Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings (Use Class B8) and erection of 104 self-contained (20 x 1-bedroom, 75 x 2-bedroom and 9 x 3-bedroom) units (Use Class C3), Community Space (Use Class D1), and the provision of car parking, associated landscaping, drainage and other ancillary work.

Recommendation: Approval + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved + Sec 1-6 to include addendum changes.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of existing buildings (USE Class B8) and erection of 104 self contained (20 X 1 - bedroom, 75 x 2 - bedroom and 0 x 3 - bedroom) units (Use Class C3), Community space (Class D1), and the provision of car parking, associated landscaping, drainage and other ancillary work.

Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

Two petitioners shared the five minutes speaking time and spoke in objection of the application. In total the petitions had in excess of 400 signatures against the application.

In summary, the first petitioner submitted that the petition signatories strongly objected to the tower block development and it was out of character. The petitioner requested bungalows with affordable housing not flats with balconies overlooking neighbouring properties. The rapid erection of high density flats has shocked residents and there is a concern on local nurseries, schools and surgeries. The impact of traffic had increased and the level of pollution had increased in the area.

The second petitioner reiterated the points raised by the first petitioner. The petitions submitted that the latest application was only seven dwelling smaller than the previous application that was refused. This application was still grossly overdeveloped in terms of bulk, size, height and overlooking existing housing.  It was far too high for the street scene and traffic in the area would increase. The Comag site is site is directly next to two storey Edwardian villas and close to housing estate. Residents are already experiencing anti social behaviour caused by the densely populated over developed site. Local residents have had to change their way of life to live. There is no local infrastructure to support this type of development.

Both petitioners asked for the application to be refused.

The applicant's agent addressed the Committee. The agent spoke in support of the application. He drew the Committee's attention to a number of key points. Since the previous application, the applicant had worked closely with officers to respond to the concerns raised and work on the reasons for refusal.  The applicant has active dialogue with local residents. The revised application has reduced size, bulk and is smaller in scale, reducing form 8 to 7 storey and reduction in height from 5 to 4 storey. There has been a redesign and features traditional roofs reflecting the local character. This is a town centre site within 100 m of the cross rail location and we are obliged to make benefit of this. Affordable housing - the scheme provides 35 % affordable housing including family size accommodation. Parking is provided with a ratio of 1 for 1 alongside electronic parking points. and there are motor cycle spaces. In terms o highways, the scheme will result in a net reduction in vehicle trips compared to current vehicle use on the site. Amenity - all new homes will have the appropriate distance in accordance with policy. Boundaries have been set back to avoid overlooking. All neighbouring amenity spaces have passed the overshadowing test. There will be no unacceptable use of light, overlooking or privacy. He urged the Committee to follow the officer's recommendation.

In response to Member question in relation to sun lighting and residents would not be impacted adversely. The agent confirmed that the question was whether it was significant adverse effect on daylight and sun light to the rear of the property the existing development comes close to the boundary and there may be changes but it was considered that there would be an adequate level of day light and sunlight.

Cllr Shehryar Ahmed Wallana, Ward Councillor for Yiewsley addressed the Committee. He summarised the proposed changes to the development. The foot print of existing. He submitted that the applicant could agree to reduce the foot print. His main concerns was to impact on residents and unoess the building was minimised then a resubmitted application should to be refused.

Members clarified whether the bulk of the property was the same. At the back of the site a storey has been taken off. When the site visit was undertaken. The wider area, the overall character of the area was varied and is mixed in architecture and use of materials.

Members commented that the site visit was useful. The developers have gone some way to address the concerns raised previously and this was a better scheme then the previous one. There were still some remaining concerns in relation to a tree on the corner. The Chairman drew Member's attention to the addendum in relation to the tree. There was a doubt whether the tree could be retained. There was a commitment that if the tree had to come out then a substantial tree would have to go back in.

Members questioned the town houses. All the other town houses had straightforward picture roofs. This roof had a gable and was not similar to neighbouring roofs. There was no attempt to step it down. Members acknowledged accepted that there was a transition period but should not take a cost on existing residents. The bulk on Winnock road was too great compared with neighbouring properties. Parking, allocated spaces and electronic vehicle charging points were all good factors. But bulk was still an issue for some Members.

Officers clarified that this was a new development and the area was changing. It provided some form of transition from new to old. The current proposal takes greater steps to addressing some the previous concerns raised. Day light and sun light reports was a significant concern, based on the BRE guidelines, the property on Winnock Road  caulations there is no loss of light.

Officers confriemd that Sururban location, it is. Have to take to ake ito account the local and regional and national plan which are to opitimise development. It is in accordance with planign policie. There is a mixed use of material s but the use of materials can be used to integrate thorough a materials condition.

Members refused this once and laid down regulations and changes, and now these have now been met form the plans. Concerns have been addressed. I touwl dnot be in the best interest, this ia balanced amendment to a plan that was properly rejected due to its impact on residents. The bulking and the mass has been adjusted so that it meets some of the concerns with regards to the urban setting. Manages a reasonable transition. Impact of sun light day light there have been proper studies which demonstrate that they are acceptable. Bound by the report hat says the mipact will b eless. Concern that if rejected, the appeal will go ahead and clear the intenrion around crossrail will happen. The policies support that and to reject this would be a bad move for residents.

Notwithstandindg this, some details could be refined. There were concerns about riaisng the boundary to ov provide security and provide overlooking. That might be advantageous on secure by design approach. Officers confimed that a condition could be implemented to read not withstanding plans. Wording be delegated to officers.

Members noted that the previous application was under appeal. Considered that this was application in the best interests of residents. Members were sympathetic towards residents.

The Chairman noted that removing from permitted development rights as this was no applicable to flats. Conditions are put only prior to comencment when they are genuinely necessary.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, there five vots in favour and three votes against.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per offcier's recommendations, subject to

a)  sec 106 agreement

b)   the changes in the addendum

c)  delegate authority to the Head of Planning, in consultation with the Chairman and Labour Lead, to draft, review and finalise the conditions. Add condition stating ‘notwithstanding the stairs shown on plans hereby approved adjoining 2 Winnock Road, revised submissions for these steps shall be submitted in writing for approval’

d)  Impose a condition which seeks the removal of any future PD which may permit roof extensions

RESOLVED: That the application be approved + Sec 106 to include addendum changes.