Agenda item

Demolition of existing Doctors' Surgery and construction of new three storey (plus basement level parking) mixed use development comprising 9 residential apartments, a Doctors' Surgery and a Pharmacy.

Recommendation: That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that, had an appeal for nondetermination not been lodged, the application would have been refused for the reasons set out in the report.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Demolition of existing Doctors' Surgery and construction of new three storey (plus basement level parking) mixed use development comprising 9 residential apartments, a Doctors' Surgery and a Pharmacy.

The Chairman confirmed that the item had been accepted as an urgent addition to the agenda, following the applicant lodging an appeal for non-determination.  It was therefore a requirement that the Planning Committee's views be included in the submission to the Planning Inspectorate, which was due before the next scheduled North Planning Committee meeting.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that a similar application for the same site was presented to the Committee on 3 March 2016, and that on that occasion Members determined that, had an appeal for non-determination not been lodged, the application would have been refused as the proposed building was considered an overdevelopment of the site that would have resulted in the loss of open space. That application was also considered to have a detrimental impact on the siting of a nearby Grade II listed building, and on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The current application was a very similar scheme, with the main differences being that the irregular triangular shape building previously proposed had been squared-off at the corners, and the building had been set back further from Walsh Lodge, which had moved it closer to Deane Croft Road and the north western boundaries. The previous flat roof design had been revised to a mansard/crown roof.

Following the re-siting of the building closer to the trees on the north western boundary, the Tree Officer had advised that this could result in pressure from residents in the future to remove and/or carry out works to the trees. Since the previous appeal, it had now been established that the rearmost first floor side

facing window in the adjoining first floor flat at Walsh Lodge did not serve a habitable room, but a small kitchen which only had standing space. This, combined with the other changes made to the scheme, would no longer warrant a reason for refusal based on adverse impacts on adjoining residential amenity.

However, it was considered that the proposed changes had not overcome the Inspector's justification for dismissing the previous appeal on grounds of the building being intrusive and being detrimental to the openness of the site. As such, the officer's recommendation was to inform the Planning Inspectorate that, had an appeal not been lodged, that the application would have been refused for the reasons as set out in the report.

The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to the addendum, which contained the comments from the Eastcote Residents Association that had been omitted from the officer's report.

A petitioner addressed the Committee on behalf of the Eastcote Residents Association and the Eastcote Conservation Panel, in objection to the application.  The petitioner asserted that the new application did not address any of the concerns relating to height, size, bulk or overall design that had been raised against the previous application, and that the design was not in keeping with the existing character of the area.

The petitioner went on to confirm that they had no objection to the medical facilities being upgraded, but that the application did not contain any meaningful improvements to these facilities. Concerns were raised regarding the overshadowing of the kitchen in Walsh Lodge, as it was felt that this could have a detrimental impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the person using that room. In addition, private amenity space was referenced, and it was suggested that the rooftop gardens were not of a sufficient size and that, due to safety concerns, were not suitable for use by children or young families. It was requested that these issues be listed as additional reasons for refusal.

The Chairman read a statement from the Eastcote and East Ruislip Ward Councillors, which confirmed that they supported the residents' objection to the proposal, and requested that the application be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment and design.

Responding to the petitioner's points regarding the overshadowing of the kitchen in Walsh Court, officers confirmed that this was an issue not fully resolved previously. An officer had therefore visited the site to measure the kitchen, which was shown to be under 9 sqm total size. As the guidelines stated that a habitable room must be over 13 sqm, refusal could not be based on this point. Moving to the roof gardens, it was confirmed that the amenity space, inclusive of the gardens and the front terrace, met the minimum required standards of 215 sqm. Fencing to secure the roof gardens could be a suggested condition, were the Inspectorate minded to uphold the applicant's appeal.

Members confirmed that they were supportive of the recommendation as set out in the report. This was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.