30 per hectare.
• The developers had not worked in partnership with the community during the consultation period.
• The proposal would cause drainage difficulties

In discussing the application, Members agreed the development site was already full and any additional development would have significant impact on amenity space. In relation to car parking facilities, Members agreed that the proposal did not have sufficient capacity for visitors, which would lead to additional parking in surrounding roads. When summarising the discussions, the Chairman drew the petitioner’s attention to reason for refusal 3 which specifically related to ‘an unacceptable loss of residential amenity’.

The recommendation for Refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be Refused as set out in the officer’s report and Addendum.