Agenda item

Two storey building with habitable roofspace to create 5 x self-contained flats with associated parking and landscaping and installation of vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

Recommendation: S106 Agreement

Two storey building with habitable roofspace to create 5 x self-contained flats with associated parking and landscaping and installation of vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

Officers introduced the report and stated that the application had been reported to Committee twice before and no changes had been made to the scheme. The main concern for Members had centred around the impact on the adjoining properties. Officers also directed the Committee to note the changes in the Addendum circulated at the meeting, which included details about a recent petition that had been received for this item.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal address the meeting and raised the following points:

• The 1832 Prescription Act afforded the access to light in her property where she had lived for over 22 years.
• The proposed development would result in breach of light to the property at 49b, particularly the kitchen, breakfast room and upstairs bathroom.
• The footprint of the proposed development would spread beyond the foot print of the present house.
• 49b would barely receive 45% output of light upstairs. 
• The kitchen would be especially dark, as the rear faced No. 51 and the window would be 25ft away from the kitchen.
• The issue of light would be further exacerbated by the proposed use of dark bricks instead of white bricks.
• Concerned that with proposed dwelling for 15 people would result in an increase in noise, particularly as the kitchen and dinning room would be close to the petitioner’s home.
• Proposed Seats for the side planting areas would create even more noise.
• Concerned that even with the proposed obscure windows, occupiers of the proposed development may be able to look into petitioner’s home. 
• There would be a huge problem with parking, which would not only result in more traffic along the road; it would lead to visitors parking outside the petitioner’s home.
• The proposal for hard surfacing would result in extra surface water.
• The proposed refuse facilities would not resolve the issue of additional unpleasant smell.
• The proposed development would be out of keeping with the properties in the road and would set a president.
• Urged the Committee to reject the proposal.

The agent spoke about the application and raised the following points:

·        Nos. 49b and 51a had obscure windows in the side elevation in order to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties, as well as the main bedroom to No.51.

·        There was a deed of covenant attached to 49b, which had inadequate height to the boundary wall.

·        49b had constructed 2 extensions, where the initial single storey extension had resulted in an enclosed window with no record of planning permission being granted for the extension.

The Chairman announced that a Ward Councillor of the application site who was unable to attend the meeting had submitted a statement which was attached to the Addendum. The statement had also been circulated to Members of the Committee prior to the meeting, which had been noted.

In response to the question about the right of light legislation, officers advised that the legislation was not part of the planning process and the Committee could make a decision on the application. Residents wishing to pursue the matter would be required to do so under different legislation. 

Having made a site visit, Member expressed concerns about the bulk at the rear of the building which extended 4m beyond the extended property and 2 storeys high, which they considered would result in overlooking. Further concerns were raised about the prospects of neighbouring properties just looking at the wall when using their gardens.

The Committee raised further concerns about the size and bulk of the car park at the front, which was not in harmony with the street scene.

Officers advised that the bulk to the rear of the proposed development was a considerable extension beyond No.49b but did not have such an adverse effect on No.51. It was highlighted that in the impact at the front with hard surfacing and the set back from the site with landscaping at the front this instance, was not unusually the case with frontage parking. 

The Chairman expressed particular concern about the height, bulk and scale of the proposed development.

The legal officer commented that if Members were not satisfied with the height, bulk and scale of the proposal, although this reason for refusal may be weak, it would be arguable on appeal.

Officers added that the formal wording for the reason would be drafted outside of the meeting in consultation with the Chairman.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused and on being put to the vote was agreed.

Councillors David Allam and Jazz Dhillon asked for their abstention to the decision to be minuted.

Resolved

That the application be refused for the following reason:

‘The proposal by reason of its size, bulk and projection to the rear would be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers, particularly No. 49b, by reason of over-dominance and loss of outlook. The proposal is therefore, contrary to Policies BE19 and BE21 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two-Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (November 2012).