Agenda item

Two-storey, 3-bedroom detached dwelling with habitable basement with associated amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

Two-storey, 3-bedroom detached dwelling with habitable basement with associated amenity space.

Officers introduced the report and directed Members to note the changes in the addendum circulated at the meeting.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, the meeting was addressed by a petition representative as well as the agent.

The petitioners made the following points in objection to the application:

·         Was a member of the Eastcote Residents' Association who dealt with planning issues

·         As well as signing the petition, residents had also submitted individual letters in objection to the application

·         Welcomed the recommendation for refusal in the report which clearly reflected the concerns of residents

·         Noted in the officer's report, that details of the people that had objected had not been included and nor had comments from the Eastcote Panel and Eastcote Residents' Association

·         Requested this oversight to be investigated

·         Urged the Committee to refuse the application as per officer recommendation.

The agent raised the following points:

·         The proposed development would not be used as a separate dwelling or be sold once completed

·         The scheme would not be suitable enough to be used as an 'outhouse' and was  merely being developed for use by the grandchildren

·         With regard to the elevation report, the distance shown in the drawing was further than that shown on the PowerPoint presentation

·         Suggested that the proposal was in keeping with the area

·         Stressed that the proposed development would be used by family and enable a closer proximity to growing children.

The Chairman read a letter from a Ward Councillor who was unable to attend the meeting due to other engagement and the following points were raised:

·         Expressed concerns that the a three-bedroom house with a basement in the grounds was being proposed

·         Suggested that this was a blatant case of garden grabbing, which would result in loss of light, privacy and would be overbearing to the neighbouring properties

·         The proposed development would be cramped, out of keeping and would result in the loss of amenity space

·         Acknowledged that due to shortage of space, there was a potential for increased applications to build in basements  but cautioned that consideration should be given to surrounding houses and the types of soil being built on

·         Concerned that no provision had been made for extra drainage to prevent flooding, given the proposal would be surrounded by houses and located in an area with clay soil type

·         Concerned that the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on parking and being close to Newnham Infant and Junior school, feared that the problem with parking would be exacerbated particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times. In addition, given that the scheme was on a corner plot, parked vehicles could become hazardous to pedestrians

·          Urged the Committee to refuse the application.

The Chairman added that comments from residents' associations should be included and made clear in officers' reports, given that resident's associations generally commented on behalf of a group of people.

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

·         Resolved – That the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the officer’s report and changes in the addendum.