Agenda item

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

Recommendation: Refusal

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

Planning permission was sought for the erection of 2 five-bedroom houses on a backland site to the rear  of  Nos.  51 and 53 Pembroke  Road.  The scheme was considered unacceptable in terms of the principle and the layout and design of the proposal. As such the proposal was recommended for refusal.

The  application  site  comprises  land  located  to  the  north  of  Nos.  51  and  53  Pembroke Road  and  was  formed  from  the  rear  parts  of  the  gardens  of  these  properties. The site was some 0.15 hectare in area. To the north, the site was bound by the rear gardens of Nos. 5, 6 and 7 Green Walk. These properties on Green Walk were within the Ruislip Manor Way Conservation Area. The site was bounded to the east by the  rear garden of 55 Pembroke Road  and  to  the west,  by  the  side  boundaries  of  32  Brickwall  Lane  and  49  Pembroke Road.

The  land  slightly  undulates  and  there were mature  trees  and  hedges  to  the  north, east and west boundaries.  The surrounding area was  residential  in  appearance  and  character. The site was within  the developed area as identified in the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007).

Planning permission was refused in September 2010  for  the erection of 2  five-bedroom, two storey detached dwellings.

The occupiers of 61 neighbouring properties and the Ruislip Residents Association were consulted. 2 petitions were received, one in favour of the proposal and one against.

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:

• They were meeting again, for the 9^th time, to speak on an application to build on a back garden.
• The petitioner was speaking on behalf of the 97 neighbours who would be affected but the proposals.
• Many more signatures could have been collected for the petition against the application.
• There was total opposition against the plans which was bricks, concrete and tarmac replacing gardens.
• Urban areas were rapidly being overdeveloped.
• Gardens were places for children to play and families to relax.
• An almost identical plan was submitted last year and refused.
• It would overlook and dominate neighbouring properties.
• Consideration needed to be given to wildlife and plants.
• The petitioner asked that we keep our gardens as gardens and green spaces as green spaces.

The agent/applicant spoke on behalf of the application and petition in favour  submitted:

• A petition submitted by the applicant in support of the application.
• The applicant explained how the previous application which was refused, and appeal lodged and refused did not reject a residential development of some sort.
• The inspector did not give a reason for refusal as the effect on adjoining properties.
• The applicant had met with planning officers, and with the inspector’s report and discussed new plans and drawings with amended detailed requirements.
• It was a 2 and half hour long meeting and he asked officers if they would accept the application to which they stated yes.
• The applicant had no indication that the recommendation by officers would be to refuse the application.
• He felt that opinion was carrying more weight that those of experts.
• He felt that officers in the planning department had conflicting comments.
• The applicant had met with the Head of Planning whose only reservation was it was on a rear garden, and not that it was against LB Hillingdon policies. In recent times the Council had allowed at least 3 garden developments.
• The applicant felt his application was totally compliant.
• He felt that there were no reasons stated that meant it could not be approved.

Two Ward Councillor’s were present and spoke:

• The Ward Councillor’s objected to the application that was proposed and supported the officers’ recommendation for refusal.
• It would result in a loss of private garden area and have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area.
• The proposal was not in scene with the rest of the area.
• It would dominate the surrounding areas.
• The access road into the site was out of keep with the area.
• There were additional issues to consider with regard to an already over utilised Pembroke Road.
• Those that had signed the petition in favour of the application did not live near by.
• The majority of those that signed the petition against lived in close proximity and therefore showed the true feelings of residents.
• The loss of wildlife needed to be considered.
• PPS3: Local Authorities were best placed to make the decisions on development in back gardens.
• The London Plan provided more concrete reasons for refusal the application.
• The publication recently published showed that such back garden development was unwelcome, including in Outer London, which Hillingdon was very much part of.
• This development was not the right development for Pembroke Close.

Members and Officers discussed the recent guidance published on back land development. This policy could be referred to in its draft form but the weight put on it should be mindful that it was a draft policy.

Members discussed the planning inspector’s report from the previous application which was refused by the Council and on appeal and the inconsistencies that it contained.

Members felt that this was back land development and with guidance, including the recent draft publication, that the application did not fit criteria.

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.