Agenda item

Redevelopment of site as a two storey block to provide 9 x two-bedroom flats with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Recommendation: Approval subject to a S106 agreement

Redevelopment of site as a two storey block to provide 9 x two-bedroom flats with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Officers introduced the report giving a brief summary of the application.

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

The petitioner made the following points:-

·         Acknowledged that the report made reference to the balcony/patio screening to be provided, which had been a concern for residents in Holly Cottage Mews.

·         The petitioner referred to the unauthorised parking that had been on the site when the building had been demolished in 2014.

·         Felt that the two previous applications made on this site showed a clear intention for residential dwellings to be built.

·         No notice was provided to surrounding residents to advise that the former public house was going to be demolished, which residents felt was carried out illegally.

·         Raised concerns about the footprint of the building and felt the proposal would affect sunlight/light to properties in Holy Cottage Mews.

·         Asked how calculations in relation to distance and light implications had been made.

·         The distance between properties in Holly Cottage Mews and the proposed building would have an imposing impact on the cottages, as the previous use had been as a garden for the former public house.

·         Pield Heath Road and surrounding roads had previously flooded and asked what measures would be put in place so that this was not exacerbated by this development.

·         Felt that this application would set a precedent for the other public house close by, which had just been put up for sale.

·         Clarification was sought as how only 3 additional car movements from the site during peak periods had been calculated.

·         Raised concerns about the number of parking spaces being provided as there was only one space per 2 bedroom flat.

The applicant/agent made the following points:-

·         The application was to provide 9 - 2 bed flats, which complied with the all relevant policies.

·         There had been pre application discussions with officers and changes had been made to the application as a result.

·         The application should be considered on its own merits.

·         The application was an appropriate use of the site providing much needed housing in the area.

·         The development would provide a good standard of accommodation.

·         The height and scale of the development would not impact on daylight/sunlight to neighbouring properties.

Ward Councillor comments

·         Had been contacted by residents in Pield Heath Road about the application and supported their concerns.

·         Some amendments had been made to the application that may give some comfort to the petitioners.

·         9 parking spaces were being provided, which included a disabled space, how would these be allocated to each unit. 

·         There was no provision for visitor parking.

·         The low parking provided on this site could set a precedent for other sites.

·         The site was close to Hillingdon Hospital so parking was the biggest issue.

·         It would be useful if clarification of conditions 7 &, 8 and 11 could be provided. 

 Officers responded to a number of issues that had been raised by the petitioners and the Ward Councillor as follows:

·         Distances - the minimum distance standards required between the rear development and the properties in Holly Cottage Mews had been met. 

·         Light Implications - given the distances proposed the development did not affect the 45º rule to habitable windows.

·         Water Management and Flooding - Condition 11 required a sustainable water management scheme to be submitted and approved before any development took place on site.  This would require measures to ensure that flooding did not occur on local roads.

·         Orange Peel Public House - Each application needed to be considered on its own merits but as the building was listed any demolition would need consent.

·         Traffic Generation - This was a small development of 9 dwellings and would not have an impact on local roads, it had been calculated that there could be an additional 3 cars during peak periods so was not a cause for concern.

Members raised concerns at the number of car parking spaces being provided and that this included the disabled parking, bringing the number of spaces being provided to 8.

Officers advised that disabled parking was always included in the overall parking provision.  Similar developments had been approved with a 1 to 1 parking ratio; with the site having a PTAL rating of 3, the maximum parking standards had been met. It was suggested that as Members still had concerns about the parking an informative could be added to seek an additional parking space.  The Committee unanimously agreed to an informative being added as suggested with the wording being agreed by the Chairman and Labour Lead.

The recommendation as set out in the officer's report with an additional informative seeking the provision of one additional parking space was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved - That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to grant planning permission, subject to the following:

A) That the Council enter into a Section 106/S278/S38 Agreement or other appropriate legislation to secure:

1. Widening and re-instatement of the adjoining public footpath.

B) That the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in the preparation of the S106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval.

D) That if any of the heads of terms set out above have not been agreed and the S106 legal agreement has not been finalised before the 31st July 2015, or any other period deemed appropriate that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to refuse the application for the following reason:

'The applicant has failed to ensure that the necessary works to the adjoining public footpath would be undertaken in a timely manner and to an appropriate standard. The scheme therefore fails to ensure that highway and pedestrian safety would not be prejudiced and conflicts with Policies AM2 and AM7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012).'

E) That subject to the above, the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning and Enforcement under delegated powers, subject to the completion of the legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

F) That if the application is approved, conditions and informatives set out in the report be attached and an additional informative to seek the provision of one additional parking space on the site bringing the number of spaces to 10.