Agenda item

Erection of 2 blocks containing 52 one, two and three bedroom apartments, together with associated parking access and landscaping, involving demolition of existing buildings.

Recommendation: Refusal

Waterloo Wharf Waterloo Road Uxbridge - 43016/APP/2014/4486

Planning permission was sought on the erection of 2 blocks containing 52 one, two and three bedroom apartments, together with associated parking access and landscaping, involving the demolition of existing buildings.

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 height of the proposed new development blocks were much taller and imposing than the existing 'shed' type building that the development would  replace.

·         There was concern about the impact of noise at all hours and pollution from the cars that would be parking. There was also concern about the impact of any lighting planned for the car park area.

·         The bin stores would be situated in the car park at the rear properties which could encourage vermin and unpleasant smells.

·         Parking is already a challenge for local residents; the planned development would include 52 flats with only 37 car parking and no visitor parking.

·         The access to the planned development would be newly created and would be very close to the bend at the top of Waterloo Road. The entrance to Waterloo Road (from Rockingham Road) already got very busy and congested, especially during 'peak hours'. The additional traffic generated from the development would only add to the congestion.

·         The building height together with the colour of the brick would mean it stands out like an eyesore.

·         The entrance to 'Waterloo Wharf' would be newly created and would be very close to the bend at the top travelling from Frays Waye onto Waterloo Road which was already dangerous due the fast speed and amount of cars. With additional cars using the area to access the new development would make it very dangerous.

·         We would lose some of the older buildings of the area and would be losing our local heritage.

·         If the current occupiers Goldbergs definitely do not want to occupy the premises then the council could use the buildings to provide amenities for the local area.

·         There has been a number of new builds in the area over the last couple of years and the local amenities and infrastructure were already under strain.

The agent raised the following points:

·         That the development would enhance the local area.

·         That all the flats in the development were to exceed the standards of light.

·         He was surprised that there would be a loss of employment as he stated that Officers had not mentioned this before.

·         He did not think that noise was an issue as the scheme was next to a boat yard.

·         In conclusion he thought that this was sustainable development, which would enhance the area and would provide safer vehicle access.

A ward Councillor attended the meeting and the following points were raised:

·         The wharf was an asset to the area and part of old Uxbridge. 

·         The ward Councillor offered her support to residents.

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

·         Amend refusal reason 1 as per Addendum report

·         Amend refusal reason 3 as per Addendum report

·         Insert additional informative as per Addendum report

·         Include additional reason for refusal relating to inadequate on-site car parking

·         If all of the units within Block B do not have windows and receive adequate levels of light, officers should add this as a refusal reason.