Agenda item

Demolition of the existing building and construction of a four-storey building, comprising 13 residential units, including associated landscape works, provision of bicycle and bin storage and car parking space. (Following the approved change of use ref. 51321/APP/2022/1861).

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED That: the application be refused subject to the addendum changes and an amendment to reason for refusal 6 to include the words balcony/garden.

Demolition of the existing building and construction of a four storey building, comprising 13 residential units, including associated landscape works, provision of bicycle and bin storage and car parking space (following the approved change of use ref. 51321/APP/2022/1861).

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the additional information in the addendum. The application was recommended for refusal for ten reasons including the lack of family accommodation offered, the size and bulk of the proposed development which would harm the character of the area, including the Eastcote Conservation Area opposite, the lack of adequate parking, the flood risk, the unsatisfactory living conditions, the harm to neighbouring properties and the failure to provide contributions towards improved services and facilities as a consequence of the development.

A petition had been received in objection to the proposal. A petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·       Residents of Deerings Place and surrounding roads were pleased to see that the application was recommended for refusal and thanked planning officers and Ward Councillor Nick Denys for their help and due diligence;

·       The proposed development would be oversized, would not be in keeping with the surrounding area and could set a precedent for the future;

·       Insufficient parking was proposed which would add to parking stress on local congested roads;

·       The safeguarding and wellbeing of existing residents had to be taken into consideration – the proposed roof gardens would present a safeguarding concern;

·       The proposed development lacked sufficient lighting and outside amenity space which would have a negative impact on the mental health of future occupants;

·       Flooding was a big concern – the nearby Eastcote Tennis Club had twice been flooded in recent years;

·       Repeated planning applications at the site were a worry and put a huge strain on local residents.

Members sought clarification regarding the flooding events at Eastcote Tennis Club. It was confirmed that the courts had been destroyed by floods in June 2016. They had been revamped but had flooded again two years later – fortunately it had been possible to save them on the second occasion.

Members noted the ten suggested reasons for refusal in the officers’ report and expressed concern that the proposed development failed to comply with planning regulations.  Concerns were raised regarding the lack of suitable access as set out in reason for refusal nine.

Members sought further clarification regarding the air source heat pumps referenced on page 20 of the agenda pack. It was confirmed that these could be conditioned to ensure the noise levels generated were acceptable hence this would not constitute an additional reason for refusal.

The Committee noted that there were no 4-storey buildings in the vicinity of the application site. In response to their questions, Councillors were informed that there were no 3-storey buildings in the immediate vicinity either – the nearest were in Eastcote High Street and in Northwood Hills.

Members raised concerns regarding the lack of external amenity space proposed and its potential impact on the mental health of future occupants. The Committee enquired whether this could constitute an additional reason for refusal. It was confirmed that this was encompassed within reason for refusal six; however, it could be further clarified by making specific reference to a garden / balcony.

Councillors observed that the proposed design was unacceptable and enquired whether this should be a reason for refusal. It was explained that bringing a number of factors together under one umbrella added weight to the argument - to separate this out would essentially dilute it and was therefore not recommended.

Members commented that the application was entirely inappropriate. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED That: the application be refused subject to the addendum changes and an amendment to reason for refusal 6 to include the words balcony/garden.