Agenda item

Redevelopment of the site to provide three buildings ranging from 2 to 10 storeys in height delivering 331 residential units and 710 sq.m of ground floor commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 or D2), including the provision of private and communal amenity areas, child play space, car parking, secure cycle parking, refuse storage areas and other associated development (AMENDED MAY 2019).

 

Recommendations: Approve + Sec 106

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to conditions.

Redevelopment of the site to provide three buildings ranging from 2 to 10 storeys in height delivering 331 residential units and 710 sq.m of ground floor commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 or D2), including the provision of private and communal amenity areas, child play space, car parking, secure cycle parking, refuse storage areas and other associated development (AMENDED MAY 2019).

 

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the application had been deferred from a previous Committee meeting to allow for a site visit which had taken place on Friday 14 June 2019. The amendments to the scheme following the last meeting were summarised within the report and addendum. The addendum set out amendments to the Heads of Terms, including 35% of affordable housing and the prohibition of parking permits for future owners/occupiers (excluding blue badges).

 

By way of a verbal update, the officer proposed that condition 4 be amended to mandate a brick construction material.

 

Issues of overlooking had been resolved via the re-siting of a staircase and the setting of homes further away from nearby residential properties, together with the installation of a non-synthetic exclusion zone. Concerns over size and bulk had also been addressed following a reduction in the size of the development. A framework delivery and service management plan had been provided, which focussed on ensuring that refuse arrangements met requirements. Management of the commercial property was deemed satisfactory. In addition, the applicant was proposing to install higher acoustic fencing.

 

In response to questions raised at the site visit, the officer confirmed that the building line was coming forward slightly, into line with the industrial building line and the demise of no. 37’s site boundary.  The separation distance to 19 Chalfont Road was confirmed as 27 metres, and distances to other properties on Chalfont road had been improved.

 

The scheme sought to focus the majority of site A’s height away from existing developments, with the expectation that site B would be released from commercial use for residential use, for delivery of a more cohesive development between the two sites.

 

For these reasons, the application was recommended for approval.

 

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

 

·         The development would result in increased pedestrians and vehicles, which would have a detrimental impact on air quality for residents, in what was already an air quality focussed area.

·         The size and scale of the proposal was not in keeping with the context and character of the local area. The proposed scheme was greater than the Council’s recommendation of 110 units per hectare.

·         Hayes needed low-density family housing. The scheme would not meet this demand. Hillingdon was ahead of its housing targets, so this scheme was not needed.

·         The proposal made insufficient provision for parking, adding to pressure on local roads.

·         Traffic would increase congestion in the area. There was no impact assessment included within the officer’s report.

·         The development was subject to the common risks of fire associated with high-rise buildings.

·         The development would have a negative, divisive impact on the character of the local area.

·         Residents were against opening up roads to vehicles and cyclists, due to concerns over safety, privacy, noise levels and refuse.

·         If the development were to be approved, the following conditions were suggested:

o   Amendment to the size and scale of the development to allow for houses rather than flats;

o   Maintaining the closure of Chalfont Road and Little Road;

o   S106 monies must be used to benefit Hayes residents;

o   Hours of business must be restricted so that they were not within antisocial hours.

 

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

 

·         The applicant had made a number of changes following feedback, including a reduction in height and the loss of two units, and design changes to allay concerns regarding overlooking.

·         Regarding the petitioner’s concerns over density, the London Plan set out a requirement for quality design in terms of amenity provision, separation between buildings/windows etc., for which the scheme was within Council policy.

·         The scheme proposed the same number of spaces with a reduction in units, when compared to the original proposal, which would have a positive impact on air quality.

·         Access to the site would be dealt with by condition, as suggested by officers.

·         The scheme’s refuse strategy was deemed acceptable by officers.

·         Fire strategy was linked to materials, and the applicant was happy to abide by the officers’ recommendation for brick construction to be conditioned.

·         Regarding air quality, the applicant was undertaking a number of measures to help, including limiting private cars, a travel plan, contributions to local bus services, opening of pedestrian routes and a comprehensive planting scheme.

 

Members asked whether the applicant was proposing to install electric charging spots. The agent confirmed that both active and passive charging points would be installed.

Peter Curling addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor for Townfield. Points highlighted included:

 

·         Concerns highlighted at the pervious committee meeting had not been properly addressed.

·         A reduction in 2 units versus the original scheme not sufficient.

·         The scheme was an overdevelopment of the site. The industrial site was released for housing at a rate of 110 units per hectare, and this development was for 184 units.

·         Traffic implications, particularly when considering the proximity of the Southall gasworks site, was a concern.

·         The development was not in keeping with the character of the area and would be visually intrusive.

·         The GLA made reference to combined heat and power, which required further clarity.

 

The Chairman made a number of points for clarity. With reference to previous discussions regarding the housing mix, 3-bed houses were deemed to be family housing, and the Council’s housing team had not made any objections to the mix. Regarding the petitioner’s comments regarding Hillingdon being in excess of its housing targets, the targets within the new London plan were significantly higher. The standard approach to issues of density was to consider density on its impact to the scheme itself.

 

In response to Councillor Curling’s request for further information on the proposed combined heat and power strategy, officers confirmed that the GLA was seeking to apply emerging polices that had not yet been adopted, upon developments that were at current planning application stage. Officers were confident that the scheme was in accordance with current policies, and suggested that it was for the GLA to determine at stage 2 whether the application would need to be called in, on the grounds that it was not meeting emerging energy policies.

 

Members discussed the application, with some asserting that the scheme was an overdevelopment of the site, based on its size, bulk and height. The number of lifts was felt to be insufficient for a building of this height. Amenity space was felt to be of poor quality due to overshadowing. It was felt that the design was out of character for the local area, did not meet current 3 and 4 bed housing need, parking was insufficient, and the scheme would have a detrimental impact on traffic and congestion.

 

With regard to air quality, Members highlighted that the site was within a Hayes Focus Area, which specified that actions to achieve significant improvements in air quality should be prioritised.

 

Councillor Morse raised number of further points which he felt were grounds for refusal:

 

·         The Tall Building Policy 7.7 stated that schemes such as this were only to be considered in areas where the local character would not be affected;

·         The proposed development was a juxtaposition to the local suburban area and end of town code conditions due to a significant increase in scale;

·         Policy H5 required the Council to encourage new homes for larger families, and the site was not located within a town centre;

·         The development was contrary to Policy BE13 which required new developments to harmonize with the local area;

·         Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (2016) and Policy BE19 stated that the design of all new buildings should enhance the quality, amenity and character of the local area, and this development did not enhance the area;

·         The development contravened Policy 6.13 of the London Plan section B, which stated that where existing transport was insufficient for travel generated, and no firm plans existed for an increase in capacity to cater for this, boroughs should ensure the developments were phased;

·         The number of car parking spaces proposed did not meet requirement 441 and did not accord with UDP standards or emerging London Plan Part 2 PMT6 policy;

·         Seven residences on Little Road would be affected by overdominance;

·         The development contravened Draft Policy SA 22 which stated that the site should be released for development at a density of 110 units per hectare;

 

In response to concerns that the development was not in keeping with the area, officers highlighted a 14-story building that was visible across the locality. Regarding highways and parking concerns, officers had to refer to the national policy framework which stated that development should only be refused on highways grounds if there was an unacceptable impact on highways safety or the residual cumulative impact on the road network would be severe. In addition, officers had been in regular dialogue with the applicant regarding increasing parking provision on site.

 

With regard to amenity space, officers highlighted that contributions for off-site improvements had been secured, and there was a significant quantum of open space to serve the development and wider area, which was deemed to be acceptable. In reference to the number of lifts within the building, it was confirmed that there were two lifts on site.

 

Regarding 3 and 4-bed houses, the Council’s policy team considered that the offer put forward was acceptable. Officers had attempted to ensure that the character of the area would not be negatively affected, including mandating the use of brick construction materials in various colours, and ensuring that the buildings abutting Chalfont Road and Little Road were no higher than existing buildings.

 

The site had a PTAL rating of 2-3, which was considered moderate. Access to the rear of the site was for pedestrians and cyclists only, via the use of a chicane that was wide enough for a mobility scooter and nothing bigger. Access for emergency vehicles was via a separate gate system that was yet to be approved, and it was suggested that the Head of Planning be delegated authority to strengthen condition 20 which dealt with access matters.

 

Other Members highlighted that it was likely that the proposal’s unit mix was predicated on economic viability. In addition, it was felt that the applicant had tried to mitigate issues and concerns, and on this basis the officer’s recommendation was moved, subject to amendment to conditions 4 and 20 as outlined. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed by a vote of 5 to 3.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to conditions.