Agenda item

The provision of 8 residential dwellings in the existing loft space and external alterations to existing building including the extension of the roof, the provision of new dormer windows and external roof terraces.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation summarising the proposals noting that the application was recommended for approval subject to the suggested conditions, including restricting prospective residents from applying for residents parking permits in the local parking management scheme.

A petition had been submitted objecting to the proposals. One of the lead petitioners was present and addressed the Committee. Key points raised during their address included:

·         Two previous related applications had been refused.

·         It was deemed that the freeholders of the building had not informed the residents and leaseholders of Kirk House of the proposals and no proper consultation had taken place.

·         There was no concrete floor between the second floor and the loft space where the new dwellings were proposed. This would lead to significant levels of additional noise impacting those residents on the 2^nd floor.

·         There would be significant disruption to residents’ lives, in addition to the school and the church, during the construction phase. Furthermore, the car park would face significant disruption during this phase and shift workers living in the building would be impacted considerably.

·         Concerns were raised regarding whether there was enough water pressure to accommodate the new dwellings.

·         The proposals would have a significant impact on the architecture and character of the street.

·         It was deemed that the proposals were purely made for the developers gain and did not take into account the needs of the residents.

The agent for the application was present and addressed the Committee. Key points raised during their address included:

·         The proposed scheme was the result of extensive proactive engagement with the Planning Authority and represented a low impact, highly sustainable proposal to provide eight additional dwellings at Kirk House, helping Hillingdon to meet its housing targets.

·         The proposals would not have a significant impact on the character of the building, or the local area.

·         During the construction phase, disruption would be minimised by not taking any material up through the building itself, instead lifting them directly into the loft space through cavities in the roof of the building.

·         The floor construction between the 2^nd floor and the loft space would significantly exceed the requirements for acoustic mitigation outlined in building regulations.

·         The windows on the new habitable roof would be setback and would therefore not lead to any additional overlooking.

·         The six proposed parking spaces were in line with the London Plan as the maximum amount allowed. These spaces were already part of the car park and were not currently allocated to any residents.

·         A new disabled compliant lift would be installed in the building.

·         It was noted that the Local Planning Authority carried out all statutory consultations with residents and the developer had written to residents to inform them of the plans.

·         The service charge applied to each of the current dwellings would reduce as the charge would be shared between eight further dwellings in the building.

·         It was clarified that there would be no loss of parking during the construction phase as there was a space owned by the developers which would be utilised by vehicles bringing materials onto site. There would be scaffolding but it would not impact on the availability of parking spaces.

·         It was highlighted that there was capacity regarding water pressure to accommodate the new dwellings.

·         It was noted that the initial development of Kirk House from an office space to residential use was carried out under prior approval with no requirement for landscaping. The Committee felt that the planters and landscaping currently in place could be improved.

Councillor Sital Punja was present as a Ward Councillor for Yiewsley and addressed the Committee. Key points of their address included:

·         It was felt that there was no proper consultation carried out by the developer with residents of Kirk House.

·         It was highlighted that the proposals could not be considered as best use of a brownfield site as there were existing residential dwellings and the site should have already been considered in best use.

·         Concerns were raised over some of the existing windows on the lower floors which were side opening, in that the windows were side opening and not double glazed.

·         There remained significant noise concerns regarding impact noises from new residents in the proposed dwellings.

·         With regard to overlooking, the screening provided by trees on site would not be affective in mitigating overlooking from the new dwellings.

Due to the concerns raised by petitioners and the Ward Councillor, the Committee sought clarification regarding the consultations that had taken place to ensure that all lawful and statutory consultations had been carried out. Officers confirmed that this was the case as detailed in the report officer’s.

Officers clarified that, with regard to overlooking, there were already existing habitable windows in the building looking in all directions, including the church and primary school which was of particular concern to residents. Officers highlighted that the windows on the loft floor would be set back and it was deemed that there would be no additional level of overlooking.

Members queried whether, if the application were to be approved, the materials condition could be amended to specify the inclusion of a sample of the grey aluminium panel proposed for the dormer extensions. The Committee agreed that this should be included.

The Committee were minded to specifically amend the construction management plan condition to specify the hours of construction in an effort to mitigate disruption to residents. Additionally, the Committee sought to have a scaffolding plan to ensure sufficient parking was maintained during the construction phase. This was agreed and delegated to officers to amend the condition and bring it back to the Chairman for sign off.

The Committee specifically questioned the proposed housing mix. Officers confirmed that, whilst the housing mix didn’t add any family housing, there would be no loss of family housing and the development would complement the Borough’s housing need.

On landscaping matters, the Committee sought to amend the landscaping condition to specifically require soft landscaping, for example a living roof, green wall, or planting to be introduced to enhance the site and accommodate the intensification of residential use. Officers confirmed that this could be done and additional planting could be agreed with the developer in writing prior to commencement.

The officer’s recommendation, inclusive of the amendments to conditions agreed by the Committee, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed with four votes in favour and two abstentions.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be approved;

2)    That it be delegated to officers to amend the construction management plan condition to include a scaffolding plan to ensure sufficient parking is maintained during construction and to specify the hours of construction, and hours for loading and unloading of vehicles; and for this to come back to the Chairman for sign off.

3)    That the materials condition be amended to specify the inclusion of a sample of the grey aluminium panel proposed for the dormer extensions.

4)    That the landscaping condition be amended to specifically require soft landscaping to enhance the site and accommodate the intensification of residential use.