Agenda item

Two-storey, 5- bedroom detached dwelling to include habitable roofspace, with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

Recommendation: Approval

Two-storey, 5- bedroom detached dwelling to include habitable roofspace, with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

Officers introduced the report and directed Members to note the changes in the addendum sheet circulated at the meeting. Members were also advised to attach an additional informative relating to the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

In accordance with the Council’s constitution, a representative of the petitioners and the agent were invited to address the meeting. The petition representative raised the following points in objection to the proposal:

• Had lived at No.37 since 1976
• Recognised that the applicant had addressed many of the concerns that had been raised but three main points remained a cause for concern
• Firstly, regretted that the ground floor side window had been allowed, as this would intrude on the garage at No. 37 due to its location. It would also be detrimental to any future development of No.37 should they wish to extend and suggested that this should not be permitted, as (PD) permitted development rights for No. 37 would be affected
• Consideration should be given to imposing a condition requiring the removal or obscuring this window to minimise intrusion
• Secondly, the shadowing diagrams/study had not taken the mid December month into account, as they only illustrated impact at the height of the Summer
• The shadow dimensions did not clearly illustrate whether the level had taken No. 37 into account
• The application should be deferred pending appropriate overshadowing study by a qualified shadowing expert
• Thirdly, requested the raised patio to be stepped down in order to minimise the impact on No.37 and reduce the terrace to a lower level
• Would have no further objection if these factors were addressed by the applicant.

The agent addressed the Committee on behalf of the petitioners in support of the application. The following points were raised:

• Had worked long and hard to get an acceptable third application.
• The design in the first application had been unsatisfactory and despite efforts to address these concerns, had had to lodge a non- determination appeal
• The new application was put to consultation and a greater number of residents had registered support for the proposal, which met the Design Officer’s requirements, as well as relevant planning policies
• Did not consider that No.37 was anymore important than other properties on the estate
• The shadow diagram showed the sunlight effect on neighbouring properties was no greater than that which already existed
• The property which adjoined No.37 showed similar to current proposals
• All other issues had been cleared by officers having followed a thorough consultation process.

The Chairman asked whether the ground floor side window was a study window. Officers advised that this was a study window and next to it was the roof of the garage at No. 37. This was shielded by vegetation and hedge with the garage below. Officer’s were of the view that this was the same height as a normal window and did not consider that it required obscure glazing to protect privacy.  However, the Committee was advised that if Members were minded, the window could be obscured.

With regard to a query about the shadow diagrams, officers advised that these had been prepared by architects in early 2014 using a software programme and were considered to be accurate. Officers did not consider that the diagrams would be any different if they were done in-house. 

With regard to comments about the patio, officers explained that fencing was proposed along the fence of the patio at 1.8metre (m) above patio level. The Committee could impose a condition requiring the fence to be above 1.8m level.

A Member suggested that this would be acceptable if both gardens had been on the same level at 1.8m, as this was not the case, expressed grave concern about the difference in height of the fencing with an additional 2m being added to 1.8m, which would result in No. 37 having a 4m height fence.

Officers advised that the existing balcony fence was at the same level of the house and the new fence would be offset from the boundary. There would be nearly a 2metre gap between the fence and the neighbouring property.

In relation to the possibility of future development, the Legal Advisor advised that the Committee must look at the application before them on its own merit.

The recommendation for approval, additional condition and informative 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, the addendum and the following addition condition and informative:

Additional Condition

'Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, the fence erected along the north eastern edge of the raised terrace (shown on plan 1176/P3/2) shall be 1.8m in height above the finished floor level of the patio and shall be retained as such for the life to the development.

Reason

To protect the privacy of no. 37 Copse Wood Way in accordance with Policy BE24 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Saved UDP Policies (November 2012).'

Additional Informative

“You are advised that the development hereby approved represents chargeable development under the Mayor's Community Infrastructure Levy. The actual Community Infrastructure Levy will be calculated at the time your development is first permitted and a separate liability notice will be issued by the Local Planning Authority. Should you require further information please refer to the Council's Website www.hillingdon.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=24738”