53 homes at 80-82 Staines Road, Hounslow

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the gymnasium and building two apartment blocks, 13 townhouses, landscaping, cycle storage, parking and access improvements.

“P/2023/2705 Address: 80-82 Staines Road, TW3 3LF Proposal: Erection of two apartment blocks of 3-5 storeys and 4-6 storeys to create 40 flats and a terrace of 13 townhouses with associated landscaping, cycle storage, blue badge parking, access road improvements and servicing following the demolition of the existing snasium. This application is being taken to Planning Committee as a Major Scheme with public interest and a Legal Agreement.”

“The two flatted blocks would be six- and five-storeys respectively, with the taller block having a maximum height of around 20.6 metres above ground level. The townhouses would mostly be two-storeys in height, but four of the units would rise to three-storeys. The blocks would be separated from each other and from the townhouses by a long linear communal garden and means of access, and all units would benefit from a dedicated private amenity space.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site was a low-rise gymnasium building in Hounslow Town Centre, beside homes, a multi-storey car park and a commercial frontage.

“SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 The subject site consists of a 2545 square metre low-rise metal and brick-clad warehouse building which is currently in use as a Use Class E(d) gymnasium. Formerly it was used as a bingo hall. The site is accessed from Staines Road to the north, via a private access road which also serves the rear yards of premises on Staines Road.”

“While the 2015 allocation anticipates a mixed-use development, the emerging allocation targets a 100% residential scheme of 50 units being delivered on the site. Both allocations involve demolition of the gym. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 6a (excellent).”

Officer report

Planning history and consultation

There was no relevant planning history; pre-application discussions led to design changes, while initial consultation received three written representations about parking and gym loss.

“Community Consultation 4.3 The applicant has undertaken pre-application consultation with various stakeholders, including local residents, businesses and others, and held two online events prior to submission in November 2022 which were attended by 23 residents in total. Three written representations were received, complaining about the severe shortage of parking in the area and the loss of the gym.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the scheme would regenerate an allocated site, provide housing in a sustainable location and make effective use of land.

“The scheme would be consistent with the objectives of the Development Plan, bringing a more appropriate use to the site, delivering regeneration and housing, and optimising use of such sites with a focus on growth at sustainable locations. Taking all these matters into account approval is recommended, subject to necessary planning conditions and planning obligations.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Thirty objections raised concerns including light, privacy, design, parking, traffic, infrastructure, pollution, noise, construction and gym loss, while consultees largely raised no objections subject to conditions.

“See Paragraphs 8.90 - 8.108 The applicant has carried out detailed sunlight and daylight tests which demonstrate an acceptable impact on neighbouring light levels overall. Loss of outlook / increased sense of enclosure See Paragraphs 8.95 - 8.98 Loss of privacy / overlooking See Paragraphs 8.95 - 8.98 Inappropriate design and harm to character of area See Paragraphs 8.67 - 8.91 Strain on local infrastructure The proposed development would introduce 53 flats into a…”

“Insufficient on-site parking and resultant potential for overflow parking onto surrounding streets See Paragraphs 8.145 - 8.160 Increased air pollution and harmful noise during demolition and construction phases See Paragraphs 8.182 and 8.188 Loss of affordable gym / community facility and associated impact on health and wellbeing See Paragraph 8.12.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

The Head of Development Management presented the application and answered questions about viability, housing numbers, impacts, infrastructure and sustainability.

What members debated

Members considered the lack of affordable housing, accepted the viability evidence and concluded that the housing need and policy compliance supported approval.

“[name withheld] advised that a refusal on the ground of no affordable housing would give the Applicant a legal basis for appeal because of the independently assessed viability findings…”

“During debate Cllr Dan Bowring advised that the Application complied with the relevant policies and so there were no valid planning grounds to refuse. He regretted the absence of affordable housing but accepted the viability assessment. The borough was in the midst of a housing crisis and needed more homes therefore he moved approval, seconded by Cllr Katherine Dunne. Members voted by a majority to approve the recommendations.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee approved the recommendation by twelve votes to two, with no abstentions.

“For – Twelve votes Against – Two votes Abstentions – Nil…”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning application P/2023/2705 was approved subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

“Resolved – that planning application P/2023/2705, erection of two apartment blocks of 3-5 storeys and 4-6 storeys to create 40 flats and a terrace of 13 townhouses with associated landscaping, cycle storage, blue badge parking, access road improvements and servicing following the demolition of the existing gymnasium, was approved subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.”

Minutes