Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Yarrow, with Councillor Raymond Graham acting as substitute.

None.

Were agreed as an accurate record.

None.

All items were considered in public.

Demolition of existing 4-bedroom house and erection of 2, three storey blocks comprising 10 two-bedroom flats, with associated access, parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

511 Uxbridge Road Hayes - 15988/APP/2014/4271

Demolition of existing 4-bedroom house and erection of 2, three storey blocks comprising 10 two-bedroom flats, with associated access, parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the changes set out in the addendum.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, the petitioner in objection to the proposal addressed the Committee.

The petitioner raised the following points:

·         The proposal was an overdevelopment of the site with too many flats in a small area.

·         The style and design of the proposal meant that it would be out of character with the area.

·         The proposal would block light to No. 513 which only received light to the side and rear.

·         If approved, the development would be far too close to properties in Elmlea Drive and 3 storey height would be intrusive and invasive to No. 513 Uxbridge Road.

·         The proposal would result in overlooking to 513 and 515.

·         The flats on the top floor of the proposal would result in significant overlooking to properties in Elmlea Drive which would require curtains to be drawn at all times to maintain privacy.

·         Should the proposal be approved, local residents would be affected by increased pollution from extra cars, dirt and dust generation from construction and added traffic congestion.

·         The proposal would result in increased traffic on a stretch of road which was already renowned as an accident hotspot.

·         Current parking provision would be severely affected and access and egress for emergency and service vehicles would be inadequate.

·         There were inaccuracies in the application form which had been submitted as this stated there were no trees on and adjacent to the site.

·          The proposal would result in increased pressures to local services including schools, doctors and hospitals.

The agent / applicant did not address the Committee.

A Ward Councillors attended the meeting and the following points were raised:

·         Objections had been made in the past regarding George's Court because of the traffic issues.

·         Officers had provided previous assurances that the traffic issues would be addressed but these remained unresolved.

·         It was significant that the scheme lacked a social housing element.

·         The Ward Councillor supported the Officer recommendation for refusal.

During the course of discussions the Committee raised a number of points which included access / egress, building lines and right to light issues. In response, Officers confirmed there was access at the rear of the property for emergency and service vehicles. With regards to the 45 degree building line, Officers confirmed this was compliant due to the staggered building line of the proposal site.

A further question concerned windows to bedrooms at the far side of the development where there appeared to be no windows to habitable rooms. Despite referring to the plans, Officers were unable to provide definitive advice at the meeting and so the decision was taken for the Planning Department to check this requirement and report back to the Chairman and Labour Lead.

Summarising the application, the Committee felt the proposal was an inappropriate form  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Erection of 2 blocks containing 52 one, two and three bedroom apartments, together with associated parking access and landscaping, involving demolition of existing buildings.

Recommendation: Refusal

Waterloo Wharf Waterloo Road Uxbridge - 43016/APP/2014/4486

Planning permission was sought on the erection of 2 blocks containing 52 one, two and three bedroom apartments, together with associated parking access and landscaping, involving the demolition of existing buildings.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the changes set out in the addendum.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, the petitioner in objection to the proposal addressed the Committee.

The petitioner raised the following points:

·         The height of the proposed new development blocks were much taller and imposing than the existing 'shed' type building that the development would  replace.

·         There was concern about the impact of noise at all hours and pollution from the cars that would be parking. There was also concern about the impact of any lighting planned for the car park area.

·         The bin stores would be situated in the car park at the rear properties which could encourage vermin and unpleasant smells.

·         Parking is already a challenge for local residents; the planned development would include 52 flats with only 37 car parking and no visitor parking.

·         The access to the planned development would be newly created and would be very close to the bend at the top of Waterloo Road. The entrance to Waterloo Road (from Rockingham Road) already got very busy and congested, especially during 'peak hours'. The additional traffic generated from the development would only add to the congestion.

·         The building height together with the colour of the brick would mean it stands out like an eyesore.

·         The entrance to 'Waterloo Wharf' would be newly created and would be very close to the bend at the top travelling from Frays Waye onto Waterloo Road which was already dangerous due the fast speed and amount of cars. With additional cars using the area to access the new development would make it very dangerous.

·         We would lose some of the older buildings of the area and would be losing our local heritage.

·         If the current occupiers Goldbergs definitely do not want to occupy the premises then the council could use the buildings to provide amenities for the local area.

·         There has been a number of new builds in the area over the last couple of years and the local amenities and infrastructure were already under strain.

The agent raised the following points:

·         That the development would enhance the local area.

·         That all the flats in the development were to exceed the standards of light.

·         He was surprised that there would be a loss of employment as he stated that Officers had not mentioned this before.

·         He did not think that noise was an issue as the scheme was next to a boat yard.

·         In conclusion he thought that this was sustainable development, which would enhance the area and would provide safer vehicle access.

A ward Councillor attended the meeting and the following points were raised:

·         The wharf was an asset to the area and part of old Uxbridge. 

·         The ward Councillor offered her support to residents.

RESOLVED -  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Approval of reserved matters relating to the appearance and the landscaping of Phase 2 of The Old Vinyl Factory Masterplan: The Material Store as required by Conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission ref. 59872/APP/2013/3775.

Recommendation: Approval

Material Store, the Old Vinyl Factory Blyth Road Hayes

-       59872/APP/2015/3991

Approval of reserved matters relating to the appearance and the landscaping of Phase 2 of The Old Vinyl Factory Masterplan: The Material Store as required by Conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission ref. 59872/APP/2013/3775.

Officers reminded Members that they had approved this application before. Officers did not object to the application on design of conservation grounds.

RESOLVED - That the application be approved as per Officer recommendation.