Agenda item

Erection of a part 4, part 5 storey building accommodating 14 dwellings (9 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed flats) and commercial space, and the erection of a separate 2 storey building with roof accommodation to provide 2 x 3 bed houses, car and cycle parking and private and communal amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of a part 4, part 5 storey building accommodating 14 dwellings (9 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed flats) and commercial space, and the erection of a separate 2 storey building with roof accommodation to provide 2 x 3 bed houses, car and cycle parking and private and communal amenity space.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the information in the addendum. Members were informed that there was planning history on the site including a number of schemes dismissed at appeal. The development was considered to be acceptable in many respects, but was recommended for refusal due to concerns regarding its height, scale and bulk. It was felt that the proposed development would be incongruous as it would fail to respect the established pattern within the street scene and would not contribute positively to the area’s character. Moreover, the Committee was advised that the scheme had not secured a Section 106 agreement to mitigate its development impacts.

A written submission in support of the application had been received from petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

·         The regeneration of the brownfield land would provide new homes for local residents who were desperately in need of housing;

·         The homes would be of a good size and quality with over one third of them being family homes of 3-beds or more;

·         The new shop would assist in regenerating the parade and surrounding area which would, in turn, assist in the recovery of the local economy in a post-Covid world, providing a new business and new job opportunities;

·         The development would help in the provision of jobs to aid the economic recovery both locally and nationally.

A further written submission had been received from the agent for the application. Members were advised that:

·         The applicant was agreeable to all the Section 106 requirements agreed for the second scheme which had been recommended for approval;

·         The scheme in question was identical to the second scheme in all respects, with the exception of the proposed additional floor in the apartment block;

·         Buildings along the Uxbridge Road mainly comprised shopping parades with flats above and a variety of commercial premises, many of which were in a state of disrepair. Architectural styles varied;

·         There were examples of taller buildings including Legion House (854 -864) and the building on the corner of Pole Hill Road; these did not appear to be out of keeping with the street scene;

·         The proposed four storey block would be set back between 2 and 3 metres with three storey façade. The proposed five storey block had the same set back from the facades making it akin to the aforementioned examples;

·         The scope for regeneration in the road was immense. Higher buildings would create higher land values that encouraged development;

·         3 objections had been received which did not relate to the scale of the proposed development. 3 letters of support and a petition in support signed by 91 local people had been received. 15 additional letters of support had been submitted more recently;

·         The benefits of the proposal included - use of a vacant brownfield site, well-designed buildings respectful of neighbouring amenity, commercial unit to ensure vibrancy of the local economy, provision of much needed housing, a developer ready to commence work; dwellings which met or exceeded space standards – all with private outside space, flats with balcony / terrace, 4 family dwellings, well-designed communal garden, amenity space which exceeded the Council standards, the opportunity for the adjoining Transport House to be developed at a similar scale and significant CIL payments

Members expressed concerns regarding the height and scale of the proposed development and the Committee commented that it would amount to over-development and would not be in keeping with the surrounding area. Further concerns were raised regarding disability access and air quality. The Committee was advised that, although preferable, two lifts were not deemed to be essential in a scheme of this size. It was confirmed that the matter of air quality was covered in the reasons for refusal. Members requested further clarification regarding screening between apartment 4’s bedroom and the garden area. It was confirmed that the floor plan was somewhat deceptive and, in reality, the windows were considerably higher than the garden and there would be no overlooking issue. In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that soundproofing to the door serving the amenity space was not necessary. Moreover, Members were informed that the platform lift would be used infrequently therefore soundproofing would not be required.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.