Agenda item

S73 Application to vary the design, internal layout and external appearance of Block C (modifications of conditions 1, 6 and 10 of Reserved Matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 dated 13/03/2008: (details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping), in compliance with conditions 2 and 3 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 dated 21/02/2008: Residential development).

Recommendation: Approval

S73 Application to vary the design, internal layout and external appearance of Block C (modifications of conditions 1, 6 and 10 of Reserved Matters approval ref: 10189/APP/2007/3046 dated 13/03/2008: (details of siting, design, external appearance and landscaping), in compliance with conditions 2 and 3 of outline planning permission ref: 10189/APP/2007/3383 dated 21/02/2008: Residential development).

Councillor John Morgan left the room for the duration of this item.

The Chairman agreed that items 5, 8 and 9 would be heard together and that confirmed Members of the North Planning Committee had visited the site and flats in question.

Officers introduced the report, and stated the key was to look at the difference between what was approved and those proposed and whether those changes were acceptable. There were discrepancies between what was approved and what was actually built. Officers confirmed that the overlooking distance was over 21 metres.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution representatives of the petitions received in objection to the proposals were invited to address the meeting.

Mr Ian Brooks, Chairman of Eastcote Residents Association spoke on behalf of the petition submitted by Eastcote Residents Association:

• The main concern of the petitioners was overlooking and loss of privacy.
• Taylor Wimpey had discussions with the Residents Association and had agreed changes. Petitioners were disappointed that Taylor Wimpey were now changing the plans.
• The site had a daily impact on residents’ lives. They could see each other through properties. Through overlooking and into gardens.
• The type ‘B’ homes were as much of a problem as ‘P’ homes and should be refused.
• Residents were not made aware of a new drawing which showed dormers, these were seen on the internet.
• 4 additional habitual rooms were proposed and this would increase the density. The lead petitioner asked if an audit had been undertaken of the whole site. 
• Since the original applications were improved and with the new plans the density would be increased further, if approved.
• Mr Brooks asked that all 5 applications be refused and that enforcement action be carried out where the applicants had built against the agreed plans.
• It was stressed that Members of the Committee needed to look at the site as a whole.

Ms Akerman spoke on behalf of the petition submitted by residents of Eastcote Road:

• Ms Akerman was disappointed that she had to address Committee and speak about the issues surrounding the application for the third time.
• She stated that the applicants were blatantly going through the back door with planning applications.
• The additional habitat requested would cause more overcrowding in an over-dense area.
• The outline approval was up to 50 dwellings per hectare. Residents were persuaded and assured by planning committee that this would be the case. Residents then heard that there would be new buildings.
• Residents were against the previous applications that had been agreed and now additional planning permission was being asked for. They felt as if the Council and the developers were going against what was promised to them. 
• Ms Akerman spoke about the lack of parking, and if there was to be additional parking it would impact on an already congested road.
• The application was overbearing and there would be additional light pollution. It was stated that the lighting in rooms bothered neighbouring houses.
• Residents in the new cottages could see people indoors through windows, this included into bedrooms and you could have eye-to-eye contact.
• Ms Akerman urged the Council to do the right thing and refuse the illegally built sites.

Members discussed the additional roof lights being proposed, and also the lack of privacy and overlooking raised by petitioners. Officers were satisfied the proposed plans complied with guidance.

Members discussed the plans for item 5 and whether there were any additional plans as the plans submitted did not reflect what the applicants had proposed. Officers confirmed that there was not a plan that reflected the proposal for item 5. The plans for item 8 and 9 were confirmed as being correct as per the plans submitted to Committee.

Members agreed that they were not in a position to approve item 5 as they did not have the correct plans to reflect what was being proposed. It was agreed that this item should be deferred pending the submission of corrected plans.

The recommendation for deferral was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be deferred for corrections to be made to 'as built' plans so they match the as built development.