Agenda item

2 x 4-bedroom, detached bungalows with habitable roofspace, associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

2 x 4-bedroom, detached bungalows with habitable roofspace, associated parking and amenity space.

In introducing the report, officers stated that there had been two previous appeal decisions relating to this development site (17 June 2011 and 15 June 2012), which were dismissed by Planning Inspectors. Members were also directed to note the change ion policy since the appeal decision with the adoption of the Local Plan, which needed to be taken into account when making a decision.

The Committee was directed to note that no houses were fronting the back garden in the road, except that the proposed development would be overly dominant when viewed from the highway.

Members were also asked to note the changes in the addendum, including the comments of the Highways officer (set out in full in the addendum), which had been inadvertently omitted from the officer’s report).

Two petitions had been received; one objecting to, and the other, in support of the proposal. The petition representatives addressed the meeting in accordance with the Council’s constitution.

The petition representative objecting to the proposed development raised the following points:

• The close proximity of this proposal to the adjoining building site would both be detrimental to nearby residents.
• The proposal would have a detrimental effect on the elderly and infirmed residents who had lived in the neighbourhood all their lives.
• Two previous planning applications had been refused in 2011 and 2012, on the grounds that the development as a whole would unduly harm the character and appearance of the area.
• In September 2012, an application to extend No.51 Pembroke Road was opposed by residents and refused by the Council.
• Application to demolish 51 and 53 was approved in November 2012 - these two bungalows should be replaced by two appropriate developments.
• The bulk and footprint of the proposed development was now twice as large.
• The Ruislip Residents’ Association had pointed out that approval of this application would set a precedent for similar developments in the area.
• There was great hostility to this planning application and 160 local residents had sent individual letters asking for the application to be refused.
• The development was garden-grabbing and would result in overdevelopment of the area.

The agent spoke on behalf of the petitioners in support of the application and stated that:

• There had been a long history regarding this proposal and it had been a difficult case for officers to deal with.
• There had been 191 people who had signed a petition in support of the application.
• There had been two inspectors’ appeals decisions; although the appeals were dismissed, the development was approved.
• The current proposal offered a reasonable proposal.

Two Ward Councillors of the application site spoke about the proposal and made the following comments:

• The application had been dismissed on three occasions and the current application does not address the concerns raised by the previous Planning Inspector.
• This development would result in the loss of private garden area at Nos. 51 and 53, which would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area.
• Opposed the  proposed loss of garden space which would be used for car parking and very concerned that the driveway would extend by 40m from Pembroke Road, which was already an over utilised road.
• The proposed bungalows would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
• Noted that the majority of signatories to the petition in support of the application did not live in close proximity and would therefore not be affected by the proposed development.
• The people most affected were concerned about the effect the proposal would have on wildlife.
• The proposed development would result in the loss of privacy.
• The proposed development was garden-grabbing and would look to ensure that strategic plans were put in place to end it.
• The local Authority now had the right through the London Plan to not permit overdevelopment and garden-grabbing.
• Regarding the provision of housing, Planning Inspectors would now be able to take into consideration that Hillingdon was well in excess of the annual target of 400 homes and would be able to overturn this application on the ground of need.

Officers advised that with regard to the issue of the petition in support of the application, Members of the Committee would need to take the petition into consideration, as it was a legitimate and valid petition, which was in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

With regard to the issue of garden-grabbing, Policy B1 (set out in full on page 92 of the officer’s report) was the most recent policy that was relevant to application. In reference to targets, the Council was in accordance with these and there were a number of large sites in Uxbridge which accounted for the volume of the required amount of housing.

A Member added that gardens were important to the Council, as they provided a huge amount of biodiversity and the proposed development would destroy the usefulness of the habitat. This issue had been reflected in current policies.

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

Resolved that the application be refused as per officer recommendation and the changes outlined in the addendum sheet.