Agenda item

Bourne Court - 11891/APP/2020/20

Outline planning application for the redevelopment of the site to provide 96 residential units in a single block, including access, car and cycle parking, refuse storage and amenity space, with landscape matters reserved.

 

Recommendations:  Approve + Sec 106

Decision:

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and addendum, highlighting that the application would provide 100% affordable housing. The addendum was confirmed to set out minor amendments to planning conditions. As the applications sought only 9 additional units over the previously approved scheme, with affordable housing, the application was deemed acceptable, and was therefore recommended for approval.

 

By way of written submission, petitioners objecting to the application made a number of points, including:

 

·         The latest proposed planning application aimed to infill the Blocks A and B to form one block,  increasing the number of units from 87 to 98, and reducing the number of parking spaces from 96 spaces to 64 spaces. By infilling the block, residents would face one solid wall of apartments, with no relief. 

·         The proposal would remove the open aspect of the previous plan, which was valued highly, but would also sacrifice 23 car parking spaces.

·         Apart from the two blocks of flats adjoining Bourne Court, all surrounding streets on the application side of the railway comprised houses and bungalows.  The proposed block of 98 units would change the nature of the area and street scene.

·         Parking spaces in South Ruislip were severely restricted, necessitating a residents-only parking scheme operating in most streets surrounding the site from 9-5, weekdays.  The previous application for 87 units, with 87 parking spaces, was originally deferred for further consideration, and it was considered that a 'parking allocation planning' condition was essential, and the officers report recommended a near 1:1 parking ratio to limit impact on existing residents.

·         The latest application ignored these recommendations, offering just 64 parking spaces for 87 apartments.  The addition of 2 car club spaces (only one on site) would do little to mitigate the envisaged prospective competition for parking spaces. 

·         It was understood that Clearview Homes wish to achieve the maximum density by increasing the number of units on-site. This was borne out by the progression of previous applications:

o   49 units Jan 2014

o   69 units Nov 2016

o   107 units Sept 2018  (turned down)

o   87 units June 2019

o   98 units  in 1 block 2020

·         Residents felt that the increase was unreasonable and would result in an overcrowded site with insufficient parking spaces.

·         Many local residents had expressed concern at the prospect of 100% social housing if this meant a large proportion would be rented properties.  It was hoped that the Council would support maintaining a good mix of home owners and a smaller number of rental properties to maintain the current nature of the area. 

·         The pedestrian footpath which ran from behind the substation, to the rear of Canfield Drive and out to Station Approach, no longer existed.   This had been blocked and absorbed by the new Acol Crescent site.  Consequently, there would be no pedestrian exit from this corner of the site. 

 

By way of written submission, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant made a number of points, including:

 

·         The principle of residential development on this site had already been established. The application site was a designated residential allocation in the adopted Local Plan and the site also had two extant and implementable permissions for residential development. This outline application for 96 units was effectively an amendment to the 87-unit scheme approved by the committee last year, with the primary amendment being the infill of a gap between the front and rear blocks to provide an additional 9 units.

·         The extant permission was for an all-privatetenure scheme, with an in-lieu affordable housing payment. This outline application was for 100% affordable tenure on the site, which was a significant enhanced position for the Council in delivering housing and affordable units in the Borough.

·         The car and cycle parking spaces were compliant with the objectives and policies of the draft new London Plan, which aimed to reduce the reliance on car travel in London in accessible locations such as Bourne Court.

·         The site was considered to be in a sustainable location with excellent access to a range of local shops and services. South Ruislip station was located 200m from the site, which provided services into central London and several bus stops. The vast majority of central London could be accessed from the application site within 30-60 minutes, being a normal commute. This demonstrated the site’s high level of accessibility and support for reduced parking.

·         The scheme now proposed two car club spaces. These would provide an additional benefit for wider usage of the car club by existing residents of Bourne Court and surrounding roads. The proposal for two car club spaces had been supported and fully endorsed by Enterprise Car Club, an operation already running successful schemes in the Borough.

·         With the inclusion of the two car club spaces (equivalent to a minimum of 1:8 spaces per car club vehicle) this equated to 80 parking spaces on the site, and a parking ratio of 0.83. This level and type of parking provision was endorsed by Hillingdon Highways Officers and similarly supported in other recent Council and GLA decisions for reduced parking in such accessible locations.

·         The Officer’s report stated that the application was considered acceptable with regard to its design and relationship with the street scene, neighbour amenity, access, security, highways, landscaping, ecology, refuse, energy, flooding, noise and contaminated land, which in combination reinforced the sustainable credentials of this redevelopment scheme, in support of national housing and design objectives and policies.

·         In response to the petitioners’ objections, there would be no change to the design fronting Bourne Court or height of the block, as already approved in the 87 unit and implementable scheme. The reduced parking provision was appropriate, consistent with sustainable travel objectives and achieved overall betterment with the provision of two car club spaces, electric charging points, resident parking permit restriction and resident Travel Plan.

·         The proposed development would deliver an additional nine units but moreover 100% affordable housing on-site. This enhanced proposal accorded with the objectives of sustainable development in the NPPF, the recently published Planning White Paper and policies in the adopted Hillingdon Local Plan and the draft London Plan.

·         Substantial betterment would be delivered by this latest proposal, which would bring a long term vacant and previously developed accessible urban site back into affordable housing use.

 

Members discussed the application, and while some concerns were raised regarding the reduction in parking provision, Members were pleased with the scheme’s commitment to affordable housing, and on balance it was felt that the proposal was acceptable. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Supporting documents: