Agenda item

Change of use of site from Class C3 (Dwelling House) to mixed use Classes C3 (Dwelling house) and D1 (Non-Residential Institutions), involving the erection of a single storey building to rear for the D1 use as a meeting room with associated parking. Single storey side extension to the existing dwelling house (involving demolition of part of existing garage), new access road involving demolition of existing single storey side extension and the installation of 2 vehicular crossovers, new wall to front boundary and new fence to side.

Recommendation: Refusal

Change of use of site from Class C3 (Dwelling House) to mixed use Class C3 (Dwelling house) and Class D1 (Non-Residential Institutions), involving the erection of a single storey building at the rear for use as a meeting room (Use Class D1) with associated parking. Single storey side extension to the existing dwelling house (involving demolition of part of existing garage), new access road involving demolition of existing single storey side extension and the installation of 2 vehicular crossovers, new wall to front boundary and new fence to side.

The  application  seeked  permission  to erect  a  meeting  room  building,  to  be  used  for  D1 purposes  (worship),  together  with  associated  access  road  and  car-park,  involving  the sub-division  of  the  site  and  a  replacement  single  storey  side  extension  to  the  original dwelling, alterations to the front wall of the site and the provision of a new public footpath extending to the Cricket Club Grounds.

There was no objection to the single storey extension to the dwelling or to the alterations to the front boundary  wall.  However, there  was  concern  relating  to  the  proposal  for  an independent meeting room/church which would not be ancillary to the existing residential use of the site. Due to the additional activities that would be generated, as a result of this use, this would fail to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding residential properties.

In addition  it  was  considered  the proposed  formation of  the access  road and  car-parking area with associated  increase  in  traffic, would be out of keeping and detrimental  to  the surrounding  residential  area  and  character  and  appearance  of  the  conservation  area.

There  was  further  concern  regarding  what  measures  were  in  place  to  prevent  any intensification of use if a permission were to be issued or if/how these matters could be reasonably controlled.

23  neighbours  and  interested  parties  were  consulted  and  20  responses  and  a  petition  of  49 signatures had been received

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in support to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners/applicant:

• The purpose of the application was for the local congregation of Christians for families in the area.
• It was proposed that there would be 2 or 3 meetings a week at specific times.
• The group and meetings were there to promote values.
• The applicant initially approached Hillingdon in 2008.
• They had engaged with professional consultants who liaised directly with planning officers about the application.
• The applicants had consulted with residents and the project had been approached very carefully.
• The initial concerns had been overcome and there was little objection or concerns.
• The noise issues raised could be addressed. There would be no noise that would be heard from the outside. An amplifier was not going to be used.
• The impact on the environment was minimal as the meeting room would be inconspicuous.
• The application would benefit the village.
• The rear garden was very large, and large enough to accommodate the meeting room.
• There was a provision on new fencing and landscaping.
• The visual impact was insignificant.
• The applicant asked that the committee approve the application.

Members clarified the number of expected visitors and car park spaces that would be available. The applicant confirmed that they believed 9 parking spaces would be sufficient. The majority of people attending would be local and that there was a larger hall at another venue for larger meetings.

Members discussed the application and agreed it was a sensitive issue, and that they had to consider the application and decision based on planning issues. Members were sympathetic with the applicant and those that signed the petition in favour of the application but agreed that this was back land development and therefore should be refused.

Members asked officers for clarification on noise and parking as reasons for refusal as stated in the officer report. The applicant had stated that no amplifiers would be used, nor speakers or music. Also that the access road for the site was not near residential properties and should not effect residents. Officers explained that if the development was sold then the application for an A1 use would be transferred to the new owners and they could not put a condition on the use of how it was operated.

Members discussed with officers whether this was back land development. Officers explained that although it was a loss of a garden area it may not be considered a loss of garden-housing 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.