Agenda item

Alterations and conversion of the Manor Lodge into 2 No. 4-bedroom houses; conversion of the Stable Building into 6 No. 1-bedroom and 2 No. 2-bedroom cottages; conversion of the Office Barn into 1 No. studio flat, 1 No. 1- bedroom flat,  2 No. 2-bedroom houses and 1 No. 3-bedroom house; retention of the Granary Building and conversion to garden store; upgrade of boundary treatments; reinstatement of yard pond, together with associated parking and landscaping. (Application for Listed Building Consent).

Recommendations: Approval

Applications ref. 27256/APP/2017/3723 & 27256/APP/2017/3721 were considered together.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That application ref. 27256/APP/2017/3723 be approved; and

2.    That application ref. 27256/APP/2017/37231 be approved, subject to conditions.

Alterations and conversion of the Manor Lodge into 2 No. 4-bedroom houses; conversion of the Stable Building into 6 No. 1-bedroom and 2 No. 2-bedroom cottages; conversion of the Office Barn into 1 No. studio flat, 1 No. 1- bedroom flat, 2 No. 2-bedroom houses and 1 No. 3-bedroom house; retention of the Granary Building and conversion to garden store; upgrade of boundary treatments; reinstatement of yard pond, together with associated parking and landscaping. (Application for Listed Building Consent).

Agenda items 6 & 7 were considered together.

Officers introduced the reports and addendum, and advised of the site layout and listed buildings on the site, together with the proposed alterations and retentions. Officers highlighted that reports of anti-social behaviour and issues with refuse were being addressed by the creation of a dedicated bin store area. Vehicle access to the site would remain as existing, with access directly into the Great Barn’s car park space, which was to be retained. The applications had been through extensive consultation and a number of objections had been received, including from local residents and the English Heritage Trust, and these objections had been addressed as set out in the report. The officer recommended that the applications be approved.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Points highlighted included:

·         The petitioner was attending the meeting in his capacity as Chairman of the Friends of the Great Barn.

·         The Great Barn was afforded the highest level of protection by national policy. Historic England stated that all buildings and other structures that pre-dated 1948 that were within the curtilage of a listed building were to be treated as part of that listed building.

·         The buildings proposed to be altered as part of the application were within the curtilage of the Great Barn, and should be considered as Grade I buildings.

·         The loss of office space was referred to within the report. The new draft London Plan stated that change of use from non-residential to residential should only be permitted if a satisfactory residential environment could be achieved, met demand, and was consistent with other objectives, including the contribution of the existing use of those objects. This site did not fall into these categories.

·         The site was used for community events, and often attended by coach parties. Coaches parked behind the Barn, without issue.

·         When the decision on the proposed 3^rd runway at Heathrow was finalised, there was no reason why the existing buildings could not be used as offices. The buildings were currently being used as offices.

·         The applications were contrary to the heritage objectives of the Local Plan in protecting conservation.

·         No evidence had been submitted that demonstrated more appropriate community or employment uses had been considered before proceeding with a residential scheme, and options were many, including a community hall, library, or post office etc. These uses would be subject to lottery funding and grants, which would further help to regenerate this area of Harmondsworth.

·         The report stated that access to the site would be from Moor Lane High Street. The land owned by the applicant was not linked to the public highway, and access therefore relied on the stretch of land between the 5 Bells Public House and St Mary’s Church. Ownership of this land was unclear, though would appear to be owned by the church, and these ownership and access issues must be resolved before any application could be granted.

The agent for the applications addressed the Committee. Points highlighted included:

·         Careful consideration had been given to the application site’s location within a conservation area and several listed buildings.

·         Conclusions reached confirmed that the applications accorded with the development plan and the NPPF as sustainable development.

·         Lengthy conversations with the Council, particularly planning conservation officers, had resulted in several amendments to the scheme, including a reduction in density from that originally proposed.

·         The scheme also incorporated amendments following discussions with third parties such as English Heritage, the Harmondsworth Conservation Area Advisory Panel, Historic England, and others.

·         The proposed use was less intensive than existing use, and would enhance the setting of the listed buildings and conservation area.

·         The scheme would result in a reduction in traffic, and there was no highway objection or issue with access from a legal perspective.

·         The proposal to convert use to residential provided a sustainable future for these buildings, and would contribute to the village through the introduction of new families and local residents. The site would have minimal impact on the Barn, its use as community asset or its setting. Access to the Barn would be maintained.

·         The residential scheme would remove the existing HMO which had previously been deemed unacceptable to local residents.

·         The proposal would provide a range of family homes and cottages within an enhanced setting.

Members sought clarity on who owned the access route as outlined by the petitioner, as well as how the existing buildings were to be used, and where residents would park. The agent confirmed that the client owned the whole site and access was within the title, but the Great Barn had a comprehensive right of way to the Barn. In addition, the agent confirmed that the buildings on site were high quality and would be re-used. Parking provision fully complied with standards, and residents parking would be in front of the office barn.

Councillor Peter Money addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor for Heathrow Villages. Points highlighted included:

·         The Ward Councillor shared the concerns of the residents in relation to the use of the site and its impact on the conservation area and grade I listed building.

·         The Great Barn was a tourist attraction and source of great pride to the residents.

·         Due to the scale of the development it was reasonable to expect it to have a significant detrimental impact on the environment and setting of the listed buildings.

·         The existing HMO had caused significant issues, and as a result residents did not have much faith in the existing landowner.

·         Access to the site had not been properly considered. Having to pass through a narrow gap at the 5 Bells Pub was inconvenient to the pub, and an increase in residents to the area would result in increased parking in and around the pub. Residents did not feel that a parking management scheme could overcome these issues.

·         The Ward Councillor objected to the scheme.

Officers clarified that the applicant had marketed the vacant office buildings, without success. Officers had since reviewed the potential loss of employment but were comfortable that the proposals were acceptable.

The Committee discussed the applications. Members requested that, if the application were to be approved, that a condition be added to confirm a dedicated area for tree planting and requested that discussions be held with the relevant officers regarding further landscaping.

Some Members suggested that the change of use from B1 should be considered, and that some office space should be retained on site. Officers advised that Members would have to argue that the change of use to residential was harmful to the setting of the Grade I listed building, or was harmful in some other way.

Members requested clarity on the access to the site, which was claimed to be unregistered land, and whether the appropriate notices had been served regarding the land. The Legal Advisor confirmed that if the land was unregistered, it would be incumbent on the applicant to carry out the planning permission and satisfy the Land Registry. Disputes over land ownership were not a matter for the Committee to consider.

Members referred to the site’s PTAL value, which was rated as ‘poor’, so there would be a strong reliance on private cars for trip making. Currently, with the existing HMO, when unable to park on site there was parking overspill into the pub and village. It was therefore felt that two additional parking spaces would not be enough.

Officers referenced conditions 19 and 20, which sought to control access and parking on site. Previous issues observed showed that people were parking on the site without permission, which had resulted in parking displacement into the village. The intention of condition 19 was to make enforcement easier, to ensure that only people with permission would be parking on the site. It was suggested that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Enforcement, in conjunction with the Legal Advisor, to ensure that conditions 19 and 20 were as robustly worded as possible.

Members sought clarity on the entrance door and walls of unit no. 15, following  English Heritage Trust’s stated concerns as set out in the report. Officers confirmed that all of the relevant land was within the applicant’s ownership, and there was a physical entrance to the building.

The officer’s recommendation relating to agenda item 6, application ref. 27256/APP/2017/3723, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed by a vote of 5 to 3.

The officer’s recommendation relating to agenda item 7, application ref. 27256/APP/2017/3721, inclusive of the Head of Planning being delegated authority to amend the wording of conditions relating to tree planting, access and parking, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed by a vote of 5 to 3.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That application ref. 27256/APP/2017/3723 be approved; and

2.    That application ref. 27256/APP/2017/37231 be approved, subject to conditions.