Agenda item

Erection of 47 flats in two blocks, with associated parking, new access, amenity space and landscaping, involving demolition of existing warehouse, offices and 80 Rockingham Road.

Recommendation: Approval, subject to a S106 agreement

Erection of 47 flats in two blocks, with associated parking, new access, amenity space and landscaping, involving demolition of existing warehouse, offices and 80 Rockingham Road.

(Councillor Morgan arrived at 18.10. As Councillor Morgan was not present for the entirety for the item, he did not take part in any discussion, and did not vote on the item)

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum which clarified the unit mix of the proposed affordable housing. The proposal was considered to have addressed the previous reasons for refusal with regard to design, form, height and scale.

It was confirmed that the proposed buildings had been positioned away from neighbouring properties and that officers were satisfied that their height and bulk would not result in overbearing on the surrounding area, or detract from the amenities of adjoining occupiers, by reason of loss of light, privacy or outlook. The Council's Highways Engineer was satisfied with the parking arrangements, along with the improvements to the access. The revised proposal included 0.83 parking spaces per unit. Officers recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions including noise mitigation.

A petition objecting to the application was received, but the petitioner was not present to speak.

The Agent for the applicant addressed the Committee, informing them that the applicant was expanding their business and was due to sign a lease for a larger business unit that would enable greater employment opportunities, and the approval of this application would support this. The application was in support of the Local and London Plan policy for the release of surplus industrial land for housing, and as the Borough currently had an oversupply of employment land and an undersupply of housing land, the proposal for redevelopment of the land for residential use was therefore justified and policy compliant.

The Committee was informed that the applicant had worked closely and extensively alongside officers including planning, conservation, highways and environmental protection, as well as the Canal and Rivers Trust, and that no objections had been received from officers or consultees.

The Agent asserted that the scheme reflected the local character of the area and was respectful of the area's setting. Concerns over height, scale and mass had been addressed, with the proposal significantly reduced in both mass and density, to reflect the scale of the buildings opposite. A glazed section had been introduced to visually split the buildings along the canal. The proposal would not harm heritage assets, including the nearby Grade 2 listed building, and would conserve and refurbish the World War 2 era pillbox and 19^th century walls and railings along Dolphin Bridge.

The canalside environment would be enhanced through a landscaping scheme to be agreed with the Council's Landscaping officer, Conservation officer, and the Canal and Rivers Trust, which would provide public access and significant visual improvements to this part of the Grand Union Canal.

A scheme of noise mitigation works had been agreed with officers and was supported by the environmental protection unit and the Canal and Rivers Trust. These measures would ensure that the future operation of the Uxbridge Boatyard would not be affected by the development of housing on the site.

The Agent asserted that no objections had been received from the Council's Flooding and Drainage officer or Highways officer, and the parking ratio of 0.83 was supported by the Highways officer and had been accepted by the Council on other schemes. The applicant was committed to planning obligation contributions towards affordable housing, construction training, noise attenuation and canalside improvements, through the S106 agreement.

Members expressed their views that while the reduced scale of the proposal was improved over previous applications, concerns relating to design and appearance, parking ratios, and noise, remained. Members were concerned that the materials to be used in the construction, and the angular design of the proposed residential buildings, were not in keeping with the existing aesthetic of the area. In addition, the proposed site was in an area of high parking stress, and members were unconvinced that the parking ratio of 0.83 per unit, and the noise mitigation measures suggested, would prove sufficient to allay their concerns. For these reasons, it was moved that the application be refused. This proposal was seconded, and unanimously agreed.

Resolved -    That the application was refused.