Agenda item

217 High Street, Yiewsley - 68663/APP/2020/705

Erection of 5 and 6 storey buildings to provide a Health Facility (approximately 10,000sqft) (Use Class E) and 233 residential apartments with associated parking, communal podium garden, landscaping, pedestrian and cycle canal link and external works following the demolition of the existing buildings. 

 

Recommendation: Refusal 

Decision:

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Minutes:

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum which referenced letters of support received. Officers confirmed that the application was recommended for refusal for the reasons as set out in the report.

 

Officers confirmed that the site was located in an area at risk of flooding, and the applicant had failed to demonstrate that a replacement health centre

for Yiewsley could not be provided on a suitable sequentially preferable and reasonably available site at a lower risk of flooding. The proposal therefore failed the sequential test and did not accord with policy.

 

By way of written submission, the applicant addressed the Committee, alongside a brief ‘virtual site visit’ video. Key points highlighted included:

 

·         Yiewsley and West Drayton has seen a significant increase in population and housing accommodation over recent years and it is important that other social infrastructures such as health are provided to support this growth. The current Yiewsley Health Centre is one of the worst health facilities in West London and no longer fit for purpose for the delivery of primary care to the local population. If permitted, the proposals would secure the delivery of the new NHS health facility in 2024 and end the 20-year search by the NHS for a new health facility site. The new facility would provide 22 patient rooms, 20 car parking spaces, an ambulance drop off space and serve 25,000+ local residents.

·         The proposal is being recommended for refusal due to not passing the sequential test. (No other concerns are raised with the scheme). The applicant’s submitted sequential test, which is supported by a QC’s Opinion, concludes that there are no other sites in the Yiewsley / West Drayton area that are reasonably available or viable to secure the delivery of a new health facility, and therefore the sequential test is passed.

·         Financial viability assessments have been carried out by both the Council and Taylor Wimpey, which confirm that a scheme of 215+ units is required to enable a new health facility to be financially viable and deliverable. Neither of the proposed alternate sites, at Yiewsley Health Centre and the Trout Road site, meet this quantum requirement. Furthermore, the Trout Road site has not entered into any discussions with the NHS and therefore not agreed delivery terms for a potential new Health Facility, nor is this site considered an attractive location by the NHS (site still in use, not on a main arterial road and next to existing industrial uses). The redevelopment of the existing facility is also not viable or practical as it would require the decanting of existing patients to temporary accommodation (portacabins) for circa 2 years.

·         Viable and subsidised terms for the new premises have been agreed between Taylor Wimpey and the NHS to deliver the health facility. An important point to note is that the Council’s Local Plan does not identify a location for the new health facility, and there is no adopted policy that would require any other land owner in Yiewsley or West Drayton to provide the same level of subsidy as agreed.

·         From a technical perspective, the proposals have been specifically designed with drainage mitigation measures in place to ensure that future users and residents of the site are safe. Environment Agency records show the site has never flooded and neither the Environment Agency nor the Local Lead Flood Officer have raised any technical flood risk concerns to the proposals.

·         If the application were to be refused, these redevelopment proposals which include an urgently needed NHS health facility for the local community, 79 affordable homes and other tangible benefits would not be delivered, and the Committee is urged to approve the proposal.

 

Members referenced the Environmental Agency’s (EA) statement that flood risk could be mitigated via conditions. Officers advised that the EA was not responsible for the sequential test and the conditions were suggested on the proviso that the test was passed and approval granted.

 

Members highlighted the positive aspects of the proposal, and the Council’s eagerness to promote health centres and affordable housing in areas that needed them. However, it was recognised that the site was located in an area at risk of flooding, did not meet local or national policies, and had not passed the sequential test. Concerns were therefore present over potential risks to living conditions for future occupiers. In addition, the Council’s highways team had stated that there was a parking shortfall for the area and the proposal only provided 1 parking spot for disabled patients.

 

For these reasons, the officer’s recommendation to refuse was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Supporting documents: