Agenda item

Conversion of existing dwelling house into 1 x 3-bed dwelling house and 1 x studio flat with associated amenity space.

Recommendation : Refusal

Conversion of existing dwelling house into 1 x 3-bed dwelling house and 1 x studio flat with associated amenity space.

Officers introduced the report and provided a brief summary of the application. During the course of their presentation they verbally corrected the report as follows:

Page 92 last paragraph corrected to read 'no.94 is lower than no. 92' and Page 30, last paragraph delete 'as part of the consent'

It was also proposed that an informative relating to the Community Infrastructure Levy, be delegated to Officers as follows:

'You are advised that should the development be allowed at a subsequent appeal it would represents chargeable development under both  the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) (£35 per sq.m) and Hillingdon's CIL (£95 per sq.m).  At this time is estimated that the liability would be £875 for Mayoral CIL and £2375 for Hillingdon CIL. The actual Community Infrastructure Levy would be calculated were your development to be permitted at appeal 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'

Officers highlighted that since the agenda had been published, the Planning Department had received a further three written objections.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, a representative of the petition in objection to the application addressed the meeting.

The petitioners made the following points:

• The proposal would divide a semi detached property and would detract from the character and appearance of the area.
• If the proposal was approved, it would set a dangerous precedent in the area.
• The sub division of the existing property would mean there would be insufficient local car parking and it would also increase the levels of on street parking.
•  The proposal would mean there would be a loss of privacy to adjacent dwellings, and these occupants would be forced to sit against their fence lines to have any privacy outdoors.
• The proposal would have a detrimental effect on property prices locally.
• The proposal would be contrary to planning policies.

The agent made the following points:

·         The car parking space would be situated on a plastic grid.

·         The proposal would incorporate a bike space for the studio.

·         Small flats were acceptable in special circumstances, and the Committee was asked to consider the proposal in these terms.

·         The proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the area and was no different from a number of other garages which had been converted into accommodation locally.

·         The agent agreed that the one of the windows was oversized and should be changed.

·         The agent circulated amended plans for the proposal and asked the Committee to consider these at the meeting.

·         The agent stated the amended plans which had been circulated at the meeting aimed to revise the internal layout of the proposal and thereby meet the Lifetime Homes standard.

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The ward Councillor confirmed that he supported the concerns raised by the petitioners in objection to the proposal.

·         The proposal was too small and did not comply with Planning standards.

Before the Committee entered into general discussion, the Chairman sought legal advice on the amended plans which had been circulated by the agent. The Legal Officer advised the Committee not to consider the plans which had been circulated at the meeting and advised the Committee that it should only determine the application which had been included in the agenda papers.

Noting the petitioner's comments, the Committee agreed that property prices were not a material planning consideration. Discussing the proposal, the Committee agreed that owing to its small size, it would provide an inadequate and sub standard form of accommodation which would be harmful to the amenity of future occupiers. The Committee agreed that the proposal did not incorporate adequate off street parking provision for the existing and proposed development and its external appearance would not been in keeping with the character of the area.

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

Resolved -

That the application be Refused for the reasons set out in the officer report, addendum and additional informative.