Agenda item

Erection of a single storey, detached, two-bedroom dwelling with associated amenity space and parking.

Land Forming Part of 12 Gladsdale Drive, Eastcote - 65761/APP/2012/549  (Agenda Item 6)

Erection of a single storey, detached, two-bedroom dwelling with associated amenity space and parking

The proposal was a revised scheme for a single storey detached dwelling that would be set adjacent to the existing property, 12 Gladsdale Drive. An application was originally allowed on appeal where the main issue was considered to be the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. The appeal for the single storey building was allowed in June 2011, subject to conditions. A later application and appeal was dismissed in March 2012 for a larger building that would have come further forward of the existing property and, amongst other alterations, would have extended to the front and rear, and included a new front projecting bay window and second bedroom with side window.

The front building line and design of the currently proposed bungalow would be the same as that permitted on appeal. Additionally, this current proposal seeked a second bedroom, altered side fenestration and an extension to the rear of the permitted building by 2.3m. This altered from the recently refused and dismissed scheme where a total length of 3.64m was proposed that would have brought it 1.6m closer to the road.

The current scheme would incorporate the side fenestration in the recently refused/dismissed scheme and which the Inspector considered to be acceptable in paragraphs 11 and 12 of his decision, subject to conditions relating to boundary treatment. In terms of the character of the area, the front building line and design of the proposed dwelling, in remaining the same as that permitted on the original appeal, was acceptable.

The latest appeal decision made no comment upon the principle of an additional rear extension, but upon the additional bedroom in the Inspector's concluding paragraphs. The additional 2.3m extension at the rear was not considered to result in a building which would be visually intrusive from public vantage points such as to warrant refusal of the application on this element alone.

This application was recommended for approval subject to conditions. These conditions were transferred from the originally allowed appeal decision, but included an additional landscaping condition, as recommended in the latest appeal decision. Also a further condition to ensure the removal of householder permitted development rights in order for the Council to retain additional control over the resulting development.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Mr Mr Hugo Myatt  spoke on behaviour of the petitioners:

-          It was stated that this was the 7th application on this site and the petitioners 3^rd appearance to address Committee on this matter.

-          This application was a re-hashed version of the previous application.

-          It now seemed to petitioners that Committee was likely to approve the application. This was after re-assurance from the Council’s planning department that approval would not be granted.

-          Petitioners considered this application as garden-grabbing.

-          The application was giant, ugly and there would be light impairment to the property.

-          Petitioners asked what guarantees would there be that the developer would not ask for more applications on this site.

-          It was stated that green gardens would be turned into parking spaces.

-          That wildlife would be killed.

-          The application was out of harmony with the rest of the area.

-          That the application was an ‘eye-watering’ offence.

-          The sales pitch for this development boosted ‘off street parking for multiple cars’.

-          Petitioners were shocked at the site and what was proposed to be developed.

-          The application would look cheap and shoddy.

-          There would be no direct access to the road.

-          If the application was approved then it would set a president; that more green area would be taken away.

-          Petitioners had received verbal assurance from the planning department that this would not be approved.

-          Petitioners asked, that if approved, conditions were included on the landscape and that no further extensions be allowed on the site.

-          The petitioner showed Committee pictures of before and after of the site.

Mr Robert Clarke, agent, spoke on behalf of the application submitted:  

-          Mr Clarke stated that officers had given Committee a full briefing of the application and information from the Inspector.

-          The last appeal was critical and gave 3 reasons for refusal. Only one reason for refusal was held and this new application had resolved that issue.

Members and officers spoke about the application in detail. Officers clarified the refusal reason regarding the windows on the application in a previous appeal. This ground was not upheld in the appeal by the Inspector, therefore the Council could not sustain this reason for refusal.

Officers commented that there were no grounds for refusal with this application. Condition 6 included a full landscape scheme and they could ask that the application withdraw all permitted development rights to prevent further extensions. That on appeal an Inspector may not put those grounds in place.

Officers clarified that the application was not in a flood risk area. There had been no contact with the Environmental Agency as it was not considered a relevant factor.

It was further clarified that most of the trees in the area were off the site and therefore could not be removed without permission from the landowners. This was not considered to be a risk. Officers advised that a tree protection fencing could be included as a condition and the details of this could be agreed.

Members had a great deal of sympathy with residents and petitioners with regard to this application. It was stated that the Council had been let down by the Government and Inspectors. The development would have an adverse impact on the Green Belt. It was shoe-horned into a small area. The windows would give inadequate lighting. Members felt that they were at a point where they had no choice but to allow the application as the applicant would appeal if it was refused, and the appeal would be won. Members felt that, with regret, they had no alternative but to approve this application.

The recommendation for approval was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be approved as per the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum, and additional standard boundary treatment condition.