Agenda item

Demolition of existing petrol station with tanks and erection of a four storey building comprising 14 residential, an office unit at ground floor level plus associated access, underground car parking and cycle storage.

 

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a S106 Agreement.

Demolition of existing petrol station with tanks and erection of a four storey building comprising 14 residential, an office unit at ground floor level plus associated access, underground car parking and cycle storage.

 

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the report and details of the amendments on the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting.  This included the fact that a petition had been submitted, and additionally the applicant had submitted a detailed supporting statement.  Members noted that they had read and taken account of the applicant's submission.

 

The site had a sensitive relationship with the adjoining residential property at 4 Midcroft.  The officer highlighted that the site was in a conservation area and adjacent to an Area of Special Local Character.

 

The proposed building was marginally higher than the adjoining office building.   The design of the building had included a step down where the site adjoins 4 Midcroft. The proposal meets the requirements of the Hillingdon Local Plan and the London Plan.

 

In accordance with the Council's constitution a representative of the petitioners and the applicant/agent addressed the meeting.

 

The petitioner objecting to the proposal made the following points:-

 

·         All those who had signed the petition live in the locality of the site.

·         The site lies within the Ruislip Conservation Area and adjacent to an Area of Special Character.

·         Any development should enhance/preserve the Conservation Area.

·         Residents were not against development but it needed to satisfy certain conditions and harmonise with the character, style, height and the street scene.

·         The proposed 4 storey development does not provide the right transition as you enter Midcroft from the High Street.

·         The building would be too bulky and the footprint was larger than that existing.

·         The transition to No. 4 Midcroft was not felt to be acceptable.

·         Suggested that there should be no commercial element to the proposal, which would reduce the height of the proposed development.

·         The proposal does not conform to the character of the local area.

·         Suggested that the proposed building should be of a more interesting style.

·         Would prefer to see a smaller scale residential block and questioned whether the commercial element was needed.

 

The applicant/agent made the following points:-

 

·         Was sympathetic to the views of neighbours.

·         Had been in discussion with planning and the conservation officer.

·         The scheme was sympathetic and compliant.

·         Understood the issues and the specific points raised in relation to the Conservation Area.

·         The current use as a car wash raised a number of road safety issues due to the number of vehicles using the site.

·         The height of the proposed building would not be materially different to the adjoining office block.

·         The height of the proposed development dropped down a storey on the residential side and had been set back so that the block did not appear too bulky.

·         A daylight/sunlight survey had been undertaken and complied with the requirements.

·         The roof terrace drops down and a higher barrier proposed to avoid overlooking.

·         The design of the proposed flats had been as sympathetic as possible.

·         The proposed building had been designed to blend in with the existing area and would be developed in a sensitive manner.

 

Points made by the Ward Councillors:-

 

·         Endorsed the comments made by the petitioners.

·         Eastcote and East Ruislip Ward Councillor are also opposed to the scheme as the site was close to the ward boundary.

·         The character of the built environment was fairly balanced and could be argued either way.

·         Initial thoughts when reading the report was that an error had been made and the report related to a different site.

·         There were serious issues in terms of the impact the development would have on the Conservation Area.

·         Concerns as to the impact the proposal would have on local businesses, as there were already vacant shops in the High Street.

·         Sought clarification of the proposed traffic light system.

·         The proposal failed to maintain the character of the area, was incongruous and there would be a loss of amenity.

·         The neighbouring building would have reduced natural light.

·         There were strong objections to the current proposal.

·         Consideration should be given to what a Conservation Area was.

·         There was a need for some development on this site.

·         The removal of the commercial element would reduce the height of the building and overcome a majority of the objections.

·         The proposed development would impact on the Natwest building, a locally listed building, Midcroft and the street scene, which was not felt to be acceptable.

·         Insufficient thought had been given to the impact the proposal would have on traffic as it would exacerbate an already congested junction with the High Street.

·         If the Committee were minded to approve the application there needed to be great attention to the conditions imposed.

·         Against the development in its current form.

The Committee felt that the proposal in its current form was overly large and detracted from the Conservation Area and had concerns about the distance between the site and 4 Midcroft in relation to overshadowing and over dominance.  Further concerns were raised in relation to the under croft and whether access/parking/servicing the units on the High Street would be possible (especially with HGVs) if the application went ahead. In relation to the office building facing the High Street there were concerns raised that the proposed development would block natural light decreasing energy efficiency and reducing outlook for workers.  The Committee noted that there had been an overshadowing survey carried out by the applicant but this had not been made available to the Committee who still had concerns around this issue.  

 

In answer to the issues raised by the Committee officers advised that the under croft would be unsuitable for access by HGVs.  In relation to the issue with regard to natural light the proximity of the building would reduce natural light to the office building but there was a secondary source of light. There were no policies that would support a reason for refusal in regards to the issue of natural light. 

 

Officers advised that the overshadowing survey carried out by the applicant complied with the BRE guidelines, and therefore objection was not raised to overshadowing of 4 Midcroft.

 

A member raised concerns about the Council's sustainability policies as they had been written in general terms and felt that they needed to be more detailed as they did not address the impact on the loss of light to existing buildings.

 

The Committee had concerns in relation to the size, height and bulk of the proposed development due to the impact on the character of the area and its impact on 4 Midcroft.  It was felt that the design of the building would be detrimental to the Conservation Area, Area of Special Local Character and the street scene and would not work in this location.

 

Officers advised the Committee that the proposal would project 10m beyond the rear building line of No.4 Midcroft and met the 45º rule.

 

In answer to concerns raised in regards to the parking for the commercial element of the proposed development officers advised that it would be possible to configure the parking to accommodate this.

 

In answer to the concerns raised in relation to the servicing of the units fronting the High Street from the rear access road, the Legal Adviser informed the Committee that if the access road was a private road an agreement between the land owner and the applicant could be drafted but this was not a consideration for the Committee as it was a private matter. Should the Committee believe that the development could not be physically serviced this could form a refusal reason.

 

The Committee still had concern about the application in relation to the size, scale, bulk height, design, the impact on the Conservation and the loss of servicing of the existing commercial units fronting High Street; and refusal was moved on these grounds. The recommendation for refusal was seconded and on being put to the vote the application was refused.

 

RESOLVED - That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

 

1.            The proposal, by reason of its siting, size, height, bulk and proximity to the neighbouring buildings is considered to constitute an unduly intrusive, visually prominent and incongruous form of development, which would fail to preserve, enhance or respect the established character of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area and the Midcroft, Ruislip, Area of Special Local Character, or compliment the visual amenities of the street scene and would mar the skyline, and result in a significant loss of residential amenity contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1, Policies BE4, BE5, BE13, BE19, BE21 and BE26 of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) and Policies 7.1 (D)and 7.6 of the London Plan (2011) and the provisions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2.            The proposal, fails to demonstrate that that sufficient manoeuvring and access arrangements for service delivery vehicles and car parking would be maintained for adjoining commercial premises which would result in driver confusion and unexpected vehicle movements for other highway users and deliveries and parking taking place from the road.  The development is therefore considered to be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety and prejudicial to the free flow of traffic on the adjoining highway, including access by service delivery vehicles the adjacent buildings at 53 - 61 High Street Ruislip, contrary to Policy AM7 of the adopted Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) and Policy 6.3 of the London Plan (2011).