Agenda item

Change of use of first and second floors from Use Class A1 (Retail) To Use Class C3 (Residential) to form 3 x 2-bedroom and 3 x 1-bedrom self contained flats involving first floor rear extension, glazed balustrades to form private/communal terraces to rear, external alterations and internal refuse bin and cycle storage (Resubmission)

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be approved.

Change of use of first and second floors from Use Class A1 (Retail) To Use Class C3 (Residential) to form 3 x 2-bedroom and 3 x 1-bedrom self contained flats involving first floor rear extension, glazed balustrades to form private/communal terraces to rear, external alterations and internal refuse bin and cycle storage (Resubmission).

Officers introduced the report in relation to 178-182 High Street, Ruislip and referred Members to the addendum sheet circulated.

The application site was currently a retail unit, located within a retail parade. The building was currently in use for retail at ground, first and second floor level. The application proposed to retain the retail use at ground floor level, while converting the upper floors into two, three bedroom units and three, one bedroom units to create six residential units in total.

A small extension to the building was proposed at first floor level, which would serve as lobby access to residential units at upper floor level. An existing staircase leading up to the first floor would be retained and utilised to enable the subdivision of the property. The main frontage to the High Street would not be changed. A small portion of the rear section of the retail unit would be used to provide storage for residential refuse and bicycles.

The application did not propose the creation of any car parking spaces. Two existing parking spaces to the rear of the site would be retained as part of the development. These would serve the retail unit, rather than the residential units. The application site was within walking distance of a number of bus routes and of Ruislip Station. On that basis, it was considered appropriate for the development to not have any residential parking spaces. It was noted that an application in relation to a car free development on the opposite side of High Street had been lost at appeal as the inspector had considered it acceptable for there to be a car free development in such a location. For this reason, officers considered that any refusal due to the proposals currently under consideration being car free would likely to be lost at appeal.

The initial plans submitted proposed a bin and cycle store in the location of the two existing off street parking spaces. Due to concern about the loss of the parking spaces, the refuse and cycle storage areas had been relocated. These changes to the proposals had been included in the addendum.

Concerns had been raised about the loss of retail use at the site. It was noted that there were national policies that required the provision of more mixed use town centres. Recent permitted development changes allowed offices above retail units to be converted automatically to residential usage without the need for planning permission. The premises were one of the few retail units in the area that extended above first floor level. The loss of retail use at first and second floor level was considered to be acceptable as it would provide much needed housing within the town centre location and it was not considered that such a reason for refusal would be substantiated upon appeal. Accordingly, officers recommended that the application be approved.

Members asked whether the communal roof terrace was considered to be large enough for the six flats proposed. Officers advised that the Residential Layouts guidance was flexible with regard to private amenity space for flats above retail units. There was no requirement for any space to be provided. It was, therefore, an additional benefit that there was this amenity space and a private patio for one of the flats. The size of the amenity space was not something that could be considered at appeal.

A Member stated that they did not have an issue with the development and noted that there was a park around a ten minute walk from the site. There was also sufficient access to public transport and there were other amenities in the local area. Another Member had no problem with the proposal as they were normalising what was happening elsewhere.

It was stated by a Committee Member that they did not normally favour a change of use from commercial to residential. He was pleased that some retail use would be retained, but was slightly concerned that no parking would be provided for the flats. This concern was shared by others, but on balance, it was felt that the need for extra residential provision was more important and also that the lack of parking provision was not likely to be defensible at appeal.

Due to A1 (retail) usage calculations only considering ground floor level use, there would not be a policy reason to refuse to application. Officers advised that they could find no valid planning grounds for refusing the application. In response to Member questions about the height of walls adjacent to roof terrace, private patio and stairs, the Chairman proposed that this be covered by planning conditions. There were no parking management schemes within the area so it would not be possible to specify that the occupants of the flats could not apply for parking.

The recommendation for approval of the application was moved, seconded and upon being put to a vote, was approved unanimously.

RESOLVED: That:

1.    The application be approved as per the officers' recommendation, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer's report and the addendum sheet circulated.

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to, in conjunction with the Chairman and Labour Lead, amend condition number 4 in relation to the walls adjacent to the roof terrace and balconies.