Agenda item

Change of use of ground floor from a residential property (Use Class C3) to a mixed use comprising a Veterinary Clinic (Use Class D1) at ground floor and 1 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed self-contained flats (Use Class C3) at first floor involving part two storey, part single storey rear extensions, demolition of element to side and associated car parking including part of the rear garden.

Recommendation: Refusal

Change of use of ground floor from a residential property (Use Class C3) to a mixed use comprising a Veterinary Clinic (Use Class D1) at ground floor and 1 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed self-contained flats (Use Class C3) at first floor involving part two storey, part single storey rear extensions, demolition of element to side and associated car parking including part of the rear garden.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted corrections to the stated reasons for refusal and site plans, as set out in the addendum.

A petition in objection to the application had been lodged, and Councillor Riley  addressed the Committee on behalf of the lead petitioner, who was not present. Councillor Riley confirmed that the application site was situated within a highly residential area, on a busy major road and bus route, situated close to the Ruislip bus station.

Councillor Riley asserted that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on family life for residents within the area due to noise, pollution, and danger, with specific reference made to the size of the proposed development, the resultant increase in traffic, and the proposed parking at the rear of the premises. As the nature of the business was that appointments were often brief, there were concerns that the throughput of traffic, seven days a week, would be very high. Residents were also concerned at the potential for disturbance through the night, as clients would be attending the clinic in the event of any emergency.

The size and mass of the development, and the resultant overlooking of neighbouring properties, was cited as concerns, with no mitigation to address these concerns outlined. For these reasons, 58 residents of Pembroke Road had signed a petition in objection to the proposal, and the Councillor therefore requested that the application be refused.

The applicant then addressed the Committee, confirming that the veterinary practice had been operating from the premises since 1946 and therefore required renovation and expansion. However, it was deemed impossible to close the practice whilst the work was conducted, and it was not possible to operate from an alternative location.

As one of the last independent practices in the area, the clinic was competing with several corporate surgeries. The majority of the practice's clients lived within a 2 mile radius, and included a large number of guide dogs and RSPCA cases, with the practise being partnered with RSPCA Hillingdon. Were the practise to close, the charity would no longer be able to offer services within the area, which would further impact upon local residents.  In developing no. 54 as proposed, the practice could continue to operate and then move to the new premises, once the development work had been completed.

The applicant confirmed that, as set out in the plans, there would be no change to the residential units available. The extensions would be sloping, with the majority being single storey, and it was asserted that the protection of trees within the area was irrelevant to the Committee's decision, as the practice was free to remove these as they saw fit. Current parking at the premises was inadequate and dangerous, and therefore required expansion to meet client demand and safety. Rear access parking had been cited as a concern, but would only be available during clinic operating hours and would be unavailable after 8pm. The applicant referred to three large residential properties that had been built close to the application site, which had included parking at the rear. Planning permission had been granted for these developments, including the rear parking, and it was suggested that the same decision making criteria should be applied to this application.

The petitioner referenced the 58 signatures received in objection, but confirmed that 828 signatures, together with over 30 letters, had been received in support of the application. The applicant concluded by asserting that, as a popular and valued service for the community, the practise should be protected, and requested that the Committee visit the site before making a decision.

Members commented that, although they recognised the valued service that the practice provided and sympathised with the applicant, the proposal would have too great a detrimental impact on the quality of life of the local residents, and did not meet the Council's policies.  As a result, the Committee moved the officer's recommendation, which was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

Resolved -    That the application was refused.