Agenda item

Former Tara Kindergarten, Cross Road Uxbridge - 62106/APP/2020/3031

Proposed demolition of the existing building providing administrative accommodation associated with a children's day nursery use and construction of a mixed-use, residential-led development. This will comprise 21 affordable residential apartments (Use Class C3) with a proposed flexible community use (Use Class E/F.1 /F.2) on the ground floor, and associated landscape works and parking. (Revised Plans 04.01.21) 

 

Recommendation: Refusal 

Decision:

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and confirmed that the application was recommended for refusal, for the reasons set out within. Refusal reasons highlighted included the site’s location, outside of the accepted boundary for the town centre and close to a  two-storey residential street, and its subsequent failure to reflect the existing character of the area. In addition, there were concerns over potential damage to, or loss of, trees.

 

By way of written submission, a petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Key points highlighted included:

 

·         The proposed development is located in a conservation area and neither preserves nor enhances the character and appearance of the existing area.

·         DMHB10 states tall buildings should be situated in the town centres of Hayes or Uxbridge.  The development site is located outside Uxbridge town centre, and the proposed 7 storey building would be an incongruous addition that would not make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area.

·         The proposed development is likely to have an adverse impact on existing trees, which make a significant contribution to biodiversity and climate change.  If retained, the trees will need to be pruned throughout the construction phase, and after, to keep the windows clear of dense foliage.  This could stress them and result in premature loss. 

·         The Construction Management report shows access to the site to be via The Lynch alongside the Frays River, Lawn and Cross Roads. The roads are narrow, and large construction vehicles and heavy machinery will have difficulty accessing the site via this route without adverse impact on surrounding local roads and residents.

·         There is inadequate parking provision in the plan to support the flexible community element of the proposal, such as staff working in the facility, community using it, tradespeople needed for maintenance and supplies for the occupants of the proposed building.

·         The neighbourhood is in a Controlled Parking Zone.  On street parking is already highly utilised by existing residents. The Framework Travel Plan states the proposed building will be car free. However, documentation does not address the issue of occupants of the proposed building using cars outside of the controlled parking hours. There are 2 disability car parking spaces on the site, meaning a potential influx of at least 19 extra cars having to find parking in the local streets because they cannot be accommodated on the site. This is a significant number of extra cars having to compete with existing residents.

·         The proposed development is situated in an Air Quality Management Area that is next to the A4020. An increase in private cars and commercial traffic coming into the neighbourhood will increase air pollution and noise levels for existing residents.

·         The proposed building is to be 23m high, overshadowing adjacent properties and causing loss of direct sunlight.  Residents with solar panels in shadow of the proposed building will be affected, and this could  deter others from purchasing panels to tackle climate change.

·         Properties in this area rely on satellite for television as geography blocks all terrestrial signals. The proposed building will block satellite signals. Residents will need to take expensive subscription to cable services.

 

By way of written submission, the agent on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee. A brief slide presentation was also shown. Key points highlighted included:

 

·         Regarding refusal reasons 1 and 2; (the alleged harm to the conservation area via way of the demolition of the former telephone exchange, a claimed failure of the development to sustain or enhance the conservation area, and the claim the proposed building represents an over development. The former telephone exchange is claimed to be a non-designated heritage asset, however, the Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal provides no justification for this status and the only support the conservation officer was able to call in the buildings aid was that it was ‘long established’ and ‘contributes to the development history of the area’. This could be said about any building more than 30 -40 years old.

·         The application is accompanied by a detailed Heritage Assessment prepared by Alan Baxter Associates, an independent Design Review Panel (DRP) consultation and a views assessment. However, neither the Conservation Officer’s consultation response nor the officers report to the Committee makes mention of these reports. All conclude that loss of the former exchange would have minimal impact on the Conservation Area.

·         Following feedback from the above reports and discussion with your officers, award winning architects Richard Reid Associates updated the scheme to reduce the building from 8 to 7 storeys, introduce brick as the main elevational material, and change the ground floor façade.

·         It cannot be avoided that this area displays none of the historic context which supports the Conservation Area designation and is characterised more by the raised Oxford Road and the large buildings of the town centre which, contrary to the officer’s assessment, are more proximate to this site than the historic terraces of the conservation area. Within the conservation area itself, the context of this site is set by the three storey plus steeply pitched roof 1980’s development across the road.

·         As highlighted in the Alan Baxter report, the proposed building, framed by the retained five Oak trees, would result in a building that significantly improves the degraded street scene in this location, reinstating a lost sense of enclosure with a welcoming, high-quality and legible ground-floor entrance and surrounding landscaping. This would have the wider effect of improving the feel and appearance of this part of the conservation area.

·         Any perceived harm to heritage assets needs to be balanced against public benefits resulting from the development. Delivering much needed 21 Affordable rental units in a highly accessible location is a significant benefit which the report is dismissive of.

·         As Members will be aware from the London Mayor and Secretary of State approval of the Master Brewer site scheme in December, Hillingdon has delivered on only 34% of its target for affordable housing and the contribution of this scheme to addressing part of the shortfall is inescapably a major public benefit.

·         It is asserted that the proposed reasons for refusal 3-6 are wholly without substance and can be dealt with via conditions if approval is granted. If Members choose to endorse these reasons, and the applicant is required to produce evidence to contest them at appeal, the applicant will be seeking costs against the Council on those matters.

·         The proposed development represents a major opportunity for Uxbridge in terms of delivering affordable housing and will positively enhance the Rockingham Bridge Conservation Area. As such, Members are encouraged to support this application.

 

By way of written submissions, Ward Councillors for Uxbridge Soh addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Key points highlighted included:

 

·         The three Ward Councillors for Uxbridge South, Cllr Keith Burrows, Cllr Judith Cooper & Cllr Farhad Choubedar, fully support the residents in their opposition to this development for the reasons already stated within the report.

·         Ward Councillors support the recommendation for refusal and request the Committee refuse the application, to prevent harm to the area.

 

During discussion, Members asked whether loss of light to residents, and the impact on parking within the area, could be added as reasons for refusal. Officers advised that parking was an indefensible reason for refusal, and that an independent consultant had advised that there were no grounds for a refusal reason relating to loss of light.

 

Members expressed their concerns over the size and scale of the development, as well as its location outside of the town centre, as well as its impact on the existing trees at the site. Members considered that the application would have an adverse impact on the character of the area and street scene and for these reasons, together with the reasons set out within the report, the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Supporting documents: