Agenda item

Two storey, 3-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace, with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front.

Recommendation: Refusal

Two storey, 3-bed, detached dwelling with habitable roofspace, with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front

Officers provided an overview of the application and highlighted the changes set out in the addendum.

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

The petitioner objecting to the proposals made the following points:

·         The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area.

·         If approved, it would set a precedent and allow applicants to develop gardens for separate dwellings on the Estate.

·         The proposal would result in a loss of amenity to the neighbouring houses.

·         If approved, No 2 Woodside Road would have no rear garden.

·         The size, scale and bulk of the proposal would be out of keeping with the area.

·         Homes 2 and 6 Woodside Road would suffer from a loss of light

·         Number 7 Woodside Road would suffer from a loss of privacy.

·         The removal of hedges would impact on the local landscape character

·         The development would be contrary to a number of Hillingdon planning policies.

·         The proposal did not contain any details of boundary treatments.

A representative of the applicant made the following points:

·         The plot related to the yet un-built number 4 Woodside Road.

·         The plot of land was lodged at the land registry and was not garden grabbing.

·         There would be no overlooking issues.

·         There had been no highways objections.

·         There was no single style of dwelling on the street scene so the proposal would not be incongruous.

·         The proposal would be designed to look like a traditional English home.

·         The proposal would follow the building line of the properties at 2 and 6 Woodside Road.

·         The hedge would be trimmed only, rather than removed.

·         The papers for the meeting had not been issued in the correct timescales.

·         The Planning Department had provided inconsistent advice.

·         The Planning Department had provided poor customer service and had not responded to correspondence.

·         External factors and pressures had been placed on the Committee.

Given the serious nature of the allegations made by the petitioner (in support), the Chairman confirmed the agenda had been published in the proper timescales and interested parties had been notified in the usual way. He also confirmed Planning Officers dictated which items would be considered on the Committee agenda and that the application had not been treated differently from any other planning application. Should the petitioner remain concerned, they were directed to use the Council's Corporate Complaints procedure.

The Head of Planning confirmed that when the Officer report was being prepared, five separate officers were in agreement that the Officer recommendation should recommend the application was refused.

Discussing the application, the Committee agreed that the proposal failed to harmonise with the existing street scene and would result in a bulky and incongruous addition to the street scene to the detriment of the Area of Special Local Character. The Committee noted that had the Officer report recommended an approval it should have included the withdrawal of permitted development rights.

On being put to the vote, it was moved, seconded and agreed that the application be unanimously refused.

Resolved -

That the application be refused.