Redevelopment of the site to provide a part 3, part 4 storey building containing 30 flats (Class C3) with associated parking, landscaping and rear communal amenity space (involving the demolition of the existing public house).
Recommendation: Refusal
Minutes:
The Chairman explained that the officer recommendation relating to this report had been changed from refusal to approval, as a result of negotiations with the developer. The details were set out in the addendum paper.
Officers introduced the report, explaining that the application was now recommended for approval as the applicant had agreed to provide 35% affordable housing. The application was for the redevelopment of the site to provide a part three, part four storey building containing 30 flats with 31 car parking spaces. Amenity space would be provided to the rear, through a roof garden, and on balconies. The surrounding area consisted mostly of two storey dwellings, but there was also a three storey parade on a corner nearby. The proposed ridge height was, at 11.89m, one metre taller than that of the existing public house, although it did not exceed the height of the existing chimneys. A tree protection plan had been developed to safeguard the mature oak located on the site. An extension at 76 Snowden Avenue had been approved, and whilst the 45° line would be breached for two of the windows on the ground floor, the third, principal, window would not be unacceptably impacted by the proposed development. Officers also noted that whilst planning permission had been granted, it had not yet been implemented. Officers reminded members of the addendum, and asked that two further changes to the recommendation be made, firstly, that the Heads of Terms of the S.106 agreement be amended to reduce the amount of affordable housing to be delivered before the first commercial unit was occupied from 100% to 50% in order to assist the developers financial position, and secondly that the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to amend conditions, should the proposal be granted.
Petitioners made the following points:
- The proposed development was insecure, and the car park had the potential to generate anti social behaviour;
- The transport assessments had not taken account of the significant amount of congestion already in the area;
- The roof garden was out of keeping with the area, was likely to generate noise pollution. Petitioners felt that its inclusion exposed the overdevelopment of the site;
- The location of the bin store was too close to neighbours and too far from disabled units;
- A three storey building would be out of keeping with the vast majority of houses in the area, and the resulting massing would be detrimental to the character of the area;
- The units lacked outside amenity space;
- The service road and car park was located on the boundary with both 60 Sutton Court Road and 5 Silver Way, which was detrimental to their amenity;
- The building line was not in keeping with the area;
- Neighbour's sunlight would be reduced;
- The density was too great, considering the suburban location and low public transport accessibility;
- The loss of the public house garden was detrimental to the area.
The applicant's agent made the following points:
- The proposal would bring a high quality sustainable development including 30 much needed homes to a prominent, underutilised brownfield site;
- Residents had been involved in the design process from an early stage, and the architecture had been improved as a result of this engagement;
- Amenity space to be provided at the site would exceed the minimum requirements significantly;
- The grounds would be landscaped, whilst the oak tree would be protected;
- The proposal was compliant with all relevant LB Hillingdon policies.
Councillor Chapman, attending as a ward Councillor, supported the arguments made by the petitioners and made the following points:
- The proposal would not harmonise with the street scene;
- The building would be very close to the front edge of the plot, which would make it over-dominant;
- The development would impinge upon neighbours amenity and privacy.
In response to questions officers explained that:
- There would be no significant loss of sunlight for neighbours;
- There would be no unacceptable overlooking as the proposal complied with relevant policies. The roof garden had also been designed to prevent overlooking;
- There were no policies protecting former public house gardens from development, as they were not covered by the 'backland development' policies;
- The bin store would be located inside the building, and so disabled access would be acceptable. There was not expected to be an odour impact on neighbouring properties relating to the bin store;
- Gates to the car park were not proposed as these led to unacceptable waiting on the carriageway. The proposal was however still 'Secured by Design' compliant;
- The level of parking and cycle parking was good, whilst traffic generation was likely to be so low as to be negligible;
- The proposal would not breach the 45° line, as only non principal windows in an unbuilt, but approved, extension would be within this angle;
- The closest point of the roof garden to the boundary was 24 metres from it, and so noise pollution was not considered likely;
- Residents living next to the proposed car park would be protected by acoustic fencing;
- Housing density figures were only a guide, and if a development could exceed these without causing harm in other ways, they could not be a reason for refusal;
After an extensive debate, a motion for refusal was proposed, seconded and unanimously agreed.
It was therefore resolved:
a) That the application be refused because of the Size, Scale and Bulk of the proposed development which resulted in a site layout which was detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties and had a significant impact on the character of the area;
b) That the precise wording of the reasons for refusal be delegated to the Head of Planning and Enforcement in consultation with the Chairman and Labour Lead.
Supporting documents:
PDF 148 KB