Agenda item

Demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a 4 storey building with basement parking comprising 40 residential units with associated car parking, amenity space and landscaping. Amended plans and supporting information received.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be deferred.

Demolition of existing office building and re-development of the site to provide a 4 storey building with basement parking comprising 40 residential units with associated car parking, amenity space and landscaping. Amended plans and supporting information received.

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the application site was located at the southern end of Ruislip town centre, adjacent to the Grade II Listed Ruislip Underground Station and to the south of the Ruislip Village Conservation Area. The site comprised a modest two storey office building, and there were no objections to the loss of the office use or the building, which had little architectural or historical merit. There were no objections in principle to the site's residential re-development.

Following a number of pre-application submissions and a number of revisions to the current application, it was considered that the proposed building achieved an appropriate scale, massing and design for this prominent and sensitive site. The Council's Conservation/ Urban Design Officer had raised no further concerns with the scheme, subject to detailed design considerations and use of materials, which would be controlled by condition.

Members were informed that the scheme would not harm the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers. Although the scheme was slightly deficient in terms of satisfying amenity space standards, the scheme would predominantly provide studio and one bedroom flat accommodation within a town centre location, and in such circumstances design guidance advised that amenity space standards could be applied more flexibly. Currently the scheme met approximately 90% of the amenity space requirements, which was high for a town centre development, though this did rely on balconies to achieve that figure.

Therefore it was considered that the scheme, with all units having good sized balconies together with the provision of a good sized communal space, would provide an appropriate amount of amenity space and the standard of residential amenity afforded for its future occupiers would be satisfactory. It was highlighted that a park was located within easy walking distance of the application site.

The scheme would provide an appropriate level of off-street parking in the area, which had a high PTAL score, and the trip generation would not be detrimental to highway efficiency and/ or safety as compared to the existing trip generation of the office building. The scheme had also been carefully designed, with the building raised on its southern end to allow for flood waters to flow underneath, and provided appropriate mitigation so that the development would not result in flooding elsewhere. It was confirmed that the application had the support of the Council's Flood Advisor.

The scheme would safeguard the more important trees and ecological features on site and would provide additional trees and comprehensive landscaping, and included a green roof.

A total of 31 parking spaces were proposed, made up of 20 spaces, including 4 disabled spaces, in the basement (accessible via a car lift), together with 6 spaces located alongside the site entrance and 5 spaces retained from the previous office building. The proposal therefore achieved a parking ratio of 0.775 parking spaces per residential unit, which colleagues in Highways had confirmed was appropriate, given the high PTAL score.

Although the scheme did not provide any affordable housing, the scheme was supported by a Financial Viability Appraisal, which had been independently assessed and had confirmed that the inclusion of affordable homes would not be viable. It was confirmed that if the scheme was delayed, a review mechanism would be needed to review the finances of the scheme at that time, which formed part of the S106 Agreement. The scheme did make commensurate contributions to construction training, a travel plan bond, and public realm improvements in the area as part of the S106 agreement.

Considering the above, the application was accordingly recommended for approval subject to the S106 agreement, Heads of Terms, and conditions as set out in the report and as amended in the addendum.

Members sought further information regarding the absence of affordable housing from the scheme. Officers confirmed that the review mechanism referred to would become active if there was a significant delay in moving the scheme forward, intended to capture any uplift in value that could make a proportion of affordable housing viable, or to capture a payment in lieu of that affordable housing. The third party Financial Viability Appraisal conducted had confirmed that affordable housing was not viable on a scheme of this size, and therefore the applicant would need to increase the number of units in order to make such housing viable. The Committee was advised that the proposal could not be refused due to a lack of affordable housing.

Members were broadly supportive of the aesthetics of the proposed development, feeling that it was in keeping with the surrounding area. However, it was recognised that Station Approach was a busy road, with a high volume of buses. Concerns were raised at the proximity of the buses to the flats, which could render any balconies or windows unusable due to loss of privacy, noise and air pollution. Significant concerns were raised over the potential for harm to the occupants' health due to diesel fumes from the buses.

Additional concerns were raised regarding the suitability of disabled parking bays in a basement, serviced by a car lift. It was highlighted that should there be any problem with the lift, then disabled people could be left without access to their vehicle or even trapped within the basement. It was therefore felt that these bays should be relocated to the ground floor instead. Officers referred to comments received from the Council's Access officer, who had confirmed that such a concern could not form the basis of a refusal reason. It was explained that the decision to have the majority of parking underground was due to the compact nature of the site and the intention to limit any impact upon the adjoining development, whilst maximising the parking spaces available. It would therefore be difficult to change this aspect of the scheme.

Members referenced the officer's report, which stated that additional work was required relating to flooding issues. Officers confirmed that they were wholly satisfied that the concerns over flooding had been resolved, and drew the Committee's attention to the addendum which contained additional information relating to flood and water management issues. Members contended that such detail should be presented to them.

Officers confirmed that Unit 8 of the site had obscured glazing throughout, and requested that, if Members were minded to approve the application, that the Head of Planning be delegated authority to agree an additional condition relating to an area of defensive space for the occupants of that dwelling.

Officers went on to confirm that the delivery and service plan referred to within the report had been submitted with the original application. As this was a residential scheme, the only servicing requirement would relate to collection of refuse. A condition requesting a ramp for waste bins could be expanded upon to include management of the refuse collections. In addition, as this was a residential site in an area with a high PTAL score, the transport bond was of less impact.

Members moved that the application be deferred, until such time that officers could return to the Committee with a revised scheme that addressed the concerns listed above. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed (Councillor Duncan abstained from voting).

RESOLVED:  That the application be deferred.