Agenda item

Erection of a three storey building, to create 16 x 2 bed self-contained residential units, together with associated landscaping and parking.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:

The application was refused.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Officers also highlighted the addendum. Planning permission was sought for the erection of a three storey building, to create 16 x 2 bed self-contained residential units, together with associated landscaping and parking. Officers made a recommendation for approval.

Some Members expressed concerns at building residential properties on land which was also being used for business purposes. There were factories that were open 24/7 on the site and it was considered that those businesses would be forced to close due to noise concerns that could be raised by residents.  

Members discussed the level of protection companies already working on the site would have. Some Members were also concerned about having a childrens' play area opposite the site, and that the amenity area, air pollution and traffic noise was in a poor situation. Members commented that the design of the proposed works were poor.

Some Members expressed that the application could not be refused on the use of the site, as there site had changed its principle use. The change of use to residential had been established. Further, some Members commented that the noise and air quality issues had been covered in the report.

Officers confirmed that the principle use of the land had been lost. Officers accepted that this was a largely unfettered industrial business area that could operate 24/7 and it was also one of the sites included Hillingdon's proposed Article 4 direction which will go through in November 2017. Any future changes of use will require permission from November 2017. Officers explained that given the comments from EPU, the noise surveys submitted, and the conditions proposed by EPU, it would be difficult to sustain a refusal on the basis that it would create future disturbances on the property from the IBA.

Officer summarised the issues raised by Members. Members would not be able to defend a decision that it was unacceptable to create residential property as the principle use of the land, as an industrial business use, had been removed.  Residential environment in terms of impact on future occupants have been covered in the report, however if Members were not satisfied with the points raised in the report, they could use this as a basis for refusal. The quality of the amenity space had been covered in the report, if Members considered this to be unacceptable, they could use it as a reason for refusal. The issue of design such as appearance and sighting would be difficult to refuse on given the mixed design of developments within the area.

A recommendation to refuse was proposed on the basis of the impact of noise, disturbance, quality of outdoor play areas for children and quality of amenity space being provided for future occupiers

Members moved to overturn the officers' recommendation and seconded, and upon being put to a vote, there were four votes in favour, three against and one abstention.

It was noted that Councillors Peter Curling, Janet Duncan and John Oswell asked for their vote against overturning the officers' recommendation be recorded.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee:

1) refused the application and;

2) delegate to the Chairman and Labour Lead, to confirm the reasons for refusal.