Agenda item

Two storey 3 bed detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and installation of vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing shed.

Recommendation - Approval

Two storey 3 bed detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and installation of vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing shed.

Officers introduced the report and referred members to the addendum sheet that had been circulated. 

It was noted that a Members site visit had taken place with respect to this proposal, and that there was relevant planning history in the form of a grant of planning permission for the erection of an attached dwelling and extensions to the existing property.  Whilst the current proposal was different from the previously approved scheme, this decision was material in particular with respect to the principle of additional built form to provide a dwelling, plot sizes and access arrangements.

It was noted by Members that the site was located in a prominent location, principally due to the change in levels, however the proposed dwelling would be quite similar in appearance and with respect of its height and set back from Elgood Avenue to the existing property at no.1 Elgood Avenue.  The site was not located within an Area of Special Local character and overall it was not considered that the proposal would be so harmful to the character and appearance of the area so as to warrant refusal.

Members noted that should approval be given that the proposals would be subject to a legal agreement.

The Chairman highlighted that the wrong ward had been named in the officers' report.  Northwood Hills was the correct ward.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection of the proposals was invited to address the meeting. The lead petitioner spoke on behalf of the petitioners and raised the following points:

·         The Northwood Hills Residents Association were in objection to the proposals.

·         The Gatehill Estate was an area of Special Character.

·         Glad there had been mention of the legal position between the two applications.

·         Enforcement was costly and time consuming.

·         Concern that the case officer dismissed comments of the planning conservation officer.

·         The conservation officer considered that the application be refused.

·         The proposed front garden would be 50% smaller which was garden grabbing.

·         There were sharp rises in levels.

·         The proposed building would be over dominant.

·         That the application should be refused as per the Hillingdon Local Plan BE1, BE5, BE13, BE14 AND BE19.

The Chairman highlighted that the agent had sent an email to Members of the Committee.

Local Ward Councillors also spoke regarding the proposals and made the following comments:

·         Technical reasons had been covered by the petitioner.

·         Supported the petitioners in objection to the proposals.

·         Concern that there would be a hugely dominant effect on the locality.

·         The level of the garden was 12 feet higher.

·         It was like a 4 storey building.

·         An unpleasant fence had already been subject to enforcement action which had now been repainted.

·         Ravenswood Park was a dense development in the immediate area.

·         A bungalow would be more appropriate.

·         The application should be refused.

·         Parking was a problem in the local area.

·         The road was narrow.

·         Schools were in local proximity.

·         The road was often used as a cut through.

The Chairman highlighted that Members had undertaken a site visit without the plans that were before them now.  The Chairman stated that there were very significant level changes and had concern about the impact.  It was noted by Members that material consideration had to be taken into account and that if the application did go forward that a legal agreement would need to be drawn up.

Members discussed the application and all agreed that the proposals were not in keeping with the local area.  It was highlighted that it was likely the application would go to appeal.  The reasons for refusal were discussed and it was agreed by Members that the siting, levels, reduction of garden area and overall bulk, scale and massing would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area overall and the Gatehill Area of Special Local Character.  A legal agreement was also needed to prevent the implementation of the previous planning application.

It was moved that the application be refused, refusal was seconded and on being put to the, vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved - That the application be refused.

Reasons for refusal - The proposed development by virtue of its prominent siting, levels, reduction of garden area and overall bulk, scale and massing would represent an incongruous feature having a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area overall and the Gatehill Area of Special Local Character contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policies BE5, BE13, and BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Saved Policies UDP (November 2012)

In the absence of a robust and binding legal agreement to prevent the implementation of the previous planning permission (Reference 40455/APP/2012/1376 dated 24th August 2012) the cumulative impact of the developments if both implemented  would represent an incongruous feature having a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area overall and the Gatehill Area of Special Local Character, fail to provide adequate levels of amenity for future occupiers and fail to provide adequate levels of car parking.  The cumulative development would therefore be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policies BE5, BE13, BE19, BE23, AM7 and AM14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Saved Policies UDP (November 2012), Policy 3.5 of the London Plan and the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement - Residential Layouts.