Agenda item

Demolition of existing rear workshop buildings (Use Class E) and construction of 2 no. self-contained flats and 1 no. dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) with associated private amenity space, landscaping, cycle and refuse storage, together with alterations and a two-storey rear extension to the existing building, including internal layout changes to the first-floor residential flat above the retail unit and the installation of a rear dormer window (REVISED DESCRIPTION) 

Recommendation: Approval 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions as set out in the report and the information in the addendum.

Demolition of existing rear workshop buildings (Use Class E) and construction of 2 no. self-contained flats and 1 no. dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) with associated private amenity space, landscaping, cycle and refuse storage, together with alterations and a two-storey rear extension to the existing building, including internal layout changes to the first-floor residential flat above the retail unit and the installation of a rear dormer window (REVISED DESCRIPTION)

Sally Robbins, Senior Planning Officer, presented the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was noted that the site was located within the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character and subject to constraints including critical drainage, air quality focus, and potential land contamination. The proposal introduced a car-free arrangement with bin and cycle storage, hard and soft landscaping, and defensible space within a courtyard. The unit mix comprised one retained and altered flat, two two-storey dwellings, and one single-storey dwelling, all meeting internal space standards.

It was considered that the design broadly reflected the existing footprint and preserved the character of the area while optimising site capacity. The proposal was considered to provide acceptable living conditions, safeguard neighbour amenity, and address environmental matters through conditions. Highways officers had raised no objection, and the increase in built form was not deemed harmful to neighbouring properties. Overall, the scheme represented an appropriate design-led approach for a High Street location and was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

A petition had been received in objection to the application, and a representative of the Northwood Residents’ Association (NRA) was in attendance to address the Committee Members on behalf of the lead petitioner who had been the tenant of the shop and resident of the flat above since 1985. Key points highlighted included:

·         The proposal required the lead petitioner to vacate the premises, resulting in the loss of her home and business.

·         The NRA strongly opposed the application, primarily due to the complete absence of on-site car parking.

·         It was argued that reliance on proximity to bus stops as justification for no parking would set a borough-wide precedent, as most properties were within walking distance of public transport.

·         Previous applications for the site had included car parking spaces, and earlier refusals highlighted inadequacy of proposed parking provision.

·         The current scheme introduced three additional residential units to the rear of the site, accommodating approximately ten residents, without any on-site parking provision.

·         Concerns were raised about increased illegal parking and difficulties for residents and visitors, as well as the impracticality of assuming reliance solely on public transport.

·         The applicant had initially claimed ownership of the pavement in front of the shop for parking purposes, later admitting this was incorrect after evidence was provided.

·         Additional objections included inadequate amenity space, lack of lift access to upper floors, and loss of storage facilities for the retail unit.

·         The NRA submitted a further objection during the November reconsultation, reiterating that on-site parking was a requirement under the local plan and that the property’s distance from the station did not justify its exclusion.

·         It was noted that granting consent without parking provision would create a precedent affecting the entire borough and could not be justified by special circumstances.

·         The NRA requested that the application be refused.

The agent for the application was also in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         The scheme aimed to make effective use of a previously developed Brownfield site to deliver much-needed modern housing in line with central government directives.

·         The location was described as highly sustainable, and the development sought to enhance the character of the site and its surroundings.

·         The existing site comprised a ground-floor shop with a flat above and a series of dilapidated ancillary storage and former workshop buildings to the rear.

·         The proposal included extending the frontage building at ground and first-floor levels to create two new residential units (one one-bedroom and one two-bedroom), along with a new WC and storage areas for the shop.

·         The rear workshops were to be demolished and replaced with a three-bedroom family home over ground and loft levels, featuring a private garden.

·         The design incorporated an attractively landscaped pedestrian courtyard providing outlook and defensible space, with bin and cycle storage positioned near the High Street frontage.

·         Statutory consultees, including highways, had raised no technical objections, and all proposed units complied with space and daylight/sunlight standards.

·         The applicant had engaged proactively with officers during pre-application and formal submission stages to achieve a well-resolved scheme.

·         It was noted that land ownership was not a material consideration in planning decisions.

·         The application was commended to the Committee for approval.

Officers responded to the points raised by the petitioners noting that their main concern related to the absence of parking provision and an alleged conflict with the Local Plan. It was explained that the London Plan, which succeeded the Hillingdon Local Plan, had taken precedence regarding parking standards. Policy T6 of the London Plan was highlighted, stating that car-free development should have been the starting point for proposals in areas well connected by public transport. Officers confirmed that there were no sustainable grounds to refuse the application on the basis of lack of parking, given the site’s accessibility and sustainable location.

It was further reiterated that opportunities for overspill parking in the vicinity were extremely limited. On the eastern side of the High Street, parking bays and waiting restrictions were in place, while the western side contained numerous dropped kerbs serving residential properties, leaving no available space. Controlled parking zones existed further afield; however, as the site was outside these zones, residents would not have been eligible for permits. It was therefore concluded that overspill parking could not have been accommodated in the immediate area.

Dr Alan Tilly, Transport, Planning and Development Team Manager, explained that, under the London Plan, the development would have been permitted a maximum of 2.5 car parking spaces. On that basis, it was anticipated that up to 2.5 cars could have been displaced onto the street, assuming car ownership. It was noted that the surrounding area was subject to extensive parking controls, making the location suitable for residents seeking a car-free lifestyle. The proximity of bus stops served by two routes providing access to Eastcote and Greenford was highlighted. It was noted that the site would not be appropriate for individuals reliant on a car for daily travel needs, whereas those wishing to adopt a car-free lifestyle would find it suitable. It was further observed that, for those who still owned a car, surrounding roads were covered by parking restrictions.

A question was raised by Councillors regarding the absence of parking provision in the current application compared to the previous submission, and clarification was sought on the design approach and the PTAL value, which was understood to be 2, suggesting car dependency. In response, the agent explained that the red line boundary did not determine parking rights and confirmed that the land previously considered for parking was owned by Hillingdon Council, where parking was prohibited. It was noted that illegal parking had occurred in front of the shop and adjacent premises, but this was under Council control.

Further concerns were expressed by Members about the PTAL rating and the presence of parking for neighbouring properties, as shown in photographs. Officers responded that, although the PTAL rating was 2, the site was located within a town centre accessibility zone where residential units above commercial premises typically lacked dedicated parking. It was added that the rear development referenced had been approved on appeal in 2008 under previous policies, whereas current London Plan policies imposed maximum parking standards. Officers confirmed that the site’s location and proximity to transport routes, including a seven-minute walk to a school, supported a car-free scheme. Members reiterated their concerns that PTAL 2 indicated car reliance and that surrounding properties had parking, suggesting the proposed development would also require it.

The Transport, Planning and Development Team Manager acknowledged the low PTAL rating but stated that car-free development was acceptable due to nearby rail services, local shops, and parking controls on surrounding streets, which would deter car ownership. The Chair commented that refusal could not be justified solely on numerical PTAL grounds and that real-world circumstances must be considered, noting that harm could not be demonstrated. A further question was raised about emergency access for fire and ambulance services. Officers confirmed that fire engines could operate within the required 45-metre hose length from the highway and that other emergency vehicles could access the site on foot.

Committee Members suggested revising the scheme to include parking or imposing conditions restricting car ownership by visitors, but officers advised that such conditions were unenforceable and that an appeal would likely result in loss of control over conditions.

No further queries or concerns were raised. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions and the information in the addendum.