Agenda item

Erection of a part three storey, part two storey building with roof space accommodation and basement parking, comprising 11 one-bedroom, 27 two-bedroom and 4 three-bedroom residential flats and a commercial unit on the ground floor fronting Field End Road (involving demolition of the existing building.)

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a S106/Unilateral Undertaking.

Erection of a part three storey, part two storey building with roof space accommodation and basement parking, comprising 11 one-bedroom, 27 two-bedroom and 4 three-bedroom residential flats and a commercial unit on the ground floor fronting Field End Road (involving demolition of the existing building.)

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes set out in the Addendum.

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

The petitioner made the following points:

• The proposal was completely out of character with the area.
• The proposal would not complement the area and was over dominant.
• The proposal would result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.
• The proposed mural would be an eyesore to local residents.
• The infrastructure of Eastcote would not be able to support the proposed development.
• The proposed development would cause local traffic problems.
• The proposed underground car park would cause flood problems locally.
• The developer should undertake a consultation session with local residents.

Although the application site was not located within the Conservation area (but bordered it on two sides), the Chairman explained he had used his discretion and would allow a representative of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area Advisory Panel to speak for up to 5 minutes.

The Conservation Area Advisory Panel representative made the following points:

• The proposed development had been submitted in 2010 and then revised with a further submission in April 2012. Neither application met the required standards.
• The RIBA report had denounced this type of development and the dwellings it proposed.

• The proposed development was out of character with the Arts and Craft style found in Eastcote.
• The proposed development was 4 stories high rather than the 2 or 3 stories of surrounding buildings.
• The proposed lead roof would be out of keeping with the clay tiles used on surrounding buildings.
• The proposal did not include details about the proposed front gate.
• The residents of Moorford Way were especially concerned about the proposed mural.
• The proposal did not included sufficient amenity or play space.
• The proposed solar panels would crate an eye sore.
• There was concern about how the shared driveway would operate.

The representative speaking on behalf of the agent made the following points:

• Considerable resources had been spent protecting the site and the proposed development would deliver a high quality residential scheme.
• The proposed development would bring a number of benefits to the area, including healthcare and education contributions through the S106 unilateral undertaking.
• A number of consultations had been conducted and the application had taken these concerns on board.
• Local residents were not opposed in principle to the redevelopment of the site.
• With regards to amenity concerns, the existing measurements were appropriate.
• In relation to flooding concerns, the Environment Agency had not raised any concerns.
• With regards to floor space, the room dimensions of the proposed development would still provide high quality living arrangements.
• A play area was proposed
• No highways problems were anticipated with the proposed development.

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

• The bulk and density of the proposed development would have a negative impact on the surrounding area.
• There was insufficient amenity space.
• The proposed development would affect the appearance of the street scene.
• The lead roof incorporated in the proposed design would be out of keeping with the clay tiles used on surrounding buildings.
• The lack of provision to dry clothing, necessitating the use of tumble dryers would increase the carbon footprint of the proposed development.
• The proposed design meant there would be a lack of privacy to a number of dwellings within the scheme.
• Concern was raised about refuse collection arrangements and whether these might have a detrimental impact to local roads.
• The proposed mural (should the application be approved) should not be delegated to officers and should be determined in public at Committee.
• Concern was raised about the shared driveway incorporated within the proposal and how this would operate.
• The proposal would generate overflow parking and concerns were raised about where these vehicles would park.

The Committee sought clarification on a number of points including the lead roof and proposed roof garden. The representative of the agent confirmed it was possible the proposed roof could be clay tiled and officers confirmed that no roof garden was planned. In relation to amenity space, officers confirmed that the proposed development met the current standards.

In response to a question about how many of the proposed dwellings complied with the floor space requirements of the London Plan, officers confirmed that 30 out of 48 dwellings did not comply with this guidance.

In discussing the application, the Committee agreed they could see very little difference between this application and the previous one which had been submitted to the Council and they also had concerns about the number of conditions which would need to be resolved outside the meeting (should the application be approved). Officers explained that although there were a number of conditions which needed to be resolved, this was not an excessive number of conditions for the size of the application.

The Committee also raised concerns about the dedicated pedestrian access shown on the plans and about the likely impact the development would have on peak time traffic flows. In response, officers confirmed that the pedestrian access routes would include a raised pavement and having examined traffic flows, officers did not have concerns about people waiting on the highway for access or egress to the proposed development.

The Committee agreed that officer recommendation for approval should be overturned and the application be refused owing to the size, scale and bulk of the development as well as the unit size failing to comply with the standards as set out in the London Plan.

It was moved and seconded that the recommendation for approval be overturned and the application refused.

Resolved –

That the recommendation be overturned and application REFUSED on the grounds of the size, scale, bulk etc of the building and its impact on the conservation area, the internal size of the proposed units and the lack of a S106 agreement. Exact wording to be agreed with the chairman and Labour lead.