Agenda item

Erection of a part three storey, part four storey building comprising a ground floor Class A1 (Retail) unit and 3, one-bedroom flats and 8, two-bedroom flats above with first floor rear roof garden and third floor terrace on front elevation.

Recommendation: Approval

Erection of a part three storey, part four storey building comprising a ground floor Class A1 (Retail) unit and 3, one-bedroom flats and 8, two-bedroom flats above with first floor rear roof garden and third floor terrace on front elevation

This application seeked planning permission for a new four storey building on the vacant site. It would comprise a new convenience store covering most of the ground floor and 3 one-bedroom and 8 two-bedroom flats above. The scheme would be car free.

The proposed usage was acceptable in policy terms and the scheme would benefit the town centre in terms of bringing a vacant prominent town centre site back into productive use. The scheme had been revised in terms of the building's siting and design and it was considered to present a satisfactory appearance on Field End Road, which respected the scale and harmonised with surrounding buildings.

The proposal was not considered to harm the setting of the Grade II listed Eastcote Underground Station sited on the opposite side of the road. The proposed building would not be detrimental  to  the amenities of surrounding residents.

One of  the  flats  was below  the minimum unit size advocated by design guidance, but  the shortfall  was minimal  and would  not  justify  a refusal of the  scheme. The amenity space proposed was considered acceptable in this town centre location. 

With  regards to noise,  the Council's  Environmental  Health  Officer  advised  that  adequate  safeguards  and attenuation  measures  would  ensure  that  an  adequate  residential  environment  was achieved.

Since the scheme has been amended to include a lift to all residential floors, the Council's Access Officer advised that the scheme was acceptable.

As the site had no rear access, servicing and deliveries would be at the front of the store. Works to the highway included a new  loading/unloading  bay  that would  be  available  to surrounding retail units, remodelling of the adjoining lay-by to provide three additional on-

street parking spaces and the area to the front of the store would be paved and two new trees and seating provided and the area would be dedicated to the Council. The Council's Highway Officer advised that delivery arrangements were acceptable; subject to control of delivery times to avoid peak hours and that the car free scheme was acceptable. Although no disabled car parking space was provided, given the constraints on site and the scale of the development proposed, no objection was raised.

An Affordable Homes Viability Assessment demonstrated that the scheme would not be viable  was  such  housing  was  included  having  regard  to  other  s106  commitments. It was considered that the scheme did provide a full range of S106 contributions. It was recommended for approval.

Members discussed the traffic and parking implications of the application. Members were concerned that the application offered of no parking spaces. They discussed the option of underground parking and issues that may arise from deliveries to this site. It was noted that this site did not have rear access so deliveries would be made through the front. It was discussed that refuse would be collected from the front of the site.

The surrounding areas had controlled parking zones (cpz) and Members discussed where the new residents and also shoppers would park when using the facilities and those that lived in the flats above the proposed store.

The size of the amenity was discussed and Members agreed that this was well below the usual guidance. Members accepted that this was a Town Centre space and also noted that there was no contribution towards Green Spaces.

Officers explained to Members that it was proposed that deliveries to the store would be consolidated. That if the bay’s outside the store was being occupied the agent had said the delivery van would come back later rather than wait on the road for space. An s.106 legal agreement could be put in place to enforce how deliveries were carried out to the store. The deliveries could be restricted to timings. Officers stated that the deliveries proposed would not be more than 1 hour a day in total for this application.

Members discussed how the area was notorious difficult area for highways and traffic. That drainage was also an issue that the Committee needed to consider. Members noted that there was not a dedicated disabled parking space for a person living in the proposed development.

Members believed that for various reasons including parking, amenity space, delivery, traffic they could not accept the proposal as it was presented. They agreed this was a prime site that would benefit from enhancement, but that the application was an over-development of the site.

Members believed that the applications needed some changes, but agreed the idea in principle would be a positive enhancement to the area.

Members discussed the policy reasons in regard to this application and believed it was contrary to policies AM14, AM15 and BE23. Members agreed to overturn the officer recommendation.

Resolved –

Recommendation overturned and application REFUSED on the grounds of lack of parking/disabled parking and inadequate amenity space. Exact wording to be agreed with the Chairman and Labour lead.