Agenda item

Part conversion from retail/offices (Use Class A1/B1) to 6 x two-bedroom flats and 3 x three-bedroom flats with associated parking, amenity space, cycle store and bin store, installation of balconies to front and rear, alterations to elevations, new fenestration to upper floors, demolition of existing external fire escape, alterations to existing vehicular crossover and removal of existing plant on roof.

Recommendation: Approval

Part conversion from retail/offices (Use Class A1/B1) to 6 x two-bedroom flats and 3 x three-bedroom flats with associated parking, amenity space, cycle store and bin store, installation of balconies to front and rear, alterations to elevations, new fenestration to upper floors, demolition of existing external fire escape, alterations to existing vehicular crossover and removal of existing plant on roof.

Planning permission was sought for the conversion of vacant offices on the first, second and third floors of a four-storey building to residential use, comprising 6 x two bedroom and 3 x three bedroom flats. There was no objection in principle to their conversion to residential use.

The scheme would not adversely affect the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers. The development would provide 13 car parking spaces, which was considered acceptable in this town centre location with good public transport accessibility. Secure cycle storage would also be provided.

Amenity space was provided in the form of a 115sq.m communal amenity area to the rear and 125sq.m of private balconies for all flats, totalling 240sq.m of amenity space. It was considered that the proposal complies with relevant Council policy and approval was recommended subject to conditions.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

·        Ms Sheppard spoke on behalf of the petitioners.

·        She lived directly behind the application and stated the gardens would be completely overlooked.

·        Although the application was 21metres away the balcony’s proposed would look directly onto the gardens.

·        The petitioner felt that the privacy issue had not been adequately addressed.

·        The proposed screening on the balcony only came to waist height; people would be able to see over the top.

·        The residents would feel like they would be on show.

·        The Human Rights Act was mentioned in the report but was not addressed.

·        A garden is a large part of family life and if the application was approved it would take this away from residents.

·        Policy BE24 stated that there needed to be adequate level of privacy for neighbours.

·        If the application was approved they would be sharing their lives with others.

·        The current building was unattractive, but the proposed building was not in keep with the street scene which was red brick. The proposal was a yellow brick building.

·        A neighbouring property had very stringent planning conditions and the same should apply for this application.

The agent spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

·        Mr Murray spoke on behalf of the application.

·        Pembroke formed a familiar landmark on Ruislip Town Centre.

·        There was a need for modernisation.

·        The existing structure was unattractive and the proposal would provide a far more attractive building to the street scene.

·        Financially the applicant could not afford to demolish the building and start over again.

·        The application would compliment nearby retail.

·        The application was compliant with policies.

·        An investment of this sort should be applauded in today’s economic environment.

·        Most of the brickwork would be maintained.

·        The balconies were there to give private amenity space to residents.

Councillor Philip Corthorne was present and spoke as a Ward Councillor:

·        Cllr Corthorne spoke in support of the petitioners.

·        The building did need improvement.

·        The area was a conservation area.

·        There would likely to be an impact on parking on adjoining roads, and people would be unlikely to follow pattern of there being less drivers.

·        There was the impact of residential amenities and residents being overlooked to consider.

·        The Ward Cllr challenged the level of amenity space stated on the application and that the proposed balconies could be considered amenity space.

·        The area was already heavily congested with traffic issues.

·        The Ward Cllr asked that the Committee looked at mitigating the effects on residents.

Officers explained to Members that the appearance issue was subjective, and the privacy issues raised were considered acceptable as the distance between the application and neighbouring gardens were far enough.

The Legal Officer explained that although Article 8 of the Human Rights Act was not specifically mentioned in the report, that the report contained comments in relation to impact and neighbours. The Legal Officer was satisfied that Article 8 was not breached.

Members discussed the points raised by the petitioners, Ward Councillor and agent. There were lots of issues to consider but they were not wholly against the application. Members discussed the option of a site visit.

Members were concerned that the balconies would look outwards and onto residents gardens and the overlooking. Members appreciated that the distance was a factor but had to consider how they would feel if they were a resident in the area. They did not feel comfortable with the balcony on that height of the building.

Also they did not agree with the idea that removing parking spaces would result in a reduction of cars.

Members discussed whether the issue of overlooking would still exist if there were no balconies and just windows instead.

Members also discussed the exterior design and felt there was an opportunity to do better with the appearance. Members did not have any issues with the office block being converted into residential flats. The concern was the appearance and Members asked if officers and the applicant could work together on improving this and the issue with balconies. Members suggested obscure glass could be an alternative to consider.

Resolved –

That the application be deferredto seek amendments involving removal of balconies and revisions to treatment of front/rear elevations.