Agenda item

Redevelopment to provide 87 residential units in two blocks, together with associated access, car and cycle parking; communal and private amenity space; and landscaping

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED:  That the application be deferred.

Redevelopment to provide 87 residential units in two blocks, together with associated access, car and cycle parking; communal and private amenity space; and landscaping

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. It was confirmed that the plans circulated as part of the meeting pack were incorrect, and a set of updated plans had been forwarded to all Committee Members prior to the meeting. Officers advised that the plans consulted on, and present on the website, were correct.

Planning history of the site was outlined, and the Committee was reminded that consent had been granted on 14/11/2017 for the redevelopment of the site to provide 69 residential units with associated car parking and amenity space.

The application to be considered was seeking permission to redevelop the site to provide 87 residential flats with associated works included landscaping, amenity space and car parking. This was an increase in the number of proposed units and respective car parking spaces, through a simplified and improved design when compared to the extant scheme. The revised scheme would comprise 3 storey units at a maximum overall height of 9m, in line with comments made by officers and the Ministry of Defence. The new scheme provided better communal amenity space, including larger amenity space for family units.

Although local objections and a petition opposing the scheme had been received, there were no objections to the principle of development, living conditions for future occupiers, or impact on the street scene, landscaping, or amenity of nearby occupiers, and the application was recommended for approval.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, and highlighted the following points:

·         Residents had concerns over the size of the development and its impact on local services such as schools, GP surgeries and dentists, which were already overstretched.

·         The development would result in further congestion on what was a very busy road and junction.

·         Although the development made provision for cycle sheds, there were no cycle lanes and pedestrians were in danger from cyclists on pavements, as cyclists were fearful that cycling on the road was too dangerous due to the heavy traffic.

·         The report incorrectly listed screened windows as being on the 3^rd floor of Unit A, but were instead on the ground floor of Unit B. Concerns remained over privacy and overlooking from balconies.

Members asked the petitioner a number of questions, including a request for further information regarding the damage to residential property referred to within the report, and whether there were any properties in Canfield Drive that had extensions. The petitioner was unable to advise on the nature of the damage, but confirmed that most properties within Canfield Drive had single-storey rear extensions.

The Chairman read a statement on behalf of Councillor Allan Kauffman, Ward Councillor for South Ruislip:

·         Councillor Kauffman expressed his concerns that the development would exacerbate existing problems with traffic entering or exiting the development site.

·         Station Approach was a single carriageway and one of the busiest roads in South Ruislip, and at peak times was often at a standstill due to traffic congestion.

·         Councillor Kauffman made two suggestions to help resolve these issues:

1.    A box junction with CCTV to catch offenders; and

2.    A traffic light system that stopped traffic both ways and allowed residents to enter or exit the site in safety. (Similar to the system in operation on the West End Road at the White House Gates entrance to RAF Northolt).

Officers suggested that, if the application was approved, that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and enforcement to strengthen the wording of Condition 15 regarding windows facing Canfield Drive.

The Committee discussed the application, and expressed concerns over the redesign of the amenity space, which was felt to underprovide for the flats without private gardens, privacy issues due to the proximity of corner units and overlooking from balconies, and the gating of the site and resultant antisocial behaviour. Members also expressed concerns regarding the siting of waste and collection of refuse from the site. The lack of tracking details for refuse collection vehicles within the report was highlighted. In addition, the report referenced access to a playing field, but it was unclear how far this was from the development site.

In response, officers advised that the new amenity space was designed to provide quality space, for use by occupiers of 1 bed flats, as the proposed family units were provided with gardens. Regarding the playing field, the report detailed a straight-line distance. When considering a walking route, this was 526m away, in excess of the recommended 400m walking distance for a child.

Regarding privacy, the new scheme was situated further from nearby residents than the extant scheme, and there were no habitable rooms on the second and third floors with windows that could result in issues of privacy for neighbours.

Refuse collection vehicles would be required to drive into the site in first gear, manoeuvre in reverse gear, then exit the site once again in first gear.

Members suggested that the application be deferred to a future meeting, to allow officers to prepare an updated report that addressed the following:

·         Concerns over the gating of the site

·         Antisocial behaviour in car parks

·         Amendments to the proposed amenity space

·         Clarity on waste siting and collection arrangements

·         Distance between corner units and concerns over privacy.

This was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be deferred.