Agenda item

Demolition of existing Class A3 café and erection of building to comprise 13 residential units (Use Class C3) and two retail units (Use Class A1), with associated parking.

Recommendation: Refusal

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

Demolition of existing Class A3 café and erection of building to comprise 13 residential units (Use Class C3) and two retail units (Use Class A1), with associated car parking.

Officers introduced the application, noted the addendum, and made the Committee aware that comments in the report that noted flooding as a reason for refusal would be removed.

A petitioner spoke on behalf of the Ivy Cottages Residents’ Association, and noted that there were over 100 signatures supporting the petition. The Committee heard that the application was sited in a historic hamlet, and was not in keeping with the street scene and an overdevelopment. The petitioner also stated that the proposal would result in a loss of sunlight, privacy and views and would have an impact on material standard of living. The proposal would exacerbate access and traffic issues, and affect pedestrian access in an area with many young and old residents. The petitioner confirmed that residents were not opposed to a development, but this application was detrimental to the local area.

Responding to questioning from Members, the petitioner noted that the site was accessed via the private road owned by Ivy Cottages, and developers had not asked the residents for permission to use their road, while the proposal sought two-way access to the road, while the current arrangement was a one-way system with the owners granted an easement onto their land.

Councillor Richard Mills, Ward Councillor for Brunel, addressed the Committee and stated that the proposal was an overdevelopment, overbearing, not in keeping with the street scene and intrusive and visually prominent. Members heard that the building was currently set back in the site, but the proposal was right to the site boundary, and constituted an inappropriate development. Responding to Committee questioning, Councillor Mills noted that the current one-way access was not a problem and was not intrusive for the residents of Ivy Cottages, but the proposed arrangement would lead to an increase in traffic.

The Chairman noted that the Planning Committee were not involved in matters of road ownership. The Highways Officer also stated that the proposed access was deemed acceptable, as although it was not ideal for cars to reverse out of the private road, this already took place.

Councillors stated that the proposed boundary wall would conflict with vehicles and leave them unsighted when leaving the site, which would cause a danger to pedestrians. The Committee was concerned that the access point was onto Uxbridge Road, which is a classified highway and that the access point was also very close to the busy junction with Long lane.

The Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration advised Committee that the NPPF required them to consider whether the access issue caused a severe impact on highway safety, and that the highway engineer had been mindful of this when stating that the access was acceptable. The Committee confirmed it did consider the impact to be severe. It was suggested by the Chairman that the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration noted the concerns of the Committee and reviewed the access arrangements.

The Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration advised the Committee that they needed to make a decision on the access due to the non-determination appeal. Members then agreed that the access was not safe and that this should form an additional refusal reason.

Members agreed that the application disregarded local policies and adversely affected local residents, and moved and seconded the officer’s recommendation, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to agree final wording of the access issue as a further reason for refusal. Upon being put to a vote, the recommendation was unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be rejected, subject to delegated authority to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to add an additional reason for refusal regarding the access being detrimental to highway safety.