Agenda item

Redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of the existing building (Use Class B1a) and the erection of a 8-storey building and a basement to provide residential units (Use Class C3) and associated works.

The plans show:  Redevelopment of the site to provide 34 residential units (11 x 1-bed, 19 x 2-bed and 4 x 3-bed), 34 cycle parking spaces, 28 car parking spaces and 588 sq.m of private and communal amenity spaces with associated landscaping and works.

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to amend reason for refusal no. 2 to include reasons of noise and disturbance, together with the addition of Noise Policy EM8.

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that while officers had worked pro-actively with the applicant through negotiations to address issues wherever possible, both at preapplication and application stage, the scheme failed to comply with the Development Plan for the reasons identified in this report. On this basis, it was recommended that the application be refused.

By way of written submission, supported by a brief slide presentation and animated video, a petitioner objecting to the application made a number of points:

·         The density of the planned building was not in accordance with Local Plan Policy DMHB17 and London Plan density guidelines. For flatted schemes, the acceptable density range was 150 to 250 u/ha. The current proposal, at 485 units/ha far exceeded the acceptable range detailed.

·         The proposal had not considered any of the adjacent buildings and it proposed an 8 story wall that would be erected in front of Padcroft residents’ windows.

·         Policy 5.38 stated that a minimum of 21 metres separation distance between windows of habitable rooms was required. Hillingdon’s ‘Residential Layouts’ Design Guidance advised a minimum distance of 15 metres between main windows of habitable rooms and a flank wall of a new development. The Tavistock Works proposal did not respect these guidelines in any measure. The wall of the proposed building was located only 1.1 m away from master bedroom windows in Fitzroy Court, which as 92% lower than Council guidelines. In addition, residents of Yardley Court would be impacted by direct overlooking from the proposed balcony and habitable room windows located only 13 m away from their living rooms. This was 40% below the Council guidelines.

·         Should this planning application be approved, an unreasonable level of overlooking would exist between residents habitable rooms and the building erected, resulting in a complete loss of privacy, increased sense of enclosure, complete loss of outlook and adversely impacting residents ability to enjoy sunlight and daylight.

·         Policy 5.41 explained that the Council aimed to minimise the impact of the loss of daylight and sunlight and unacceptable overshadowing caused by new development on habitable rooms. According to the Daylight & Sunlight Amenity Study, 40% of Fitzroy Court habitable room windows tested would not meet VSC targets if the proposed building was developed. In addition, 11 of Fitzroy Court bedrooms would not meet BRE criteria for the daylight distribution. For example, bedrooms on the first floor of Fitzroy Court would suffer 93% loss of VSC, 100% loss of sunlight and 90.5% loss of daylight.

·         The current proposal would have detrimental impact upon shared residential amenities as the building would severely overshadow residential gardens.

·         Within Fitzroy Court, 14 bedrooms would suffer severe loss of outlook from their bedroom windows. All bedrooms facing Tavistock Road would now be viewing an 8 story blank wall within the distance of 1.2- 9m. This would severely impact residents and children of residents’ mental health.

·         There were concerns about the proximity of the proposed building in relation to resident balconies and windows, which would only 1.2m-4m away from the proposed building, given that Padcroft balconies are combustible.

·         Overall, as identified, the proposal is overbearing and over-developed, due to its bulk, shape and height, it would have a detrimental and harmful impact on Padcroft residential amenities, outlook, complete loss of sunlight in some instances, and a disregard to proximity guidelines.

The Head of Planning advised Members that officers could not verify the accuracy of the fly-through component (animated video) of the petitioner’s presentation.

Members discussed the application, and supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal, for the reasons as set out in the report. However, it was suggested that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to amend reason for refusal no. 2, to include reasons of noise and disturbance, together with the addition of Noise Policy EM8. This was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to amend reason for refusal no. 2 to include reasons of noise and disturbance, together with the addition of Noise Policy EM8.