Agenda item

Erection of a three-storey building comprising a dental surgery and 6 residential units (3 no. 1-bed units, 1 no. 3-bed unit and 2 no. 2-bed units), car and cycle parking and associated works, temporary permission for the siting of a modular building to the rear of the site for use as a dental surgery during the demolition of the existing dental surgery and construction of the proposed dental surgery.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Erection of a three-storey building comprising a dental surgery and 6 residential units (3 no. 1-bed units, 1 no. 3-bed unit and 2 no. 2-bed units), car and cycle parking and associated works, temporary permission for the siting of a modular building to the rear of the site for use as a dental surgery during the demolition of the existing dental surgery and construction of the proposed dental surgery.

Officers introduced the application noting that a previous related application had been refused on the basis of its size and scale, particularly the design of roof elements, and the loss of a family unit on site. The application in front of Members was a revised version of the previous application which had been reduced in size and amended to include a family unit on the ground floor. With the proposed changes and given that other developments on the surrounding roads had no real cohesive design properties, officers deemed the application to be acceptable. The application was recommended for approval. It was noted that whilst the proposed building works would take place, dental surgery facilities would continue to be provided on the site by means of a temporary building.

A petition had been received objecting to the development however the lead petitioner was not present. The applicant was in attendance and addressed the Committee. A number of points were raised, including:

• The applicant had worked proactively over the last year with officers in delivering an application that was policy compliant and could be recommended for approval by officers.

• A number of proposed benefits to the surrounding area were outlined as a result of the application including six residential units, a dental surgery on the ground floor to reaccommodate the existing surgery in an improved space and ample cycle and car parking for residents.

• The developer had worked with the dental surgery from the early conceptual stage to ensure that the space met their needs and standards.

• It was noted that the development met national space standards as well as providing both shared and private amenity space which exceeded the London Plan requirement.

• The site was accessible to local amenities including shops, services and good transport links and was deemed an accessible brownfield location appropriate for redevelopment.

Councillor Steve Tuckwell, Ward Councillor for South Ruislip, was present and addressed the Committee. A number of points were raised, including:

·         It was highlighted that the officer’s recommendation to approve the application had only materialised following significant design changes to the scheme which were driven from a combination of a residents’ petition and the previous diligence of the Committee.

·         Removing what was effectively the fourth floor and setting back the third floor facing Northolt Avenue were welcome design changes that were seen to improve the design of this prominent corner plot in a key part of South Ruislip. The three-bedroom apartment was also welcomed.

·         The proposed roof garden was considered a token external amenity space and not respectful of the neighbouring roof configuration.

·         Concerns were raised with the provision of private amenity space on the roof and the Committee were asked to consider a condition stipulating that any railings were setback to prevent visual clutter and provide safe distance from the roof edge.

·         Attention was also drawn to the fact that the site was within an air quality focus area given its proximity to the busy A40 road. On this basis the Committee were requested to include a condition requiring an air quality action plan ensuring the development comply with policies EM8 of the Local Plan Part One and DMEI 14 of the Local Plan Part Two.

Members commended the officers report and welcomed the revisions that had been made to the scheme. Concerns were raised as to items potentially falling from the roof garden over the balustrade; officers highlighted that recommended condition four required details of the balustrade to be submitted and approved, Members’ concerns could be taken into account in respect of this.

The issue of parking was also highlighted as the immediate area was almost entirely covered by a Parking Management Scheme. Officers noted that there would be six units with four car parking spaces, it was noted that for a development in this location with a Public Transport Accessibility Level of three, the London Plan Car Parking Standards would allow a maximum of 4.75 spaces, it was confirmed that the four provided was in accordance with policy. The Committee were minded to include a condition stipulating that the four parking spaces be allocated to the associated dwellings. The officer’s recommendation for approval was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be approved;

2)    That a condition be added requiring the four car parking spaces to be allocated to their associated dwellings.