Agenda item

Conversion of existing dwelling into 2 x 1 bed self contained flats to include part two storey, part single storey rear extension and two storey extension to side to create 2 x 1-bed self contained flats, with associated parking and amenity space and installation of a vehicular crossover to front.

Recommendation - Approval

Conversion of existing dwelling into 2 x 1 bed self contained flats to include part two storey, part single storey rear extension and two storey extension to side to create 2 x 1-bed self contained flats, with associated parking and amenity space and installation of a vehicular crossover to front.

Officers introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to the changes in the Addendum (circulated at the meeting) and to note the correct plan, as the incorrect plan had been attached to the plan pack.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petitions received in objection to the application was invited to address the meeting.

The petitioners made the following points:

• The proposed development would be detrimental to the character of the street
• The street was an established family street and objected to a family home being demolished and replaced with flats
• Would have no objection to the development of a family home
• The proposed development would be opposite St Swithun Wells  school, and with Queensmead school near by, would result in increased traffic congestion
• The plans showed no access from the boundary gardens serving the first floor flats which would give rise to security issues
• Future occupiers would be required to walk down unlit access road, which had not been designated or intended as a public foot path
• Concerned about the return of crime and disorder which residents had experienced prior to the security gates being installed
• Urged the Committee not to grant permission for the proposed development, as future occupiers would not be able to access their rear gardens
• No provision had been made to access amenity spaces
• Residents were concerned about the total misuse of access road
• Suggested that the application submitted was a backland proposal.

A Member commented that the security gates had been installed as part of a gating scheme which had been funded through the Chrysalis Programme.

The agent addressed the meeting and raised the following points:

·        Agreed with the officer’s recommendation of approval

·        The plans had been amended to consider neighbours objections

·        Was aware of the security issues there had been regarding access to rear parking and was the first to venture through the access gates in 2003

·        Suggested that future occupiers would equally be concerned about security around access, which was why the gates would be closed at all times

·        The access road on the side was owned by the application property

·        The three terraced benefited from the access road and were owned by the property

·        The access road was currently not a used road and would therefore benefit from being used and from having security lighting

·        The scheme complied fully with all the policies and guidelines; was symmetrical in appearance and would not look out of place in a terrace of 4 houses

·        The proposed development had been amended to maintain on-street parking spaces as was currently the case

·        Parking (which exceeds space standards) would also be maintained for future use for the school

·        Existing hedge would be maintained and award winning contractors would ensure that due care was taken during construction and would be instructed to ensure that access road was kept unblocked

·        The scheme would provide much needed living accommodation for disabled people.

The Chairman sought clarification as to whether the applicant owned the access road or the right of use of the access road.

The agent confirmed that No.32 owned the access road to the side and rear; whilst all residents had the right to access the access road and maintenance was shared by all. 

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and made the following points:

• Concerned about the size of the proposed development where the eaves appeared to be over the access road
• Concerned about security issues for residents if gates were left opened
• With regard to lifetime homes, considered that the bathrooms were inadequate
• Suggested assurances should be sought to ensure that the access road was left unblocked during development
• Where security lightings were proposed, asked that adequate measures were taken to ensure they were not detrimental to neighbours
• Due to the size of the proposed development, urged the Committee to refuse the application.

In response to a question relating to lifetime homes and the width of the access way; officers advised that conditions had been imposed to ensure that the proposed units were large enough. With regard to the access way, there was a 3m gap between the two blocks. 

In discussion, Members raised concerns about future occupiers needing to go outside the curtilage to use the amenity space. Officers advised that this would not be the case for the ground floor flats but would only apply to the first floor flats. With regard to security lighting, officers advised that although this was mentioned in the condition for design and access, it did not form part of security and therefore, Condition 9 could be amended to include this.  

The Committee was minded to impose an additional condition due to concerns raised about the Eaves which appeared in the plans to be over the alleyway. Officers advised that the drawing in the plan pack on page 127 showed that the eaves were within the development site and the elevation details however, showed that the eaves were over the access road, which the applicant owned. The Committee noted therefore that an addition condition would not necessary.

Members expressed concerns about access into the alleyway being shared between vehicles and pedestrians. Officers advised that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, a condition could be imposed requiring details of surfacing of the alleyway and speed restricting measures to be provided for the Local Planning Authority’s approval.

The Committee agreed to impose an additional condition relating to the improvement of the access road.

The recommendation for approval, changes to condition 9 and additional condition was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote, was agreed.

Resolved – That the application be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report, changes in the Addendum, extended Condition 9 to include external/security lighting  and the following additional condition:

‘No development shall take place until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority for the improvements of access road to the rear parking, which should include details of proposed surfacing and speed restrictions.’

Reason

To ensure that the access road is suitable to serve the parking area and in the interest of pedestrian safety in accordance with Policies AM7 and AM14 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007).