Agenda item

Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a residential building comprising 6 no. flats with associated bins and cycle provision, including removal of drop kerb and alterations.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

1.    That the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration consider the addition of a condition, in the event of an appeal, regarding the embankment at the application site; and

2.    That the application be refused.

Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a residential building comprising 6 no. flats with associated bins and cycle provision, including removal of drop kerb and alterations.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. It was noted that a previous application had been considered by the North Planning Committee in May 2021 at which time, had the application not been under appeal for non-determination, the Committee had resolved to refuse the application for three reasons. Said reasons had regard to the design and scale of the scheme, the proposed unit mix and highway safety concerns relating to the proposed parking and vehicle access arrangements at the site. Members were informed that the current application had adequately addressed two of these issues; however, concerns remained regarding the scale and design of the proposed scheme and its impact on the character and visual amenity of the area.

A petitioner was in attendance who thanked officers for their thorough report and welcomed the inclusion of a number of conditions should the application be approved. Thanks were also extended to the ERA Planning Representative. Key points raised included:

·       The residential roads in Eastcote maintained the ethos of a pleasant garden suburb with good-sized family accommodation;

·       Elm Avenue had seen little in the way of infill building and there were few dormers visible from the street. 2-storey height lines had been respected to date hence the proposal would not be in keeping with the street scene;

·       The current application had ticked more planning boxes than the previous one but, in doing so, had detracted from the liveability factor;

·       The proposed 3-bedroom ground floor flat had a side-facing window closely overlooked by the rising Oak Grove pavement – this was a privacy concern;

·       The 3-bedroom flat increased the size and bulk of the proposed development;

·       The reduction in parking spaces from 4 to 2 reduced the appeal of the first floor flats;

·       Wheelchair users would not be able to easily access any of the outdoor amenity spaces and there were no disabled parking spaces in the plans;

·       The topology of the site had not been considered in the report – approximately one third of the site was taken up by an embankment area leading up to the Oak Grove boundary. The proposal would require levelling the whole site and there was no indication how the narrow Oak Grove pavement and roadway would be maintained during the levelling works or thereafter;

·       A similar development by the same company in Hatch End which was oversized and overly dominant appeared to be a template for this proposal.

The Committee heard that the agent had not wished to attend the meeting so as not to undermine the pending non-determination appeal.

Ward Councillor Heena Makwana was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of the petitioners and residents. Key points raised included:

·       The bulk and design of the proposed development would not be in keeping with the local area and street scene;

·       Elm Avenue predominantly comprised 2-storey houses with single-storey garages to the side thereby creating a sense of space – the development would have a detrimental effect on the appearance of openness;

·       Step-free access to the first-floor flats at the proposed development would not be possible for wheelchair users hence the proposal did not comply with the 2020 London Plan Policy D7;

·       The proposal for a flat roof form would be detrimental to the street scene and wider area;

·       The depth failed to harmonise with the local context.

Committee Members felt the proposal would result in overdevelopment on a prominent corner site and expressed concern regarding the parking arrangements, the embankment area and the lack of disabled access. It was confirmed that it would be difficult to defend at appeal any additional reason for refusal relating to parking as the standards had been met. Additionally, a new reason for refusal in relation to disability access could not be added at this stage since the previous application had not been refused on that point and it would not be possible to defend this at appeal. However, at the request of Members, it was agreed that the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration would consider the addition of a condition, in the event of an appeal, with regard to the embankment at the application site.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed, subject to the addition of a condition regarding the embankment.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration consider the addition of a condition, in the event of an appeal, regarding the embankment at the application site; and

2.    That the application be refused.