Agenda item

Conversion of existing listed building incorporating new two storey extension with habitable roofspace comprising 3 one-bedroom flats and part use as Class A1 (Retail) for use as convenience goods store, to include associated parking, involving demolition of existing single storey detached building and extension to listed building.

Recommendation: Refusal

Conversion of existing listed building incorporating new two storey extension with habitable roof space comprising 3 one-bedroom flats and part use as Class A1 (Retail) for use as convenience goods store, to include associated parking, involving demolition of existing single storey detached building and extension to listed building.

3877/APP/2009/2442

At the start of the item, the Chairman explained that the petition which had been submitted enabled a representative of the petitioners to speak on agenda Items 8, 9 and 10 which were all related. If the petitioner did so, then the agent would have a right to reply on each occasion.  The petitioner waived this right and chose to speak on Item 8 only.

Points raised by the petitioner:

• The officer recommendations for refusal were supported.
• The suggestion that the applicant would use 8 metre long lorries for deliveries was unrealistic. The petitioner managed a food retail store nearby, which was a quarter of the size of the proposed development. This still required deliveries by a 10 metre long lorry, 4 times per week. The applicant has underestimated the number of deliveries required.
• There is a need to protect the historic town centre.
• The number of deliveries required will cause traffic problems and might impede emergency vehicles using the local hospital.
• The applicant has a history of using vehicles larger than 8 metres when delivering to retail outlets within the Borough at Eastcote, Ruislip Manor and West Ruislip.

Points raised by the agent:

• The main issue raised by the petitioner is the size of the delivery vehicles. The applicant now proposes to use 8 metre lorries which overcomes this concern.
• The smaller turning circle of these lorries will ensure the tree with the preservation order at the rear of the proposed development will not be affected by vehicular movements.

Members asked officers for further clarification about vehicular movements during deliveries. Officers explained that using a sweep entry method, 8 metre delivery lorries could be used in the short term. In the long term however, tree growth would make these unsuitable. Officers confirmed that 10 metre delivery lorries would collide with the protected tree.

In response to a query about enforcing the use of smaller lorries, the Highways Engineer explained that the applicant had a proven history of using larger vehicles for most deliveries and these ranged between 12.6 to 14.25 metres. The point was made, that smaller lorries would ensure that more deliveries were required.

The Legal Officer advised that the ability to objectively monitor the situation to establish any breach and the relatively onerous nature of monitoring on a ongoing basis could be problematical and that the imposition of a condition dealing with the issue may risk appeal.

Given the alterations to the rear car park design and loss of 3 car parking spaces to facilitate delivery vehicles, Members queried where potential customers might park? Officers explained that customers would need to park in the surrounding area on nearby roads.

The recommendation for Refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be Refused as recommended in the report with the changes and additions as set out in the Addendum and the following additional reason for refusal:

The delivery vehicle operations at the site would involve the need for a high and consistent level of management intervention throughout the life of the development which would not be sufficiently robust in the long term to ensure the safe operation of the site. The development is likely to result in delivery vehicles waiting and/or loading/unloading on the adjoining highway. The delivery operation would block the one way system resulting in cars exiting the site via an entry only access and entering via an exit only access, which would result in driver confusion and unexpected vehicle movements for other highway users.  The development is therefore considered to be detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety and prejudicial to the free flow of traffic on the adjoining highway, including access by emergency vehicles to and from the adjoining Harefield Hospital, contrary to Policy AM7 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).