Meeting: 11/04/2024 - Hillingdon Planning Committee (Item 79)
79 90 Long Lane - 8905/APP/2023/2419 
PDF 17 MB
Demolition of the existing detached, single dwelling and the erection of a building consisting of 9 no. two-bedroom flats, with associated parking and amenities.
Recommendations: Refusal
Decision:
RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer recommendation
Minutes:
Demolition of the existing detached, single dwelling and the erection of a building consisting of 9 no. two-bedroom flats, with associated parking and amenities.
Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for refusal.
A petitioner in objection to the proposed development addressed the Committee and referred to a photograph as part of their presentation. It was requested that the application be refused due to its overwhelming nature, loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and concerns that a precedent would be set for future applications. The petitioner furthermore stated that 90 Long Lane had residential properties on both sides and there was a concern for how the trees would be impacted in the conservation area. The proposed development was not in keeping with the character of the area and would change the look of the village. The petitioner raised issues with overlooking, noise pollution and how the development would impact the scenery and dynamics of the area. It was emphasised that there should be less building and construction in conservation areas. The proposed development would cause increased traffic congestion, additional cars and footfall in the area. The Committee was asked by the petitioner to refuse the application due to the increased number of residents causing noise pollution, overshadowing, loss of privacy and visual impact on neighbouring properties.
During Member clarification questions to the petitioner, it was noted that the photograph demonstrated the car congestion already in the area and the significance of the trees and the bearing they had on the local character of the area.
Highways officers confirmed that there were concerns regarding the position of the gate that provided access to the property and the pedestrian and cycle access.
The Committee welcomed the officers report and the officers’ recommendation, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.
RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per officer recommendation.