Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Ekta Gohil. Councillor Adam Bennett was present as substitute.

Apologies were received from Councillor Ekta Gohil. Councillor Adam Bennett was present as substitute.

None.

None.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 07 September 2022 be approved as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 07 September 2022 be approved as a correct record.

None.

None.

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in public.

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in public.

Removal of the existing mansard roof, construction of additional two storeys along with front extensions and external alterations to create an additional 8 units with associated amenity.

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the application, which proposed the removal of the existing mansard roof, construction of an additional two storeys along with front extensions and external alterations to create an additional 8 units with associated amenity. It was highlighted that reference to parking had been deleted from the proposal description, as the submitted Planning Statement had confirmed that the proposal would be a car-free scheme.

Officers asserted that in the absence of any family sized flats, the proposal had failed to demonstrate that the development would provide a suitable housing mix. It was also felt that the proposed development would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the street scene and the setting of the adjoining Ruislip Village Conservation Area and Midcroft, Ruislip Area of Special Local Character.

Additionally, officers advised that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the existing occupiers at Neyland Court, Pembroke House, No. 19 Pembroke Road, and Nos. 4, 6, 6a and 8 Brickwall Lane. The quantity and quality of external amenity space provided was insufficient to serve the sizes and number of existing and proposed flats at the site. As such, the proposed development would provide substandard accommodation, in terms of external amenity space provision. The proposal also failed to demonstrate how it would achieve high standards of fire safety and emergency evacuation arrangements.

The proposed location of the long stay cycle store and refuse/recycling store was deemed unacceptable due to their impact on residential amenities. Given the constrained space on the site, it had not been demonstrated that long stay cycle parking and refuse/recycling storage could be accommodated elsewhere on site without implications for other planning considerations.

It was therefore recommended that the application be refused.

By way of written submission, a petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, making the following points:

·         The proposed development failed to appear as a well-integrated development along Pembroke Rd. Due to its location, size, scale, massing, height and design it would result in overdevelopment. It will appear as visually dominant and bulky and would be detrimental to the character of the local area, which was close to a Conservation Area.

·         The proposed development will cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the existing occupiers at Neyland Court, Pembroke House, No 19 Pembroke Rd and Nos 4,6, 6a and 8 Brickwall Lane due to its impact on residential amenities in terms of loss of outlook, loss of light, over shadowing, sense of enclosure and overbearing impact.

·         There is insufficient external amenity space to serve the sizes and number of existing and proposed dwellings at the site and if approved, will result in poor living conditions for both existing and future occupants.

·         The application proposed to build balconies which will overhang by 1.5m above the existing front windows and also to move the front doors southwards. Both additions will result in blocking light in habitable rooms, will be overshadowing and overbearing, and will caused a loss of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

Two storey side/rear extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include 4 rear and 3 front rooflights to allow for conversion of dwelling house into 2 x 2-bed and 2 x 1-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and amenity space

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the application which proposed a two-storey side and rear extension and conversion of the roof space to habitable use to include 4 rear and 3 front rooflights to allow for the conversion of the dwelling house into 2 x 2-bed and 2 x 1-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers confirmed that the current application was a re-submission of an identical scheme which was previously approved under application reference 68788/APP/2019/2659. The previous permission had lapsed on 3rd October 2022; hence the submission of the current application.

The proposed introduction of a flatted development at the site had already been established through the granting of planning permission ref. 68788/APP/2019/2659. There was no objection, in principle, to the creation of flats at the site in land use terms. It was noted that the proposal would not provide any family sized units (i.e. dwellings with three or more bedrooms). However, this would be no different to the scheme approved under planning permission 68788/APP/2019/2659. It would therefore be unreasonable to introduce this matter as a ground for refusal under the current application.

Having regard to the planning permission ref. 68788/APP/2019/2659, it was considered that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area. The proposal would not adversely impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and would afford future occupiers with a high standard of internal and external living accommodation.

The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who were satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns.

The addendum was highlighted, which set out the officer’s response to an additional representation received from the Ruislip Residents Association which challenged the proposal in respect of Policy DMH 4(i) of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020).

It was therefore recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, making the following points:

·         The application would result in significant loss of light to neighbours, which would negatively impact occupiers wellbeing, as well as their ability to work;

·         The proposal (including installation of roof terraces), would result in a loss of privacy due to overlooking;

·         Noise would increase;

·         Parking and amenity provision was insufficient;

·         Car use would be hazardous due to a lack of room to manoeuvre;

·         Traffic congestion would increase, and could potentially increase accidents and road rage incidents;

·         The area was already highly congested, with bus drivers regularly complaining of issues;

·         The application would increase air pollution in an area that was already heavily polluted;

·         Police regularly attended the area to respond to crime, and the application would exacerbate this;

·         Trees had previously been removed by the applicant.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee, making the following points:

·         The application complied with all relevant current policies;

·         Since the previous application’s consent, policies had not materially changed to now allow  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 5 x self-contained units, including 2 x 1-bed units and 3 x 2-bed units together with associated landscaping, parking, refuse and recycling

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the application which sought permission to replace a single storey, detached dwelling with a new building comprising 5 flats.

Officers advised that there was no objection, in principle, to the creation of additional residential units in this location in land use terms. However, due to its scale, depth, bulk, massing and design, the proposal would fail to integrate with the established character and appearance of the area, subsequently resulting in an incongruous and unduly dominant form of development, which would harm the visual amenities and character of the area, including the setting of the adjacent Cowley Lock Conservation Area.

The proposal would also cause harm to the amenities of the occupiers of 16 Iver Lane, causing a harmful sense of enclosure, loss of outlook and loss of privacy.

No legal agreement as in place to prohibit future residents of the proposed development from applying to join the Council's on street parking management scheme. In the absence of such an agreement, the Council's parking management scheme is likely to be overutilised, leading to more roadside parking, congestion and reduced highway safety for all.

The development also fails to provide a suitable housing mix and to clearly demonstrate that future occupiers would be provided with high quality internal spaces, with sufficient levels of privacy and adequate head height.

For these reasons the proposal was considered to be contrary to policies as detailed in the report, and it was therefore recommended that the application be refused.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, making the following points:

·         The application would cause of loss of privacy to neighbours, particularly due to overlooking of gardens;

·         Current parking and traffic congestion issues would be exacerbated;

By way of written submission, Ward Councillor Keith Burrows advised that he echoed the objections of residents and supported the refusal of the application.

The Committee supported the officer’s recommendation for the reasons set out in the report. The recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.