Agenda item

Partially retrospective demolition of four dwellings (Nos. 12, 14, and 16 Pield Heath Road and 2 Pield Heath Avenue) and one Bed and Breakfast (No. 18 Pield Heath Road), and the subsequent erection of a part two storey, part three storey (plus basement) care home (Class C2), with car parking, landscaping, and associated works.

Recommendation: Approval subject to s106 legal agreement

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officers’ recommendations

Partially retrospective demolition of four dwellings (Nos. 12, 14, and 16 Pield Heath Road and 2 Pield Heath Avenue) and one Bed and Breakfast (No. 18 Pield Heath Road), and the subsequent erection of a part two storey, part three storey (plus basement) care home (Class C2), with car parking, landscaping, and associated works.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the addendum which included a number of minor alterations post publication of the report.

Councillor Ekta Gohil addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor:

• Councillor Gohil was speaking in objection to the application
• There was an issue of highways and parking
  • A 33% increase in capacity with no additional parking was a concern
  • The Council’s transport officer had noted that there may be instances of off-site parking
  • This was an area already struggling with parking stress, especially with the hospital and a GP practice nearby
  • Policy DMT6 stated that developments should not exacerbate existing parking problems or pose a risk to highway safety. This application would do both
  • Pield Heath Road was a main thoroughfare for ambulances
• Under policy DMH7 proposals for specialist housing such as care homes needed to show a demonstrated localised need
  • There was not a 33% increase in need, especially with two other care homes nearby
  • This questioned if the increase in need was in the local vicinity or borough vicinity
• There was an issue of the impact on neighbouring properties
  • Neighbours had experienced months of dust, noise, blocked access and muddy roads due to construction. This application would prolong that disruption
  • There would be an increase in visitors and deliveries post construction
  • Policy DMHV11 was backed up by paragraph 130 of the national policy framework, which said that development should secure a high standard of amenity for both existing and future users. Based on the disruption so far and the increased intensity proposed, this standard had not been, nor will be met
• It was recognised that the application was recommended for approval, however the Committee was urged to refuse, or to defer for a site visit

Members asked for clarification on the increase in parking. Officers clarified that the number of parking spaces would increase from 14 to 19, and that the ratio would remain at 0.2 spaces per unit.

Members noted a previous site visit and highlighted potential congestion problems. Most local roads had a parking management scheme, and five additional spaces appeared inadequate for a 33% increase in capacity. However, reasons for refusal needed to be robust and refusal on parking grounds alone may be overturned at appeal.

It was noted that a potential redevelopment of Hillingdon Hospital would likely include additional parking spaces.

Members asked about planting trees and natural electricity. Officers noted that there was a landscaping condition including a replanting scheme. There were also biodiversity net gain requirements.

It was noted that a 33% increase in capacity was a large increase, and it was clarified that there would be an additional 21 units.

Members asked for clarity on the policy points raised by the Ward Councillor. There was a parking management condition which required a plan to be submitted prior to any above ground works. This would also need to include details on disability compliant bays to address accessibility concerns. Additionally, there was a need for care homes in the borough. The Policy team supported the application.

Officers added that the previous planning approval contained a parking ratio of 0.2 spaces per unit. The current application maintained the same ratio and so it may be unreasonable to reject the current application on parking grounds.

Officers noted that the London Plan was silent on car parking standards for care homes and so they had referred to the Local Plan, which allowed 0.2 car parking spaces per unit. The Local Plan would not allow the development to provide any more car parking spaces and so the proposal was policy compliant.

Members reiterated that they were lacking robust reasons for refusal.

It was noted that any existing conditions could be lost if a refusal was overturned at appeal.

Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officers’ recommendations