Agenda item

RECONSULTATION - Demolition of existing buildings (Use Class B8) and erection of 110 self-contained (16 one-bedroom, 84 two-bedroom and ten three-bedroom) units (Use Class C3), Community Use (Class D1 Use), and the provision of car parking, associated landscaping, drainage and other other ancillary work (changes include addition of community facility).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application was refused.

RECONSULTATION - Demolition of existing buildings (Use Class B8) and erection of 110 self-contained (16 one-bedroom, 84 two-bedroom and ten three-bedroom) units (Use Class C3), Community Use (Use Class D1), and the provision of car parking, associated landscaping and other ancillary work (changes include addition of community facility).

Officers introduced the application, which sought the demolition of an existing warehouse building and erection of a part-two, part-three, part-four, part-five, part-six and part-eight storey building to provide 110 self-contained units, including excavation of a basement to provide car parking, associated landscaping, drainage and other ancillary work.

Two petitions were submitted in opposition to the application, and the petitioners addressed the Committee, noting that the application was an overdevelopment of the area, out of keeping in the street scene, would overlook neighbouring properties, adversely affect local amenity, increase noise and air pollution and lead to further traffic and congestion.

The agent for the application informed the Committee that the scheme relates to vacant brownfield land and includes a mix of one to three-bed units with an on-site community facility and policy-compliant parking arrangements. The proposal included 35% affordable homes, a the scheme had been revised to reduce the overall height of the buildings, and the setback of the proposed communal roof terrace on lower levels to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties. Members also heard that the application passed overshadowing tests, and there would not be an adverse impact on traffic.

Councillor Ahmad-Wallana, Ward Councillor for Yiewsley, submitted a written statement to the Council opposing the proposed development. The Committee heard that the application was overbearing and out of character with the surrounding area, and the proposed height of the building was still far too high. While Councillor Ahmad-Wallana accepted that a build of some nature was inevitable on the site, but the proposed building was too imposing and intrusive on the residents, and out of keeping with the existing Victorian terraced houses in Winnock Road. Members also heard that any increase in accommodation would increase road traffic, and unless the road layout was revised to enable better traffic flow in the area and further discussions with the developer take place, the application should be refused.

The Committee noted that the proposal was well-designed and supported brownfield development, but remained too high, and by virtue of its bulk and size it remained an overdevelopment, and as a suburban development it was unsympathetic to neighbouring properties.

Members questioned the impact of the development on local amenity and traffic, and the Transport and Aviation Manager confirmed the former use of the site (Use Class B8) generated a lot of traffic, and the trip generation that would be associated with the new proposal would be less than, or similar to the previous traffic generation.  The Head of Planning and Enforcement also confirmed that the proposal would have less impact on sunlight and daylight than the existing building and the impact was acceptable on balance, according to the BRE Guide.

Councillors commented that the size, bulk and visual impact of the proposal on the street scene, particularly on Winnock Road, were unacceptable and a recommendation to refuse the application, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to agree the final wording of the reasons for refusal, in conjunction with the Chairman and Labour Lead, was moved.

The proposal to refuse the application was then put to a vote and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused, subject  to delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to agree wording of the reasons for refusal, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Committee and Labour Lead Member.