Issue - meetings

Erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking, amenity and bin/cycle stores (updated plans)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking, amenity and bin/cycle stores (updated plans)

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the information in the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

The lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee on behalf of the petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

1.    The property developer had initially stated that the rear walls of the main house and the ground floor extension would not exceed the rear walls of the lead petitioner’s house or extension to minimise overlooking, but this promise had not been kept.

2.    The developer had claimed that the petitioner’s building was incorrectly positioned relative to the ordinance survey map but had provided no evidence of this.

3.    It was believed that the developer was only interested in adding significant space to each room to increase the property's value.

4.    The petitioner had been confident Hillingdon Council would hold the developer accountable, but it appeared the Council may approve the build retrospectively.

5.    The breach had been brought to the attention of the Planning Department, but no action had been taken. The petitioner had therefore been obliged to hire a solicitor.

6.    Objections focussed on the position of all rear walls and the floor height of the building, impacting the lead petitioner’s privacy.

7.    Residents request the Planning Committee defer their decision and visit the site to see the impact for themselves.

8.    The raised floor heights compromised the privacy of neighbouring gardens, and residents preferred that the floor levels be reduced rather than having a higher fence.

9.    The ground floor bathroom was overlooked by a side door and window not in the original plans, exacerbated by the raised floor heights.

10.A covenant was requested to ensure the patio was lower than the house as per the plans and to ensure that the side window was obscured and non-opening.

11.The petitioner suggested that the building be demolished and rebuilt with lower floor levels and rear walls level with their rear walls.

In response to questions from Members, it was clarified that the original plans had not been accurate. All floors in the new building were higher than on the plans which impacted the privacy of neighbours.

The agent for the application was in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included: 

1.    The agent confirmed that he had originally designed the house.

2.    He addressed concerns about overshadowing, stating that the back of the garden was south-facing and would therefore not be affected by shadowing.

3.    The ground floor side-facing window was higher than the neighbouring window, but the floor level was lower due to a larger window.

4.    It had been agreed with the planning department that the fence would be 2.2 meters high to prevent looking in.

5.    It was suggested that silhouettes through the window could be avoided by using a blind.

6.    The agent affirmed that the building was not larger than originally planned and that the back wall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6