Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies received from Councillor Oswell with Councillor Eginton substituting.

Cllr Higgins declared a non pecuniary interest in relation to item 9.

None.

It was confirmed that all items were Part 1 and would be heard in public.

Erection of 8 dwellings with associated parking, amenity space and access involving demolition of existing industrial units.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation, subject to the amendments agreed by Members.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. Planning permission was sought for the redevelopment of the existing light industrial use site to provide eight new residential units consisting of a mix of dwelling houses and flats.

Members asked for clarification on the calculation and location of parking spaces. Officers explained that there was one available parking space for the flats which resulted in four car parking spaces and there were eight remaining spaces on site which could be worked out as one and half per house. In total, the scheme provided 12 parking spaces which was fully compliant with policies.  Officers also confirmed that the location of the parking could be reversed as there were no onsite planning constraints.

Members noted that the recreation ground was fenced of from the flats and in order to access the area residents would have to walk some distance. Officers commented that although residents would have to walk to the recreation ground, no roads would need to be crossed and the distance of walking was not lengthy. Members discussed the possibility of allowing residents to access the recreation ground directly from their gardens by the use of gates. This raised security concerns for some Members. Officers advised that generally this proposal would not be supported and although there were some shortfalls with this site in relation to amenity space, on balance, it would be better to approve.

Members raised concerns that the distance between buildings did not meet standards which meant that there would be some overlooking. Members also raised concerns in relation to the excessive height of the building. Officers advised that these factors could be limited by the imposition of conditions. Officers advised that that there was a precedent of this new arrangement style and it was generally accepted as there were no windows overlooking neighbours.  

To summarise, Members agreed the changes in the addendum, notwithstanding the agreed plans an amendment to the amenity spaces for properties five and six, and notwithstanding the agreed plans an amendment that the four car parking spaces are moved to outside the dwelling.

Members moved to approve the officer's recommendation and seconded, and upon being put to a vote, there were six votes in favour and two against.  

RESOLVED - The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation, subject to the agreed amendments.

Redevelopment of the site to accommodate a 7 storey 108 room hotel incorporating breakfast area and working/living zone at ground floor level; a basement level with associated parking; and external landscaping works including provision of parking, servicing areas, and planting.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation

Officers introduced the application which sought planning permission for the redevelopment of the site to accommodate a seven storey 108 room hotel incorporating breakfast area and working/living zone at ground floor level; a basement level with associated parking and external landscaping works including provision of parking, servicing area and planting. Officers also highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

Members queried the number of available motorcycle spaces and officers confirmed that condition five required motor cycle spaces for the scheme to be approved. Officers advised that the ratio usually applied was one for every 20 car parking spaces.  Members clarified the ceiling heights and officers advised that the ceiling height for rooms was compressed which resulted in an additional floor. Officers advised that if Members were concerned about height restrictions then they could impose a condition capping the height of buildings.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to the additional condition capping the ceiling height.

Reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) in compliance with conditions 2 and 3 for Phase 3C the 'Parade Ground' of outline planning permission ref: 585/APP/2015/848 (Variation of condition 5 of planning permission ref: 585/APP/2009/2752 dated 18/01/2012 (redevelopment of former RAF Uxbridge site) to amend approved plans and drainage strategy regarding the Town Centre Extension phase of the development).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation.

Officers introduced and provided an overview of the application. The application sought to discharge the reserved matters relating to Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping for phase 3C St Andrew's Park development.

Members confirmed electric car spaces and officers advised that this matter had been covered in the conditions outlining consent. 

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer's recommendation.

Reserved matters (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) for the erection of 58 dwellings together with associated parking and landscaping, in compliance with conditions 2 and 3 for Phase 6 of planning permission ref: 585/APP/2015/848 (Variation of condition 5 of planning permission ref: 585/APP/2009/2752 dated 18/01/2012 (redevelopment of former RAF Uxbridge site) to amend approved plans and drainage strategy regarding the Town Centre Extension phase of the development).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED - The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation.

Officers introduced and provided an overview of the application. The application sought to discharge the reserved matters relating to Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping for phase 6 of the St Andrew's Park development.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved as per officer's recommendations.

Application for the demolition of an existing Almshouse complex and the erection of 30 no. residential units (Use Class C3) (comprising 20 no. 1 bed replacement almshouse units, 2 no. 2 bed staff units and 8 no. 1 bed sheltered units), with office/meeting room, residents' cafe/social room, ancillary buildings and associated parking and landscaping.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED - The application was refused as per the officer's recommendation.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of an existing Almshouse complex and erection of 30 residential units, with office/meeting room, residents' cafe/social room, ancillary buildings and associated parking and landscaping. Officers made a recommendation for refusal. Officers made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner spoke in objection of the proposed development and made the following points:

-       Wood bridge House was a locally listed building. The property now acted as offices for the local community serving local businesses and was used by the community to hold meetings when there were issues in the area.

-       The architecture of the new design was not iconic or sympathetic to the design of the local area which was surrounded by Victorian properties.

-       The height of the proposed of the development would also be over oppressive and dominating.

-       The applicant failed to meet the conditions set in the previous meeting such as providing disabled accommodation and affordable units. 

-       Local residents were upset by the proposed development and the impact on the availability of parking. The surveys from the proposed development showed that light levels would decrease impacting local neighbouring properties.

-       Security was also a concern as the current plans did not have any security gates. Noise levels would increase affecting people who worked from home.  

-       To summarise, residents were not happy with the demolition, the design, the height, the design and the parking.

The applicant's agent addressed the meeting and made the following points:

-       A technical proposal was received from officers. The first attempt was found to be unworkable. The latest attempt seeking to impose an (M4 (3)) standard to the bathroom areas within (M4 (2)) units had been presented far too late to be assessed properly.

-       The 100 percent (M4 (3)) expands the foot print beyond the site boundary.

-       The 100 percent affordable housing requirement compromises the funding.

-       The applicant had commissioned considerable time and resources and had also arranged a viability assessment. The viability report and officers have accepted that the scheme cannot bear the imposition of further affordable housing at the loss of the open market bench. Subsidised houses are already being offered.

-       Making kitchens (M4(2)) and the remaining areas of the unit (M4(3)) and bathrooms (M4(3)) and the remaining areas of the unit (M4(2)) would reduce the unit size and would compromise the overall use and  appeal of the units.  

-       (M4(3)) is the highest level of accessibility for people who are permanently in wheel chairs, and it so considered that this will never be the case for occupants in this proposed development. (M4 (2)) is a highly accessible standards. Outside London (M4 (1)) is acceptable.

Members considered that the loss of heritage must deliver significant public benefit. This was a specific accommodation for a specific cohort of people, namely people in their later life where needs would be different. As a result, Members were of the view that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.