Agenda item

Erection of a part two, part three, part four storey building comprising of 1

one-bedroom flat, 4 two-bedroom flats and 7 three-bedroom flats, with

associated surface and basement car parking, secured cycle parking, bin

store and alterations to vehicular access.

Recommendation : Approval, subject to a Section 278 Agreement.

Erection of a part two, part three, part four storey building comprising of 1 one-bedroom flat, 4 two-bedroom flats and 7 three-bedroom flats, with associated surface and basement car parking, secured cycle parking, bin store and alterations to vehicular access.

18958/APP/2009/2210

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• The residential amenity and car parking spaces for the proposal are inadequate.
• There is uncertainty whether the proposal will be finished to the requisite standard.
• The proposal will have a massive frontage and will look like a warehouse.
• The proposal will block out the southern sunlight to current the Green Lane flats.
• The proposal is contrary to BE23. The kitchen and bathroom window of one flat will overlook the car park. This property will be affected by noise and poor air quality.
• The proposal lacks sufficient amenity space for children to play adequately or safely.
• A significant proportion of the amenity space will be concrete.
• The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.
• The (possibility of) Developers losses are not material planning reasons.
• The provision of 13 car parking spaces is inadequate and is 5 short of the number required by the UDP policy.
• The proposal will restrict access to the local roads.
• The proposal does not make adequate provision for refuse collection.

Points raised by the applicant:

• The aim of the proposal is to provide high quality homes for those people wishing to downsize their property.
• Following discussions with the Council, the proposal has been redesigned and reduced in size.
• The proposed development will enhance the character and appearance of the street scene through the building design and use of landscaping.
• The overall scale, height and massing of the proposal has been significantly reduced compared to the previously refused scheme.
• The proposal will help to regenerate the area.
• Careful consideration has been given to the materials employed in the design.
• The design protects the privacy of occupiers and owners through the use obscure glazing and uses full height privacy screens on balconies where appropriate.
• The scheme will contribute £10,000 towards the expansion of community facilities and £28,000 towards local open space and recreation improvements.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting. The following points were raised:

·        The objections raised by the petitioners were supported.

·        The report is inaccurate.

·        There is not a reasonable transition between the commercial centre and the residential development the proposal adjoins.

·        There are insufficient car parking spaces in the proposal. Where will residents’ guests park?

·        The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

·        There is insufficient amenity space.

·        The pitch of the roof is too acute and reducing the amount of available sales space is not sufficient reason to allow this.

·        The proposal is not sympathetic to the area. It is out of character and the turret design will not match the street scene.

·        There is insufficient amenity space for children to play

·        The proposal is contrary to the UDP and LDF

In answer to a query about car parking and the likely effect on the local area, officers advised the Committee that 13 car parking spaces was adequate for this type of development given the provision of cycle spaces and good transport links (the London Metropolitan Tube Line) near by.

Members asked for further clarification on the amount of amenity space. Officers explained that the total amount of amenity space had been calculated by adding the balcony space, courtyard and side landscaping together but confirmed that the front garden space had been excluded from this calculation. In total the proposal provided 75% of the recommended amenity space but there was an 83³m shortfall.

In response to a query about privacy, officers confirmed that the full height (6ft tall) obscure glazing was proposed for those balconies where privacy issues were anticipated. Officers acknowledged that the courtyard would be overlooked but explained that the overlooking of communal space was typical of this type of development.

Further issues raised by Members included height, massing and the appearance of the proposal. In response, officers advised that there would be a diagonal height transition between the residential properties and Clive Parade. Officers confirmed the building was substantial and would be prominent but that a well designed proposal would not mean it was out of keeping with the street scene. Officers stated that they felt the scale of the proposal was acceptable in this case. Members also raised concerns about the design and layout of the car park and remained concerned about how the traffic light system of entry and egress might work.

It was moved and seconded that the application be Refused for the reasons listed below. On being put to the vote, refusal was unanimously agreed.

Resolved – That the application be Refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal, by reason of its overall scale, siting, and design would constitute an inappropriate development of the site, resulting in an unduly intrusive, visually prominent and incongruous form of development, which would fail to respect the established character of the Northwood Town Centre Green Lane Conservation Area and the area generally. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE4, BE13 and BE19 of the Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) and the Council's  HDAS (Supplementary Planning Document ) 'Residential Layouts'.

2. The proposal fails to provide amenity space of sufficient size and quality so as to be commensurate with the size and layout of the development. As such the proposal would provide a substandard form of accommodation for future residents, contrary to Policy BE23 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007), and the Council's HDAS (Supplementary Planning Document) 'Residential Layouts'.