Agenda item

Conversion of existing dwelling into 2 x 2 bed self contained flats with associated amenity space and parking involving 2 storey side extension, single storey rear extension and conversion of roof space into habitable use to include roof dormer and demolition of existing attached garage to side

Recommendation: Approval

Conversion of existing dwelling into 2 x 2 bed self contained flats with associated amenity space and parking involving 2 storey side extension, single storey rear extension and conversion of roof space into habitable use to include roof dormer and demolition of existing attached garage to side.

The proposal was for the extension and conversion of one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings to two, two bedroomed flats.  This revised proposal was  a  reduced  size  and different  design  and  layout  from  earlier  schemes  that  were  withdrawn  and  refused planning permission. The current scheme proposed horizontal, flatted division rather than houses.

Traffic and acoustic reports had been submitted with the application.  The  proposal  complied with HDAS  requirements  for  two  storey  side  and  single  storey rear extensions, internal and external space standards and also those in the London Plan (2011) and the car parking provision and other policies set out in the Hillingdon Unitary Development  Plan,  Saved  Policies  September  2007.  Planning permission was thus recommended subject to conditions.

The  application  site  was  on  the  north  side  of  Hoylake  Gardens  and  comprised  a  semi-detached property with a wider than average frontage (compared with other properties in Hoylake Gardens). The existing property was the end 1930's dwelling in the street, before a group of more modern 1980's properties begin. Hoylake Gardens originally comprised a small cul-de-sac of 16-18 dwellings, although this had now been extended to include an area of 1980's terraced properties with shallow rear gardens, some of which back onto the side of the application site. The site was within a short walk of Eastcote shopping centre, Eastcote underground station, main road, bus, and transport connections providing it with a PTAL rating of 3. The application site lies within the Developed Area as identified in the Adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (Saved Policies, September 2007).

43 Neighbours and the Eastcote Residents Association were consulted. A petition with 33 signatures and 7 letters of objection and one letter of support had been received.

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:

• The road was a small cul-du-sac.
• A previous application had been refused on reasons to do with the parking implications and the changes in the street scene.
• The space was an important part of the developments in the 1930’s and 1980’s.
• The development had improved a lot since the original application had been made.
• The issue the petitioners had were around parking and the implications would be extensive.
• The appearance of the application looked to be fine.
• The plans submitted showed 2 car parking spaces plus 2 behind those. This showed a ‘pinch point’ and the cars in front would have to move to let the cars behind out.
• The minimum distance requirements submitted were enough to object to this application.
• The application was an overdevelopment in a small area.

The agent spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

• The area had extended from a cul-du-sac to its current form.
• The previous application was not refused on planning issues.
• The agents had spoken to neighbours prior to submitting the application and they had asked for comments before the new submission. There were no concerns to note from neighbours to the agents.
• The current proposal was modest and sympathetic to all.
• The officers report was very clear about loss of privacy and this did not exist.
• The distances required virtually conformed and the agent noted that the land was lower.
• There was no loss of light to surrounding properties.
• The design was sensitive and in-keep, and the design was done in consultation with officers.
• A life time home was being proposed.
• The double garage had been used as an office for around 20 years under permitted development.
• The street would benefit greatly and there would be far less disruption to the street than an office.

A Ward Councillor was present and spoke:

• The Ward Councillor stated that the outline design was not bad in comparison to the previous design.
• He did have a concern regarding the size of rooms but that was up to the officers to decide on whether the room sizes were adequate.
• There was a lack of manoeuvrability in the proposal for parking.
• There was already congestion in the area and the application may add to this.
• The Ward Councillor had an issue with regard to privacy but this had reduced considerably since the previous application was submitted.
• The main concern was parking.

Members were happy with the application but wanted clarification on the issues brought up by petitioners and the Ward Councillor regarding parking. Officers confirmed that the parking provided complied with Council standards, including the crossover point. Therefore the parking provided as per the application was acceptable.

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

Resolved –

That the application be approved with the changes set out in the addendum and an additional condition to be agreed with the Chairman and Labour lead.