Agenda item

Conversion of existing listed building incorporating two storey extension with habitable roofspace comprising 3 one-bedroom flats and part use as Class A1 (Retail) for use as convenience goods store, to include associated parking, involving demolition of existing single storey detached building and extension to listed building.

Recommendation: REFUSAL

At the start of the item, the Chairman explained that the petitions which had been submitted enabled a representative of the petitioners to speak on agenda Items 10, 11 and 12 which were all related. If the petitioners did so, then the agent would have a right to reply on each occasion.  The petitioners waived this right and chose to speak on Item 10 only.

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

• The officer recommendations for refusal were supported.
• Harefield village was already very congested and the number of deliveries required would cause traffic problems
• There was a need to protect the historic village centre, the landscape and ‘the pace of life’ in Harefield
• If Tesco were to operate in Harefield,  it would overpower local small traders
• The design, scale and setting of the proposal was out of character with the village
• The proposal was  an overdevelopment of the site in terms of scale and mass
• The proposed number of parking spaces would be inadequate for the site and 4 of the 6 parking spaces would need to be closed when deliveries took place

• The proposal would encourage vehicles to park on the pavement and there would be a danger to pedestrian safety
• Concerns were raised about the tidiness of the site should the proposal be approved
• The proposed development would be about four times the size of other local businesses

Points raised by the agent:

• One of the reasons for refusal related to the high levels of management intervention required when deliveries took place. The applicant had addressed these concerns and agreed to use lorries no larger than 8 metres.
• Deliveries would only take place within the site rather than on the kerb side.
• There would only need to be two delivery vehicles on site occasionally
• When deliveries took place, four parking spaces would not need to be closed and residential car parking spaces would not be affected.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and raised the following points:

• The agent was thanked for acknowledging that two delivery vehicles would need to be on site.
• Recent road works had required a single lane of traffic to be used and this had highlighted the levels of congestion in Harefield. The anticipated number of deliveries for the proposal would exacerbate this situation.
• This was the third or fourth time the application had been considered by Committee and as such was deemed to be an abuse of resources (to try and drive the application through).

Members asked officers for further clarification about the number of parking spaces. Officers explained that the proposal included residential car parking spaces but did not include parking spaces for retail use. It was noted that the Inspector had not highlighted the lack of parking to be an issue in this case.

In response to a query about the tidiness of the site, officers explained that a section 215 notice could be served when there was very serious impact on the street scene. However, as the current impact was limited it would not be appropriate in this case.

Members referred to the agent’s comments concerning the occasional use of two delivery vehicles and concluded that due to the scale of the operation, the applicant could not guarantee vehicle controls (over the numbers required) over the long term. Members agreed with the petitioners that pedestrian safety would be affected if the proposal was agreed.

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.