Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 blocks (part 4, 5, 8, 9 and 12 storeys) to provide 267 self-contained units (32 x studios, 107 x 1- bedroom, 115 x 2-bedroom and 13 x 3-bedroom) with commercial floorspace at ground floor level (Use Classes A1, A2, A3 and B1) and associated landscaping, including public realm improvements, provision of 9 accessible car parking spaces and ancillary works. (Amendments include design changes and increase of 3 units)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Councillor David Yarrow declared a non-pecuniary interest as he had prior involvement with the application. He did not vote and left the room during discussion of the item.   

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 blocks (part 4, 5, 8, 9 and 12 storeys) to provide 267 self-contained units (32 x studios, 107 x 1- bedroom, 115 x 2-bedroom and 13 x 3-bedroom) with commercial floor space at ground floor level (Use Classes A1, A2, A3 and B1) and associated landscaping, including public realm improvements, provision of 9 accessible car parking spaces and ancillary works. Officers made a recommendation for refusal and highlighted the addendum.

Three petitioners spoke in objection of the planning application. Members had regard to the additional photographs submitted by the petitioners which were circulated to Members, officers and the agent prior to the meeting.

The first petitioner took the Members through the photographs and explained what each photograph showed.  In summary, the petitioner submitted that the proposed development would overlook a number of back gardens on Lancaster Road and the height and rear access of the development would mean a constant flow of people accessing walkways close to the already existing properties. Families on Lancaster Road would feel vulnerable with their children playing outside and there were also concerns raised about light pollution. The size, height and bulk of the proposed development would be unsympathetic to the local area and there would also be a large amount of shadowing to local gardens. To conclude, the petitioner stated that the current development would be an eye sore to the current town centre landscape, it was not in keeping with the local surroundings and there were no other buildings in the area that imposed on resident properties in such a way. There would be a loss of natural light and there would be disturbance and a detrimental impact on residents.

The second petitioner submitted that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site, as it was too large, too high, not in keeping with the local surroundings and adding pressure to local services and infrastructures. It also involved the loss of two valued retail outlets which had been used by local residents for some 25 years. The nearest equivalents were six miles away.  There was already a huge pressure on the area with the substantial growth of housing stock in Uxbridge. St Andrews Park was an example where there was already an impact on GPs, schools and other essential services. Until there was an enhancement of in the size and scope of GP practice services, additional strains should not be allowed. The addition of 500 sum occupiers would add additional pressure on roads and pavements. The scale of the proposed development disregarded the local buildings, conservation areas and diminished the local character adversely. Concerns were also raised about the privacy of occupiers and there was a worry that there was limited opportunity for natural light which could have a negative impact on residents’ health.

The third petitioner highlighted issues around car parking and submitted that it was beyond comprehension that a car free development was ever considered for the site. Public transport was the norm for Central and inner London areas, however in Uxbridge, an outer London area, it was unsuitable. The petitioner submitted that to include eight residential spaces and one commercial space was ludacris for 267 homes. The development was not in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards, which were reaffirmed in 2017. The Council considered 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling to be reasonable, the petitioner questioned why the developer should be allowed to override this. There would be an abuse of parking restrictions, and there were already parking pressures in the area. Using public transport or bike was not always a viable solution. Secondly, the petitioner highlighted the increase pressures on traffic congestion, with regular vehicles entering and exiting the development as a result of online deliveries. If the site was to be gated then traffic queues were more than likely leading to an increase on traffic congestion during rush hours.  On Sunday when restrictions did not apply, more cars were parked on the roads, already causing difficulty driving down roads. 

Representatives of the application addressed the Committee. The applicant submitted that the group was a 228 year old residential developer, undertook their own construction and managed completed developments. This site offered all the characteristics of a successful development, sat within a vibrant centre, and provided occupiers easy access to shops and employment. The scheme included a gym and the development would not be gated. Retails parks were becoming increasingly redundant, inaccessible and not formally protected for planning policies. They were sustainable locations for optimising residential developments, which could bring a range of economic benefits. It was appreciated and recognised that the proposed development would change the landscape from a low density retail park. Policy requirements were all kept in mind. Change and improvements had been made as result of the comments which were demonstrated in the reduction of residential properties from 300 to 267 homes. Making the best use of previously developed sites in metropolitan areas had been benefited from planning policies. Council now faced new housing targets and the site was one that could be brought forward quickly. Representatives confirmed that legal advisors wrote to officers highlighting a number of concerns about the officers’ report. Representatives noted that the 46 new trees had not been added to the report. The GLA considered the development to be in line with London plans. Representatives submitted that there were a number of refusal reasons which could be negotiated further. There had been limited time to respond to all the points and the officers’ report.

In response to Member questions, it was confirmed that the development was not a gated access and the ground floor mixed use element of the development would be used by residents of the development. Further, it was noted that negotiation had been ongoing for 18 months and the size of the development had reduced by 15 % so there had been cooperation with officers.

Councillor Martin Goddard, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North, addressed the Committee and accepted that there was a pressing need to increase housing stock in London. Hillingdon had exceeded its annual targets and in December 2017 outlook indicated an overachievement of homes.  In summary, this application placed a disregard for Uxbridge residents. If this regime was allowed, there would be in an increase on parking congestion, overshadowing local homes, loss of two retail sites, harm to heritage and pressure on local resources.  There were six petitions against this application with signatures from 267 local residents. 142 comments and objections were also received in contrast to 46 comments in support, who were mainly from students who would not necessarily be long term residents. The applicant had submitted a document that showed only 11 residents had been spoken to as part of the consultation process. The residents of Hillingdon did not want this development and requested for officers to add over dominance, loss of privacy and overshadowing to properties as factors in refusal reason 7.

The Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration advised the Committee, in response to the request for an amendment/addition to refusal reason 7, there was an average of up to 40 metres between the development and Lancaster road. The size and scale of the development would not be just to Lancaster Road but other properties near the site. When there were large number of properties affected, these properties are not specified. The refusal reasons in the report were sufficient and the change proposed was not accepted. There was a concern about the agent retaining current landscape rather than planting 46 new trees.

The Legal Advisor confirmed to the Committee that the statutory procedure needed to be followed when planning applications were made and reports to be considered by Members needed to be published at least five clear working days in advance. This requirement had been fulfilled as the agenda was published on 11 February 2019 and the correct statutory procedure had been followed. There was no obligation on councils to go back to developers/ applicants when the report had been published asking for further comments. If the Council had to do this. It would be difficult to make a decision on any planning application as further comments would always be submitted.   Therefore, the Legal Advisor was satisfied that there was a lawful basis for Members to make a decision on this application.

Members considered that the application was out of character and not in keeping with what was already there. It was noted that the retail units could fail, remain unoccupied leading to disrepair. It was also noted that there was a housing requirement in Hillingdon, however this needed to be done in the right place with the right density. After taking into account all the information before it and hearing from both the petitioners and representatives of the application, Members took the view that this development was not in the right area.

Members questioned whether reasons in the daylight and sunlight report could be included as a refusal reason. The Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration confirmed that the guidelines allowed a degree of shadowing of gardens and this would not form a refusal reason.

Members considered it important to identify all the shortcomings in the report. It was questioned whether accessibility was adequate for all blocks as there was only one lift. Officers confirmed that the applicant had responded to this and the access officer was satisfied.

Members noted the potential development of the adjoining police station site and the fact that policies prevented development that impinged/blighted upon neighbouring properties. Members questioned whether this could constitute a refusal. Officers confirmed that Given the separation distances, this would not be a strong grounds for refusal, the site is also not an allocated site within the emerging local plan.

The Committee then moved, seconded and unanimously agreed the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation and amendments in the addendum.