Agenda item

Application for the demolition of an existing Almshouse complex and the erection of 30 no. residential units (Use Class C3) (comprising 20 no. 1 bed replacement almshouse units, 2 no. 2 bed staff units and 8 no. 1 bed sheltered units), with office/meeting room, resident's cafe/social room, ancillary buildings and associated parking and landscaping.

Recommendation: Refusal

The item was approved, subject to conditions and s106.

Application for the demolition of an existing Almshouse complex and the erection of 30 no. residential units (Use Class C3) (comprising 20 no. 1 bed replacement almshouse units, 2 no. 2 bed staff units and 8 no. 1 bed sheltered units), with office/meeting room, residents' cafe/social room, ancillary buildings and associated parking and landscaping.

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

Officers explained that the application proposed the existing site was to be replaced with thirty units, and the key aspect of the application was the demolition of the local listed building currently situated on the site.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application, citing the building's architectural and historical importance, and its interesting and complimentary design in relation to the local area. While he conceded changes should be made to access within the building, these changes should be made without the damage or loss of the only locally listed historic building in the Rockingham Bridge conservation area.

Two petitioners then spoke in support of the application, and stated that the current building was no longer fit for purpose as an Almshouse and could not accommodate residents who were couples of had disabilities. The building had previously been retrofitted, but was now at the end of its economical life and some bedsits had been declared 'not fit for purpose' by Hillingdon Council. They remarked that the proposed redevelopment would help poor residents in the Borough, and the conservation of people was more important that the conservation of a place. Access within the building was a problem and resulted in some residents being forced to move from the complex, while most residents wished to live in a more modern building.

The representative for the application also commented that access was a huge concern and this resulted in residents having to move, while the proposed application would improve living conditions for residents and would be financed without public contribution. At present, there was no suitable amenity space for residents, and it was unreasonable to expect visitors to have to sit on beds.

In response to the Chairman's questioning, the representative confirmed that the current building was not full as they struggled to house residents on the first floor and accepted that the ground floor could be made more accessible with changes to the current building. The Head of Planning confirmed that the current building is not set up to be completely wheelchair accessible as it stands.

Councillors had undertaken a site visit before the meeting, and agreed that the Committee should not readily give permission to demolish a listed building. Members noted that a specific reason was needed to go against policy BE8 to preserve locally listed buildings, however the building in its current state was no longer fit for the purpose of housing elderly residents and Members highlighted the NPPF which states 'the harm or loss (of a Heritage Asset) is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use'. It was commented that without changes, the site in its current state would no longer be able to serve its purpose and it cannot be improved adequately as it stands; without changes to the building it may fall into disrepair which would benefit nobody.

Members agreed that the improved living conditions that were proposed, combined with the purpose of the building as an Almshouse, were beneficial enough to outweigh the loss of a Heritage Asset and it was of vital importance to supply suitable affordable housing for elderly residents of the Borough, something the current complex no longer provided. A Member of the Committee noted that the existing building had several recent additions and lacked a general public view, being largely concealed behind houses, which diminished the contribution to the local character.

The Chairman commented that concerns over access were valid, but the new building proposed only 10% of its units be wheelchair accessible (M4(3) units) and he would like the proposed application to allow step-free and wheelchair access for all residents. Members also agreed that they must provide affordable housing for residents, and confirmed that all the units proposed in the application should be supplied for that purpose.

The Committee confirmed that the proposal should include a 100% provision for M4(3), provide affordable housing for residents, ensure details of the cloister were agreed in consultation with the Chairman and Labour Lead and include materials to give the building a lighter appearance. Councillors also agreed that if the application was granted, a photographic record of the site in its current state should be taken and put in the library. The Head of Planning and Enforcement informed Members that as they were overturning a decision which had been recommended for refusal, other conditions would be added as were standard for approval of buildings of this type.

Councillors moved that the application be approved, subject to conditions on the materials, cloisters, photographic survey, M4(3) units and s106. This proposal was seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

-          That the application be approved, subject to additional conditions and s106 agreement.