Agenda item

Redevelopment of the site to provide a new three storey building containing 26 flats (Class C3) with associated parking, balconies, landscaping and rear communal amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval

This item was approved, subject to satisfactory information on drainage and flooding management being provided to the Chairman of the Committee and Labour Lead.

Officers introduced the application and, noting the addendum, provided an overview of the development. It was noted that, in the view of officers, the reasons for the previous refusal had been overcome. Officers additionally clarified that the development featured no basement.

Petitioners, speaking in objection, raised the following points:

·         Though the omission of the roof garden was welcome, the proposal remained a massive overdevelopment which would not harmonise with the area. It would dominate the area, and therefore previous reasons for refusal remained.

·         The scale of the development, with 120 units per hectare, contravened the Hillingdon Local Plan.

·         The number of parking spaces was insufficient to accommodate visitors, and access to the car park at the rear would be unpleasant for neighbours, and the proposed light, wooden fencing was insufficient. As the car park was not secure, this would lead to problems for neighbouring houses.

·         Officers had given insufficient attention to traffic, especially given the new school development, and Members should note the cumulative effect of new development and not consider this application in isolation.

·         The crossing into the car park would be dangerous.

·         The building would lead to loss of light for neighbours

·         In a leafy, suburban area the development was not appropriate.

In response to a Member question, petitioners claimed that the loss of light was not minimal, as officers had stated, as the building height was only being reduced by 1 metre.

In response, the agent for the applicant raised the following points:

·         Regarding height, scale and bulk, the proposed 4^th floor had been removed, which was actually a 3.4 metre reduction. The roof was pitched to match neighbouring properties, and was not overbearing.

·         The proposed development had been reduced by 4 units, and the roof terrace removed.

·         The car park had been redesigned to permit a 3 metre planting area between cars and Sutton Court properties.

·         The scheme met tests for preserving daylight and not overshadowing. It preserved the residential amenity for neighbours.

·         The development had 60% more amenity space than guidelines.

·         The Highways Officer had raised no concerns regarding parking or impact on the highway.

·         In conclusion, the application fully overcame the previous reasons fro refusal.

A Member of the Committee asked for clarification of any reduction in sunlight to nearby properties, to which the agent drew attention to a slide showing that the proposed development was within the 25 degree angle for properties to the north, and explained that the ridge height was lower than the current pub.

A Ward Councillor, speaking in objection, addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         Though the designs represented an improvement on previous plans, it was in essence the same scheme, still excessive in scale, bulk, massing, and detrimental to the surrounding area.

·         Local properties were mostly Victorian terraces, and the development would not harmonise with the local area.

·         The proposed parking was within guidelines, but the notion that the overspill would be acceptable was questionable.

·         Even with minor greening, the parking was still concentrated near to Sutton Court.

A Member of the Committee asked whether the area was affected by flooding, to which the Ward Councillor responded that recent flooding had submerged gardens in the vicinity. Though this was currently not a regular occurrence, it was suspected that tarmacing a currently green area would worsen this.

Moving into the deliberations, the Chairman summarised the issues raised as density, shadowing, flooding concerns and parking. In response, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that the density was higher than average for a suburban area, but the application could not be refused on density alone.

The Flood Management Officer had stated in their report that the drainage scheme proposed was likely to lead in a reduction in flooding risk, but planning officers could only provide the executive summary and did not have the detail in the meeting, so could only inform the Committee that officers were satisfied regarding flood prevention. Members commented that they required more information on the mechanisms in order to make their decision.

Following discussion, Members of the Committee agreed that height scale and bulk were not problematic, but the proposed parking design remained a concern. Officers drew Member attention to the solid timber fence, designed to be imperforate, and the need for the placement of the car park as designed to avoid overshadowing.

Members remained concerned about flooding, but agreed that information could subsequently separately be provided to the Chairman and Labour Lead to assess.

A motion for approval was moved, seconded and, upon being out to a vote, was agreed by a majority of 7 to 1.

RESOLVED:

Approved subject to satisfactory information on drainage being provided to Chairman and Labour Lead.