11448/APP/2011/238
Erection of a two storey detached building with additional level in roofspace for use as Class B1 Office.
Recommendation: Refusal
Minutes:
Erection of a two storey detached building with additional level in roofspace for use as Class B1 Office.
11448/APP/2011/238
Planning permission was sought for the erection of a two storey building with a second floor within the roof void. The proposed development was larger in size, scale and bulk, compared to the previous scheme approved on appeal and was considered to result in an over dominant and visually intrusive form of development and would result in overlooking and loss of privacy.
The application site comprises land to the rear of 17 to 21 The Close, Eastcote. The site area was approximately 350m² and fronts onto an access lane that runs along the rear of shops that front Field End Road. The access lane also provided access to two large public car parks, which were accessed from either Abbotsbury Gardens to the north and North View to the south. The site was located almost adjacent to the smaller of the two car parks.
The surrounding area contained a range of land uses, with the Eastcote Minor Town Centre, immediately to the west (including part of the access lane), a public car park to the north, which was also within the Eastcote Town Centre, and residential uses to the south (fronting North View), and to the east (fronting The Close). The Eastcote (Morford Way) Conservation Area boundary lies close to the western boundary of the site.
The application site lies within the developed area as identified in the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007).
29 adjoining owner/occupiers had been consulted and the application had been advertised as a development that affects the character and appearance of the adjoining Eastcote/Morford Way Conservation Area. 4 letters of objection and a petition with 33 signatories had been received
Members requested clarification on who was responsible for the road way. Officers would check this. If it was a private road then responsibility would lie with the occupier.
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 Sarah West spoke on behalf of petitioners.
· The petitioner wished to re-iterate the objection.
· The application was over dominant and visually dominant.
· The proposed plans were substantially different to those in the original plans.
· The proposed footprint of the application was an increase of 42%.
· The proposed height of the application was an increase of 55%.
· It was 1.5metres from the boundary line.
· Subsistence issues could occur.
· There could be an impact on flood and water in the area.
· The existing road was in poor condition and was narrow. There were concerns regarding access for emergency vehicles. 2 cars could not pass at the same time and it was difficult for buggies and wheelchairs.
· There was no demand in Eastcote for additional office space and the benefits to residents for such a development was very limited.
The agent was not present.
Members stated they supported the officer report and recommendation on this application. The size and height of the application was concerning for Members. They felt the applicant was pushing planning to see how far they could go. That the case made by petitioners was first class.
Members asked officers if any costs (s.106) could be recovered for repairing the road. Officers explained that highways had been looked at in the previous appeal by the Inspector.
Members agreed that plenty of office space had already existed in the area.
The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.
Resolved –
That the application be refused as per the agenda and the changes set out in the addendum.
Supporting documents:
PDF 233 KB