Agenda item

2 three-bedroom two storey semi-detached dwellings and 3 three-bedroom two storey terraced dwellings with amenity and parking space, involving the demolition of outbuildings to rear of existing dwelling No.47 and rear extensions from No.43 and installation of new crossover

 

Recommendation: Approval

 

2 three-bedroom two storey semi-detached dwellings and 3 three-bedroom two storey terraced dwellings with amenity and parking space, involving the demolition of outbuildings to rear of existing dwelling No.47 and rear extensions from No.43 and installation of new crossover

 

34799/APP/2009/2800

 

The Committee was asked to note that a previous scheme (Ref: 34799/APP/2009/534) had been allowed at Appeal by the Planning Inspector since this application was submitted to the Council. Officers advised that the applicant would be able to implement the scheme that had been allowed on appeal. Conditions had been imposed on this current scheme which had also been improved in design.

 

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, representatives of the petitioners objecting to the proposal addressed the meeting. The agent was not present at the meeting.

 

The petitioners made the following points:

 

• The plans were inaccurate and were bigger and suggested that a deliberate attempt had been made to improve the block size
• The line had been moved in Bedford Avenue which had now been reduced
• The outline boundary plans had been changed between 2008 and 2009, and there were missing plans submitted in 2008
• The car outlined parking spaces were not the right size
• The bins were located over the line of unit 4 and the bins for unit 5 were not closed bins
• The access had been moved to No.47 Yeading Lane
• The road was not an adoptable highway and queried how the bins, which were over 23m high would be collected
• S106 money had not be conditioned
• The bin stall plan showed 10 public cycle shed
• The lifetime homes criteria had not been met
• There were no marked disabled spaces
• No tree survey had been done
• There was no continuous footpath to back, and the current use of land was as a garden, which was not immune from PPS3
• The development was 23m away from adoptable road in respect of waste collection
• Was in possession of documents to show that the original size of the site had not been amended when the access road was removed.

 

Officers advised that refuse vehicles would be able to enter the site, and that the highway would be used for waste collection.

 

Two Ward Councillors of the application site addressed the meeting and made the following points:

• Opposed the application and commented that a similar application had been refused last year
• Expressed concerns about the safety of pedestrians who would be forced to walk on the road as there was no public footpath from the entrance of the proposed development
• Expressed concerns about there being no public street lighting in the development
• Expressed concerns about the road being too narrow and suggested that it did not conform to the minimum standards
• Stated that cars would be forced to reverse into Yeading Lane which would be hazardous
• Suggested that there were no provisions for cycle storage
• Stated that the proposed site had been classed as industrial land but had been referred to as back garden and considered that the site was back garden rather than an industrial site
• Expressed concerns that 50% of the trees had been felled, which should not have been done
• Suggested that the drawings with regard to 43 – 47 Yeading Lane were misrepresented in size
• That the original size of the site was not amended when the access road was removed
• Suggested that when looking at the two fences on the back of the trees, which consisted of bricks and old fences, looking at the old fences, 50% of the trees on the other side had been removed
• Expressed concerns that the applicant had removed the trees without first conducting a tree survey
• Suggested that this rendered Condition 16 (page 67) requiring an accurate tree survey plan to be irrelevant
• Urged the Committee to defer and make a site visit before making a decision about the application.

 

Officers advised that conditions could not be imposed for the requirements for bicycle stores for houses. If the Committee whished to, a condition requiring external provisions could be imposed, but this would reduce external spaces in the development.

 

With regard to the issue of the felling of trees, the Committee was advised that no trees on the site were protected by Tree Protection Orders and the trees cut down did not trigger any breach of Planning Control.

 

Inresponse to the issue of S106 money, officers advised that Condition 25 covered this issue, and in terms of density of the units perhectre these were in line with the London Plan guidelines including the revised site area.

 

With regard to the issue of the classification of the site, officers advised that the Inspector’s decision was a material planning consideration and that the current scheme was considered better than the scheme approved at appeal.

 

Officers advised that with regard to the issue of ‘pinch point’ access, the width of the carriageway was 4.8m wide, which would allow a lorry and a car to pass each other. The ‘pinch point’ access length was 12.5m and the guidance was 15m maximum.

 

Members raised concerns about cars reversing into Yeading Lane and sought assurance that there was enough room for two cars to pass between the ‘pinch point’.

 

Officers advised that the width of the carriageway was 4.8m wide, which would allow a lorry and a car to pass each other. The ‘pinch point’ access length was 12.5m and the guidance was 15m maximum.

 

A Member expressed concerns that there may be information in the documents that the petitioners had brought with them, which officers had not had the opportunity to look at.

 

The Chairman suspended Standing Orders for 10 minutes to allow officers to look at documents submitted by the petitioners that had not been previously seen. Members withdraw from the room while officers went through the documents with the petitioners.

 

On resuming the meeting, officers reported that they had spoken with the petitioners and liaised with colleagues and had established that the issues that had been raised by the petitioners related to boundary disputes. Officers explained that boundaries were difficult to establish without undertaking a detailed study using survey equipment. To better understand the site boundaries in relation to neighbouring properties, it was suggested that the Committee could impose a condition requiring plans of 1:50 scale be submitted by the applicant.

 

The Chairman added that boundary disputes were outside the remit of the Planning Committee but the Committee would condition for a 1:50 scale plans to be submitted before commencement of the development.

 

The Legal Advisor advised that it would be lawful for the Committee to impose such a planning condition. The Legal Advisor highlighted that the petitioners had suggested that not all of the redline fell into the applicant’s ownership, where as the Land Registry had shown that they were. If there were problems between the owner and the neighbour and there was a dispute over boundary, it would be open to the respective land owners to settle the matter through the courts. It was not fro the Council as Local Planning Authority to mediate boundary disputes.

 

A Member added that it was not for the Committee to get involved in boundary disputes and that the Committee’s main concern was to ensure that all the correct certificates had been served to the Council.

 

The Legal Advisor responded that the applicant had certified that he owned the application site and officers had carried out a land search, whichconfirmed that the applicant’s certificate was correctly given on the basis of the scale plans available. The Legal Advisor observed that Land Registry Plans were not accurate enough to either uphold or dismiss the petitioners’ claims that they owned a small part of the application site. The Committee noted that it was not a legal requirement for the Council to go into great lengths to determine the precise boundaries of ownership; and it was acceptable for the Council to rely on certificate given by the applicant which was substantiated by the land registry documents and scaled plans available.

 

In response to a query about the accuracy of the ‘red line’, officers advised that there had been some small changes since 2008 where the drawings were shown in a slightly different position to the current scheme.

  

Condition 13 in the report was amended to ensure that parking was specifically dedicated solely for the properties in the front as well as properties at the back of the development.

 

An additional condition was attached to ensure that there was adequate manoeuvring space in the hatched area of 35 – 45 Yeading Lane.

 

The recommendation for approval with amendments and changes to the Addendum sheet was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.

 

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and changes in the Addendum. Condition 13 was amended as set out below, the following two additional conditions were attached and the Signage condition in the Addendum was amended:

 

The Signage Condition on page 3 of the Addendum was amended by adding the following after the last sentence:

 

‘In addition, the surface of the hard paved manoeuvring area shown on plan 2498-2-104 to allow refuse and other vehicles to undertake a 3 point turn, shall be hatched or otherwise marked in a distinctive manner to clearly identify this portion of the access-way as not being acceptable for use as a car parking area’.

 

Condition 13 in the Addendum was amended to read as follows:

 

Additional conditions

 

i)                    ‘No development shall commence until revised plans of the development at scale of 1:50, which show in particular the proposed layout, clearly and accurately identifying the boundaries of the site, and demonstrating that each dwelling

           benefits from at 60sq of external amenity space, shall be   submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning     Authority. There after the scheme shall be carried out in            accordance with the approved plans’.

 

 

 

 

Reason

 

To ensure that future residents living in the scheme would be provided with adequate garden areas and to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and to ensure adequate access and manoeuvring areas are provided for vehicles and pedestrians within the boundary of the site and to accord with Policies OE1, BE21, BE23, and AM7 pf the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007).

 

ii)                  ‘Before commencing development, plans and details of a low wall or other means of separating the access for pedestrian to the path leading to the rear of dwelling unit 2, from the car parking spaces to the front of dwelling unit 1 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. There after the scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans’.

 

Reason

 

To ensure pedestrian safety and ensure adequate access is provided for pedestrian s to the pathway leading to the rear of dwelling unit 2, and to accord with Policies AM7 and AM8 of the Hillingdon Unitary  Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007).

 

Condition 13 was amended to read as follows:

 

‘Development shall not begin until details of all traffic arrangements (including details of the allocation and dedication of car parking spaces to the dwellings, for the sole use of the occupiers of the relevant dwellings where appropriate carriageways, footways, turning space, safety strips, sight lines at road junctions, kerb radii, car parking and marking out spaces, loading facilities, closure of existing access and means of surfacing) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall demonstrate car parking for 2 cars being provided for each of the properties at 43 – 47 Yeading Lane, dedicated and allocated for the sole use of the respective occupiers of 43 and 47 Yeading Lane.  The approved development shall not be occupied until such works have been constructed with the approved details. Thereafter, the parking areas, sight lines and loading areas must be permanently retained and used for no other purpose at anytime. Disabled parking bays shall be a minimum of 4.8m long by 3.6m wide, or at least 3.om wide where two adjacent bays may share an unloading area’.