Agenda item

Demolition of existing 4-bedroom house and erection of 2, three storey blocks comprising 10 two-bedroom flats, with associated access, parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

511 Uxbridge Road Hayes - 15988/APP/2014/4271

Demolition of existing 4-bedroom house and erection of 2, three storey blocks comprising 10 two-bedroom flats, with associated access, parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the changes set out in the addendum.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, the petitioner in objection to the proposal addressed the Committee.

The petitioner raised the following points:

·         The proposal was an overdevelopment of the site with too many flats in a small area.

·         The style and design of the proposal meant that it would be out of character with the area.

·         The proposal would block light to No. 513 which only received light to the side and rear.

·         If approved, the development would be far too close to properties in Elmlea Drive and 3 storey height would be intrusive and invasive to No. 513 Uxbridge Road.

·         The proposal would result in overlooking to 513 and 515.

·         The flats on the top floor of the proposal would result in significant overlooking to properties in Elmlea Drive which would require curtains to be drawn at all times to maintain privacy.

·         Should the proposal be approved, local residents would be affected by increased pollution from extra cars, dirt and dust generation from construction and added traffic congestion.

·         The proposal would result in increased traffic on a stretch of road which was already renowned as an accident hotspot.

·         Current parking provision would be severely affected and access and egress for emergency and service vehicles would be inadequate.

·         There were inaccuracies in the application form which had been submitted as this stated there were no trees on and adjacent to the site.

·          The proposal would result in increased pressures to local services including schools, doctors and hospitals.

The agent / applicant did not address the Committee.

A Ward Councillors attended the meeting and the following points were raised:

·         Objections had been made in the past regarding George's Court because of the traffic issues.

·         Officers had provided previous assurances that the traffic issues would be addressed but these remained unresolved.

·         It was significant that the scheme lacked a social housing element.

·         The Ward Councillor supported the Officer recommendation for refusal.

During the course of discussions the Committee raised a number of points which included access / egress, building lines and right to light issues. In response, Officers confirmed there was access at the rear of the property for emergency and service vehicles. With regards to the 45 degree building line, Officers confirmed this was compliant due to the staggered building line of the proposal site.

A further question concerned windows to bedrooms at the far side of the development where there appeared to be no windows to habitable rooms. Despite referring to the plans, Officers were unable to provide definitive advice at the meeting and so the decision was taken for the Planning Department to check this requirement and report back to the Chairman and Labour Lead.

Summarising the application, the Committee felt the proposal was an inappropriate form of development which would not harmonise with the area. A number of trees would be affected and there was insufficient landscaping provision to mitigate the effects. Furthermore, the scheme did not include bicycle storage or any provision for affordable housing.

It was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote agreed unanimously that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer report and addendum.

RESOLVED - Powers delegated to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to investigate the following issues with a view to refusal of planning permission subject to: 

·         Deletion of reason for refusal 7 (Accessible and adaptable wheelchair units) as per addendum report 

·         Split reason for refusal 3 into 2 separate conditions, the first relating to Layout and second reason relating to refuse and recycling/cycle parking/vehicle charging. 

·         If units in Block 2 receive inadequate levels of light add a further reason for refusal on this matter.