Decision details

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings to provide 2 x 3-bedroom dwellings and 2 x 2-bedroom dwellings plus associated hard and soft landscaping.

Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner in objection of the application submitted a written representation for the Committee’s consideration. This was circulated to Members prior to the meeting. It was noted that this was the third application for the proposed development, with the first two being refused for multiple reasons. The current application, submitted in April 2024, proposed reducing the development from four three-bedroom houses to two pairs of semi-detached houses. However, it was proposed that the development still constituted overdevelopment, increasing the number of families from one to four, which would lead to increased traffic, parking issues and pressure on the drainage system. It was highlighted that the design of the new buildings was inconsistent with the existing street scene. Additionally, the development would add 8-10 cars, exacerbating traffic and safety concerns. The petitioner requested that if the application was to be approved, strict conditions on working hours during demolition and construction should be enforced to minimise disruption. It was emphasised that Beacon Close was a quiet residential street and the proposed development would significantly disrupt local residents. The Committee was asked to refuse the application or at the very least impose stronger conditions.

A nominated speaker on behalf of the application addressed the Committee and noted that this application had officer support. Members heard that the report was extensive, thorough and comprehensive and took account of both local and national policies. The parking provided on the site was at maximum level and the applicant was willing to enter a legal agreement to restrict further parking. The proposed development was in an area where there were mixed property sizes.

Although Members empathised with the concerns raised by the petitioner, it was noted that the applicant had worked with officers to evolve the scheme doing their best to restrict overdevelopment. 

In terms of construction management and the possibility of entering a future parking management scheme in the future, it was explained that properties restricted from parking permits were in a database and any requests would be rejected to avoid breaching the local plan’s maximum car parking standards. It was confirmed that a constructions logistics plan had been secured by a condition, not just an informative.

During Member discussions it was noted that  tandem parking was two parking spaces arranged one behind the other. This setup could cause issues if the spaces were shared by different properties but it was acceptable if both spaces served the same property. It was also noted that the proposed development was within a 10-minute walk of Uxbridge town centre, reducing the need for additional parking.

The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, there were six votes in favour and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.