Agenda item

Erection of a part single, two, three and 4 storey building to provide 23 residential units, consisting of 14 x 2 bedroom, 8 x 1 bedroom flats and 1 x 1 bedroom disabled unit, together with 250sqm of retail/commercial space, with associated parking, cycle and bin storage and amenity space, involving demolition of existing buildings.

Recommendation: Approval subject to S106 Agreement

Erection of a part single, two, three and 4 storey building to provide 23 residential units, consisting of 14 x 2 bedroom, 8 x 1 bedroom flats and 1 x 1 bedroom disabled unit, together with 250sqm of retail/commercial space, with associated parking, cycle and bin storage and amenity space, involving demolition of existing buildings.

In introducing the report, officers directed the Committee to note the changes in the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petitioners addressed the meeting. The petitioners objecting to the proposed development made the following points:

• This was a residential area with mainly family homes consisting of two- storey houses, maisonettes and single-story bungalows.
• Whilst keen to see the sight developed, the proposal would be substantially taller, overbearing and would resulting in blocking light, which would have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties.
•  Concerned about the use of articulated delivery vehicles which would create parking problems, as Warwick Road was narrow and could be easily blocked.
• Concerned about the scale of the building compared to properties in the road which consisted mostly of a maximum of two-storey buildings and the bungalows, which were even lower.
• Suggested that the design of the three-storey building would be overbearing - it would be more sensible to have as two-storey.
• Suggested that if the proposal was approved, the parking permit scheme currently operating in Warwick Road should be extended from 5pm to 6.30pm.
• Saw no real benefit of the provision of A1 premises as an additional unit would provide no amenity residents.
• Provision of dental facilities currently not available to residents in West Drayton would be beneficial.

The agent addressed the meeting and made the following points:

• Had come up with the current application as a result of extensive work with planning officers.
• Advised that the officer’s report was thorough and balanced and satisfied that all issues had addressed.
• Had already provided the Council with additional information regarding light to neighbouring properties.
• Detailed discussions had been held with Highways and had agreed to widen the highway.

• The scheme represented an application to re-develop the site and had taken several class uses to bring different ownership together, as well as providing much needed residential unit to local residents.
• Suggested that the opportunity to have a dental surgery would not be ruled out.
• Stated that existing use generated a lot of traffic, where as the new use would have more residents in a residential area and would create less disruption.
• Indicated that the height of the building would be similar to two-storey houses in terms of roof and would be identical to having two-storey houses.

In response to a query regarding the extension of the width of the highway and how this would affect the footway for residents, the agent explained that the pavement was oversized and therefore would be reduced.

A Member suggested that the proposed building appeared to grow taller, as it got closer to the station and stated that this did not appear to have been included in the drawings in relation to the station. The agent explained that the mass could rise towards the railway and that often buildings were taller near stations.

A Member expressed concern about the residential development being closest to where the greatest noise would be emitted.

With regard to concerns raised about privacy and light, officers explained that the Council’s guidelines required two-storey buildings to be 15 metres from the nearest property and this proposal was 18 metres away. Officers did not consider that there would be any substantial loss of daylight to properties.

Officers clarified that, although some of the plans pack were not in line with the presentation, all the plans listed in the report were correct.

In response to a query regarding delivery times, officers advised that service restrictions would be subject to a S106 Agreement.

A Member questioned the applicant’s intention to widen the highway on land that was on adopted highway.

 Members expressed concern about the dominance of three-storey building and indicated that this would be excessive in that area, they also indicated that it would be helpful to ascertain what effect the building would have against the station, particularly as the station was a locally listed building. To this end therefore, it was suggested that a site visit would be useful to the Committee.

A Member requested the provision of shadowing diagrammes in respect of the ground floor flat and highlighted that there appeared to be no amenity space proposed on the ground floor.  Officers explained that the ground floor flat was set back quite a distance in order to provide some amount of space between the street and the window.

Members discussed the fact that Tachbrook was used by other businesses in the area and asked what that area would be used for once it was removed.  Clarification was sought regarding the noise mitigation and air space that had been proposed with a request for officers to look at the height of the proposed development against the existing buildings.

Following discussion, the Committee indicated that the application should therefore be deferred for Members to make a site visit and for further details and clarification to be provided with regard to the issues that had been raised.

It was moved and seconded that the application be deferred for a site visit and for further clarifications as listed below, and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved

That the application be deferred for a site visit and the further details/clarification as follows:

• The proximity of the building, particularly the 4 storey portion next to the listed railway station in more detail to ascertain whether the relationship was acceptable
• The issue of noise in respect of the proximity of the residential apartments to the railway and further details about the acoustic attenuation of flats and amenity areas to ascertain whether this was acceptable
• Investigate the lack of parking for customers and staff of the retail unit
• The viability of controlling the hours for deliveries and whether the this could be adequately to controlled by the legal agreement
• Further details about the viability of road widening proposals and how this would work and clarification of the ownership of that part of the road
• Shadowing diagrams to show/illustrate the impacts on the surrounding neighbours
• The exact dimensions of the garden to the front of the ground floor unit/maisonette
• Further examination of the height and bulk of the of the 4 storey building in respect of it being overly dominant and comparison plans (existing and proposed) to better compare the height and bulk
• Further details as to the way in which the amenity space on the roof would work and why this was acceptable
• Further details about how Tachbrook would be used in the future, given concerns about its misuse and anti-social behaviour.