Issue - meetings

Erection of four terraced dwellings incorporating landscaping, parking provision, waste and cycle stores following demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of four terraced dwellings incorporating landscaping, parking provision, waste and cycle stores following demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers presented the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was noted that planning permission for a similar scheme had been refused by the Borough Planning Committee in January 2023 citing eight reasons for refusal. Refusal reasons relating to ecology, accessibility, cycle parking and a tree had been overcome in the current application. However, Members heard that refusal reasons relating to overdevelopment of the site, harm to the character and appearance of the area and the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure highways works and prohibit the issuing of parking permits to prospective residents had not been resolved. The application was therefore recommended for refusal.

A petition had been received by Democratic Services in objection to the scheme. The lead petitioner’s written representation was read out for the consideration of the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         A previous application for a similar proposed development at the site had been refused for eight compelling reasons;

·         Despite a number of minor cosmetic changes, no change of substance were proposed in the current application before the Committee;

·         The current application sought to replace a detached single storey bungalow with four terraced houses, each comprising two storeys and containing three bedrooms hence being capable of accommodating five occupants;

·         Petitioners welcomed the four valid reasons for refusal proposed by officers in the report;

·         The design of the proposed new buildings was completely inconsistent with the street scene;

·         The proposal represented a gross over-development of the site;

·         The proposal sought to create an excessively large hard standing area to the front of the boundary to create parking and bin storage areas. This was inconsistent with the character of neighbouring properties and the street scene;

·         Three additional reasons for refusal were proposed in relation to: 1) the increase in traffic which would result if the proposal were to go ahead (particularly given the low PTAL rating of the site and the absence of viable public transport facilities); 2) increased demand for parking and 3) disruption and traffic congestion resulting from the demolition and construction phases of the project;

·         Beacon Close was a quite residential street. Residents had invested in their homes and had the right to expect their way of life not to be disrupted by a scheme designed solely for financial gain.

The applicant was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members. Key points highlighted included:

·         In the current application a number of the concerns previously raised had been addressed namely ecology, internal layout and tree matters;

·         The proposals did not conflict with development plan policies;

·         The first proposed reason for refusal in the report related to failure to harmonise with the street scene. These comments were misleading and did not reflect the current pattern of development. On entering Beacon Close from Harefield Road there were four terraced dwellings and some semi-detached properties. To the south, Beacon Close was characterised by detached dwellings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50