Agenda item

Conversion of 3, one bedroom live work units to 6, one bedroom bedroom flats (Block R).

Recommendation: Refusal

Conversion of 3, one bedroom live work units to 6, one bedroom flats (Block R).

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes in the Addendum. It was reported that comments had also been received from Councillors Catherine Dann and David Payne giving their full support of the officer’s recommendation for refusal of the application.

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 (also in relation to agenda items 8, 9 and 10):

• Residents as well as the Pembroke Park Residents’ Association were all in support of the objections raised by the Eastcote Residents’ Association
• The proposed changes were unattainable and would be difficult to live with
• The proposed development would exacerbate existing parking problems in the estate and on the surrounding roads
• The proposed development would put pressure on shared amenity space, as no provision had been made
• Concerned about the scale and density of the proposed development, which  would be out of keeping with the local environment
• Urged the Committee to endorse the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

In discussing the application, Members expressed concerns about the inadequate parking spaces allocated, lack of amenity spaces and the density of the proposed development.

The Committee sought clarification as to whether the proposed flats met with the minimal requirements for internal floor spaces. Officers advised that the proposal complied with the requirement for internal floor space but did not meet with requirement for amenity space.

In expressing concerns about the density of the proposed development and its effects on the larger site, the Committee agreed to attach an additional informative relating to capacity being reached for the overall development of the site.

With regard to parking, officers confirmed that that the overall parking provision was for 625 spaces with a maximum of 654, which meant that allocation of parking spaces was an issue. The Committee noted that adding additional units would result in the loss of visitor parking spaces.

The Committee agreed to add an additional reason for refusal relating to parking and requested officers to prepare the wording in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

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

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report subject to the following additional reason for refusal and additional informative:

Additional Reason for Refusal

The Proposal provide insufficient parking provision for the proposed increase in the number of units and would therefore result in an increase in on-street car parking in an area where parking demand already exceeds supply, therefore leading to conditions which would be prejudicial to the operation of the highway network and pedestrian /highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies AM7 and AM14 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).

Additional Informative

The applicant is informed that in the view of the Local Planning Authority the development of the wider site is now at capacity and thus any increase in the number or size of units is unlikely to be acceptable.