Agenda item

Erection of a first floor side extension to provide 2 two-bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of a first floor side extension to provide 2 two-bedroom flats with associated parking and amenity space

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal addressed the meeting and raised the following points:

• The proposed development concerned a health and fitness club, which was a commercial enterprise and not a residential unit
• Discharge from restaurants already impacted on residents in Kaduna Close
• The tennis courts in the adjoining tennis club had had grass laid two years ago and had been the only existing leisure activity in the area
• The car park in the rear of the site had never been resurfaced
• Worked very hard to run the tennis club and provide a very valuable amenity to the local area
• Concerned that building works would cause severe disruption to the area
• Urged the Committee to refuse this application, as it had no place in an already constrained site.

A representative of the Eastcote Village Conservation Area Advisory Panel addressed the meeting raising the following points:

• Supported the reasons for refusal set out in the officer’s report
• The overall size and design of the proposed development would be overdominant, visually intrusive and would fail to harmonise with the character and appearance of the original building
• Concerned about the effect the development would have on trees that were covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO20), as trees severely cut back would affect the view of the River Pinn which was in the Conservation area
• Concerned about the lack of amenity space for the proposed development and substandard accommodation for future occupiers
• The proposed development would lead to increased parking issues in Kaduna Close, which already housed a sporting facility in a dead end road
• Considered that traffic impact assessment should have been conducted and included in the officer’s report
• Asked the Committee to refuse the application as recommended in the officer’s report.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petition received in support to the proposal addressed the meeting and raised the following points:

• That small business enterprises made up 60% to 70% of the national economy compared to mega organisations which in their view dictated to local authorities
• Suggested that for a small business to survive, it was important for it to be able to maximise its investments and make careful use of its assets
• That the applicant had taken the tennis club and local residents into consideration 
• That the application had been put together by using planners, local development officers and estates agents

The applicant’s representative made the following points:

·        Spoke as one of the owners of the proposed development

·        Suggested that many of the objection appeared to be irrelevant

·        That only two neighbours had objected

·        Suggested that one of the Ward Councillors had taken a personal interest to ensure application was refused

·        Considered that they had not been treated equally and that the Human Rights Act of 1994 had not be taken into consideration

·        Suggested that the officer’s report was biased and contradictory

·        That a petition in support of the application had been submitted to mitigate the comments made by the Conservation Urban Design Officer

·         That the amenity space was a veranda on the first floor and not the roof top

·        That the terrace amenity space on the roof top had been wrongly calculated

·        That much importance had been placed on the pruning of the oak tree which would make no difference, as the area got a lot of sun

·        Suggested that floodlights would have no adverse effect on the flats as they were focused on the tennis court

·        Confirmed that they were prepared to give an indemnity on an agreed amount to the Council

·        Considered that it would be democratic to reassess the report before the Committee made a decision.

Officers commented that there had been a typological error on page 55 which should read ‘refusal’ and not ‘approval’.

With regard to the calculation of the amenity space, the Committee noted that this was calculated using usable space less discount around the door. Members were directed to page 185 of the plans and explained that the amenity space was located at the end of the proposed parking area and with the position of the oak tree; this rendered the proposed amenity space to be unsuitable.

Regarding the issue of floodlighting, officers explained that the floodlight was situated on the boundary of the site with the tennis court and where the proposed flats were situated was in front of the proposed development. It was noted therefore, that the floodlights would have an impact, as they were not designed to limit light spillage.

The committee noted that the application had been assessed in its merit and the report had reflected this.

Members indicated that whilst it was true that more accommodation was needed in the Borough, substandard developments were unacceptable. The proposed amenity space was considered not to be inadequate as the idea of the flats being so close to the tennis court, with a car park on the other side was considered not to be an appropriate place to add two additional flats.

In respect of the issue of parking, officers advised that the Highway Engineer had considered that parking was an issue which may impact on existing demand and would therefore merit an additional reason for refusal on highway grounds as follows:

• Inadequate provision for refuse vehicles
• No information provided about existing demand for the car park
• No information on spare capacity of car park and on-street parking which would lead to;
• Inadequate car parking for the proposed development

The Committee requested officers to provide the wording for the additional reason for refusal in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

The recommendation together with the additional reason for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the officer’s report together with the following additional reasons for refusal:

The proposals fail to provide an assessment of the existing parking demand for the car park, on-street parking stress and swept paths for refuse vehicles. In the absence of information, the proposals are considered to have inadequate car parking, unsatisfactory layout for refuse vehicles and are likely to lead to situations detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety contrary to the Council’s Policies AM7 and AM14 of the UDP.