Agenda item

Conversion of two storey, 4-bed dwelling house into 2 x 1-bed self contained flats involving alterations to rear.

Recommendation: Approval

Conversion of two storey, 4-bed dwelling house into 2 x 1-bed self contained flats involving alterations to rear.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the changes set out in the addendum.

In accordance with the Council's constitution, a representative of the petitioners objecting the proposal addressed the meeting.

The petitioner objecting to the proposals made the following points:

·         The proposal would set an unwanted precedent in the area.

·         The proposal would compromise the street scene.

·         The proposal would put an unnecessary stain on drainage and sewerage services.

·         There were insufficient parking spaces which would cause parking problems locally if it were approved.

·         No site visit had been conducted by Officers.

·         The internal layout was different to that suggested in the application.

·         The report contained no mention of the proposed alterations to the rear of the building.

·         The report made no mention of amenity space.

·         The property had been advertised on the internet as 2 double rooms available for rent.

A representative of the applicant raised the following points:

·         The application met all the planning standards.

·         The petitioners concerns that such a development would set a precedent was misguided. Conversions were a legitimate form of development.

·         That there had been few applications for a conversions, showed that the application met a local need.

·         The applicant accepted the Officer recommendation that the car parking needed to be re-orientated.

·         Bin storage had been moved to rear and side of the property so there was minimal impact to the street scene.

·         Drainage and sewage would not worsen as a result of the application.

·         There was no evidence of parking stress in the area.

·         Interior works to the property were not party to enforcement action.

A Ward Councillor raised the following points:

·         The plans and report were insufficient information on which to take a decision.

·         The building plans and proposed layouts were different to each other.

·         The application was an excuse to try and legitimise the current state of the development.

·         There was no Highways Officer report.

·         There was no Access Officers' report.

·         There had previously been a refusal for a 6m extension, but a 6m extension now existed.

·         The application should be deferred so that further investigations could take place.

·         Officers should conduct a site visit.

The Chairman began discussions by seeking a number of clarifications from Officers on a number of points. In relation to the 6m extension, Officers highlighted that this had been agreed under the prior approval route. Officers confirmed that a site visit had taken place and that the proposed change from a kitchen window to patio doors was a permitable alteration.

Referring to the internal layout, Officers confirmed that if a room was not previously designated as a bedroom, but the design had evolved, it was permissible for the room to become and be used as a bedroom.

Despite having a number of reservations about the scheme, the Committee was mindful that it could only consider the planning application before it. In relation to parking considerations, the Committee noted the Officer report had allocated 2 spaces to the scheme.  The Highways Officer explained that parking standards did not equate to the size of the application and in Hillingdon, the standard was to allocate 1.5 spaces per property.  Therefore, applying this standard to the application meant that only one parking space was required for it to be compliant with the current standard.

With regards to the loft conversion already in place, the Committee expressed concern about privacy. In response, Officers confirmed that overlooking had been considered at the relevant time and this aspect of the application did not breach the privacy of neighbouring properties. Summarising the application, the Chairman confirmed that the application complied with all Hillingdon's planning guidance and it was questionable what a site visit might achieve given the internal layout of the property was not something the Committee could determine.

After deliberations, it was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote agreed that the application be approved, with one abstention.

Resolved - That the application be approved