Agenda item

Erection of 2 five-bedroom, two storey detached dwellings with habitable roofspace, associated parking and amenity space.

Erection of 2 five-bedroom, two storey detached dwellings with habitable roofspace, associated parking and amenity space.

66982/APP/2010/1004

Planning permission was sought for the erection of two, 5 bedroom detached houses in the back gardens of nos. 51 and 53 Pembroke Road. The officer report stated proposal would not harm the residential amenities of nearby properties and a satisfactory residential environment would be achieved for future occupiers of the new houses. However, the proposed development was considered to be detrimental to the form, plan layout and character of the local area.

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 petitioner:

• Mr David Hood stated that 94 petitioners had signed the petition objecting to the application.
• This was the 3^rd time in 4 years the lead petitioner had addressed the Committee on a similar development.
• The area was an agricultural society, until the arrival of the Metropolitan Line. With outside parks, open spaces and most important, gardens, which were a homeowner's pride and joy.
• That the gardens were a large and very important part of Ruislip homes. It was a very green suburb. The petitioners wished to protest against ‘garden grabbing’.
• The application was totally overbearing and out of keeping with the surroundings.
• The lead petitioners house and garden joined the proposed development area and he had lived there on and off his whole life.
• That the proposal to build 2 very large 5 bedroom houses was out of keep with the surrounding areas.
• The lead petitioner spoke about the Government and Mayor of London, both wanted to put a stop to garden grabbing.

Points raised by the applicant:

• That the officer report acknowledged that the proposal would not harm the residential amenities of the occupiers or nearby properties and that it would of achieved a satisfactory residential environment for future occupiers of the new houses.
• The applicant confirmed he would enter into a legal agreement to pay for additional school places in the area and would be happy for this requirement to be covered by a planning condition.
• He would be happy to accept a planning condition that include that the access point be reduced to 5m in width.
• That the owners of several properties in the area were in support of the application.
• The applicant was disappointed that the officer report did not acknowledge the support for the application in more detail.
• It was noted that the character of the area was varied, with homes of varying designs. The applicant acknowledged that most of the buildings in the area were two-storey detached houses which was why he was proposing to build two, two-storey detached houses.
• That the proposed development would leave over 70% of the present gardens as green space. The impact on neighbours and street scene would be minimal.
• The proposed development would harmonise with the character and the appearance of the area and preserve its local distinctiveness. 

Ward Councillors Susan O’Brien and Douglas Mills addressed the meeting. The following points were raised:

• Councillor O’Brien was satisfied with the report comments and supported the recommendation of the report.
• She stated that this area was adjacent to a conservation area, and that it would have a detrimental effect on the environment and wildlife.
• Councillor Douglas Mills was in support of Mr Hood, lead petitioner, and the petitioners that signed the petition against the development. He agreed with Mr Hood’s comments.
• He stated the inappropriateness of the proposal and the implications of building on a back garden.
• That the Government had made it clear that wanted to stop building on back gardens.
• He was pleased the way the recommendation was summarised and that it was time to draw the line and look after local residents.

Members asked for clarification on the roof height and questioned officers about waste/refuse disposal. Officers explained that the roof height would be 300mm higher than the existing building and that there was sufficient refuse space between the access points. Members also asked about the site-lines and officers were satisfied this would not be any different to what was existing. 

Resolved –

That the application be refused as set out in the officer’s report