Agenda item

Change of use from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and Class B1 (Business) to Class C3 (Dwelling Houses) to include 3 x 1-bed, 1 x bedsit and 1 x 2-bed self-contained flats involving conversion of roof space of rear building with a dormer to front and alterations to elevations of front building

Recommendation: Refusal

Change of use from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and Class B1 (Business) to Class C3 (Dwelling Houses) to include 3 x 1-bed, 1 x bedsit and 1 x 2-bed self-contained flats involving conversion of roof space of rear building with a dormer to front and alterations to elevations of front building.

This application seeked full planning permission for the change of use of an existing A2 and B1 use to additional  residential units. The application site was within the boundary of Ickenham Local Centre as designated in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies  (September  2007). 

The applicant had failed  to  provide  sufficient  marketing history of the properties to show the use as offices was no longer required. The offices were presently occupied by 5  local businesses. The evidence submitted showed  that some of the  units  were  unoccupied  however  this  was  insufficient  to  justify  the  loss  of  office  space within  the  Core  and  Secondary  Shopping  Areas  of  Ickenham  Local  Centre.  It  would therefore be contrary to Policy H8 of the UDP.

Furthermore, the accommodation would provide an inadequate standard of living for future occupiers due to the residential units size and layout and was therefore considered contrary to  Policies  H8  and  BE19  of  Hillingdon  Unitary  Development  Plan  Saved  Policies (September 2007), Policy 3.5 of the London  Plan  (2011)  and  guidance  within  Section  4  of  the  Council's  Supplementary Planning Document on Residential Layouts. It was therefore recommended for refusal.

37 local owner/occupiers were consulted, 2  replies  were received objecting  to  the proposal. A petition  had  also  been  received  with  over  200  signatures  against  the proposal.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

• The petitioner ran a business in the building where the application was proposed.
• If approved the business would be forced out of the property.
• They employed 4 local people at that site, 3 of which walked to work.
• The plan did not support local businesses and employers.
• The site was the only business space in the village.
• The application would bring cramped flats which would add nothing to Ickenham.
• New flats were already being built nearby.
• The site was a valuable resource for local businesses in the area.
• The plans were damaging to Ickenham.
• The petition contained over 220 signatures.
• Ickenham Residents Association had objected to the proposal.
• Virtually ever shop space in the area was full.
• If it was lost then it would be lost for good, and would also result in a loss of jobs which was not good in this economic climate.

The agent spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

• The majority of the space was vacant and therefore the loss of existing use was minimal.
• 3 vacant units were marketed for over a year with no interest, others were similar.
• The prices were competitive but they had no offers, some interest.
• There was a high level of surplus office space and better space available in other areas.
• The applicant was making losses due to the space being left empty.
• Due to the change in the economic times there was a greater need for homes and less for office space.
• A residential use would be re-instating its former use.
• The agent discussed the flat sizes and required standards, and that an outlook to a car park was not unusual.
• Right of light laws was briefly discussed.
• The agent asked for a deferral to adjust any minor amendments that were required on the application.

Officer and Members discussed the size of the flats which was open to interpretation.  Officers had visited the site themselves. Right of light was not an issue for Members of the Planning Committee to decide and they needed to make their decision on planning merits.

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

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the agenda.