Agenda item

Erection of a residential building comprising 4 x 2-bed flats and 2 x 1-bed flats with associated bin storage and cycle provision including demolition of existing dwelling and corner drop kerb and installation of drop kerb and widening of front drop kerb.

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

Erection of a residential building comprising 4 x 2-bed flats and 2 x 1-bed flats with associated bin storage and cycle provision including demolition of existing dwelling and corner drop kerb and installation of drop kerb and widening of front drop kerb.

Officers introduced the report, advised the Committee that a non-determination appeal had been lodged for this item and made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner in objection of the application addressed the Committee and raised concerns regarding the development’s dominance, safety and the lack of family housing. A petition with 83 signatures had been submitted to the Council and 18 petitioners had also submitted written objections. It was noted that that the centre of Eastcote had already generated 250 flats and it was family homes that were needed. Concerns were raised regarding the lack of available parking for the development and the impact this would have on surrounding areas. Concerns were also raised regarding the speed and volume of traffic between Lime Grove, Oak Grove and Hawthorne Avenue. Parking bays were located at the top of a busy junction that was used by both cars and pedestrians and this raised issues of both vehicle and pedestrian safety.  Petitioners were surprised to see no mention of the safety issues and vehicles using Oak Grove or Lime Grove in the Transport Consultant’s comments in the design statement.  The petitioners urged the Committee to support their objections and refuse the application as per officer’s recommendation.

By way of written submission, the agent on behalf of the applicant for the application addressed. It was submitted that officers had found the parking provision and access to and from Elm Avenue acceptable, the quality of accommodation and external amenity to future occupants acceptable and the proposed development respected the privacy, daylight and general amenities of adjoining properties. The higher density flats development was supported by officers, and the width of the building was also determined to be acceptable. The building lines varied along both sides of Elm Avenue, and a corner location provided flexibility in terms of building lines in addition to erect a more prominent building which was sensitively designed. It was noted that roof level accommodation was not an alien feature to Elm Avenue. It was submitted that the Council did not specify a requirement for three-bedroom dwellings, and had this issue been communicated to the agent/applicant it could have been addressed. Members were requested to balance the benefits of the scheme that made efficient use of a wider than average corner plot. The development was in accordance with local plan policies and the newly adopted London Plan 2021. It was also noted that this application was already at appeal.

Ward Councillor for Cavendish, Councillor Heena Makwana, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. The petition and officer’s recommendation were strongly supported. It was submitted that the sheer scale and bulk failed to keep with the character and appearance of the street scene and wider area. Elm Avenue had mainly two storey houses and there were many single storage garages to the sides of the houses creating a feeling of space throughout the road.  The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the street and did not optimise the need for family housing in accordance with the Borough’s needs for family housing. Further, the proposed unit mix failed to provide sufficient family sized units, not taking into account configuration of all the roads at the busy junction. The proposed development would compromise pedestrian safety and for these reasons, the Committee was urged to refuse the application.

Members were mindful that the proposed development was out of character and the junction at Elm Avenue was busy. The Committee was informed that a Members enquiry had been received raising concerns regarding damage to the footway outside the junction, but this would be improved by the Council. This demonstrated that there was an issue there that had been caused by vehicles overrunning the footway.

It was noted that there were already two reasons for refusal relating to the size, scale and bulk and the unit mix. Members considered adding a third refusal reason relating to highways safety.

Subject to delegating authority to the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration to add a third refusal reason relating to highways safety, the officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation subject to delegated authority to the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration to include a third refusal reason regarding highways safety.