Agenda item

S73 Application to vary the external appearance of House Type B (1882) (modifications to 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 external appearance of House Type B (1882) (modifications to 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).

The Chairman agreed that items 6 and 7 would be heard together and stated that Members of the North Planning Committee had visited the site and flats in question.

Officers introduced the report andoutlined the changes made as per the addendum.

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

Ms Ann Wright spoke on behalf of the petition submitted:

• It was noted that Acalia Walk gardens were short and that this had an impact on privacy.
• Ms Wright stated that the original plans were meant to have obscure glazing but did not.
• Sky/roof lights were discussed.
• Petitioners commented on a goldfish bowl effect of the application.
• Privacy was compromised and you could see into gardens and the homes of neighbouring properties.
• Taylor-Wimpey had already gone against the planning applications that were agreed and were putting in new applications for financial gain. This was not acceptable.

Members discussed the roof lights and habitual rooms. Officers stated that Taylor-Wimpey could argue that the Committee gave permission for the rooms in the roof and the only way to make it habitual was by way of a roof light. Officer’s discussed the likelihood of a successful defence if this application went to appeal, if refused. Members asked for legal clarification on this issue, which was planning permission would be dependent on whether there was a material difference.

Officers asked if Members were comfortable with any perceived overlooking, it was noted that the rooms had already been approved and that building regulations needed to be adhered to in order to make the rooms habitual. It was noted that the room had been approved as a ‘bonus’ room and without additional lighting it could be used as a storage room. Members felt that the developers would have known what the building regulations were when the original plans had been submitted and approved.

It was noted by Members that petitioners had stated there was overlooking and the application had an impact on privacy. That the central dormer could be used as a shower and it was clearly visible. Members noted the planning officers concerns around guidance and building regulations but felt that the developers may have made the situation worse.

Members felt the proposed development by reason of the accumulation of rooflights and dormer windows on the rear roofslopes of Plots 317, 320, 316, 321, 323 had resulted in an unacceptable perception of overlooking from the dwellings on the western side of Azalea Walk. This resulting development had not safeguarded a satisfactory residential amenity to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, due a perceived loss of privacy. The development was therefore contrary to Policy BE24 of the Hillingdon Local Plan (November 2012).

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

Resolved –

That the application be refused, with the wording for refusal to be agreed by the Chairman and Labour Lead.