Agenda item

4 x two storey, 4-bed detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space (Outline planning application for access and layout with some matters reserved).

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved: That the application be refused.

4 x two storey, 4-bed detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space (Outline planning application for access and layout with some matters reserved)

Officers introduced the application which was for outline planning permission for four houses. Only the means of access to the site and site layout was currently under consideration. It was noted that plans showing the siting and floor plans of the houses were only indicative. The application site lay within the 'Developed Area', as identified in the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One and  also lay within an Archaeological Priority Area.

The local street scene was primarily residential in character and comprised mainly of two storey detached dwellings. Therefore, the proposals were considered to be in keeping with the character of the area. The application involved the development of garden land and although this would normally be unacceptable, the proposals needed to be considered in the context of other developments that had taken place in the area. There was no policy in place to prevent the development of garden land where this was in keeping with other development in the local area. There were developments close to application site where garden land development had already taken place.

The Committee was advised that the site already had an extensive number of trees on it. Approval of the application was recommended.

A petition had been submitted in objection to the application. In accordance with the Council's Constitution, the petitioner addressed the meeting and made the following points:

·         The petitioners represented ten out of eleven houses in the particular section of the street relevant to the application.

·         The officer report suggested that previous applications should be taken into account. The petitioners were not aware whether it was the first time that such an application had been considered by the Committee, but it was the first time that such a significant number of residents in the immediate area had objected.

·         Petitioners were not experts in planning matters, but they were experts on the local area and had direct personal experience in relation to traffic levels, access and parking issues. Other developments in the area were also having an impact and were reducing the availability of parking.

·         The proposals were considered to be too intensive for the location and were out of character with the area.

·         Traffic was the main concern of the petitioners. The presence of four houses on the site would make it impossible for the applicant to accommodate adequate on street parking. It was unclear whether eight or 12 parking spaces would be provided. Traffic problems in the close would also increase. The street was too narrow to accommodate extra parking and even pavement parking was likely to obstruct HGVs and emergency vehicles.

·         Extra visitor parking would push resident parking 100 yards towards the public highway. This would restrict access to the road. There would also be increased traffic noise and pollution.

·         The Committee was asked to reject the application.

·         In the event of future applications taking place at the site, it would be appreciated if the procedures for notifying residents could be re-visited.

In response to questions from the Committee, the petitioner further explained the difficulties that larger vehicles faced in accessing the road.

Members expressed unease about the application as it was felt that it was not clear what precisely the Committee was being asked to determine. This was due to the officer report specifying that the application was an outline planning application for access and layout with some matters reserved. Officers advised that the Committee was being asked to determine the principal of the development and showed Members the plans that they would be approving. The more detailed floor plans were not currently for determination and were subject to change. Details of the building elevations and designs had not been provided.

Members would be approving the principal of four dwellings on the site in a specific formation. Planning policies that had changed or entered into force since previous permissions had been granted at the site in the early 2000's had been reviewed. These included policies relating to back garden development within the London Plan, The National Planning Policy Framework and the Council's own policies. The impact that these changed policies had on the officer recommendation had been considered. The general view was that back garden or back land development would be unacceptable. However, consideration needed to be given to the character of the area. In relation to the application under consideration, officers had concluded that the area already had a considerable amount of back land development and therefore, approval had been recommended.

Committee Members expressed concern that approval of the in principle development could make it difficult to refuse future applications at the site. It was considered that the proposed development of plots 3 and 4 would not be in keeping with the character of the area. The development was back land development and was out of character with the area. In view of this, it was proposed that the Committee should go against the officer recommendation and refuse the application.

It was noted that a similar development in Jackets Lane had recently been considered by the Committee and it was considered that the application under consideration amounted to too much development in the area. Access to the road and the limited turning space for vehicles was a cause for concern as was the potential for overlooking onto neighbouring properties. Approval of the development would contribute towards giving the area a new character, which was then likely to be exploited by future applications. The Council's back land policy was against the development of such land and it was felt that this principle should be upheld.

Officers confirmed that there were not considered to be highways reasons for refusing the application as the proposals met the Council's parking standard. In addition, refuse vehicles would not necessarily have to access the road immediately adjacent to the proposed four properties in order to be able to service them.

It was agreed that the precise wording for the refusal reasons would be agreed outside the meeting and that these would primarily relate to the fact that the application was back land development.

It was agreed to overturn the officer recommendation and to refuse the application. The proposal for refusal was proposed, seconded and upon being put to the vote, was agreed unanimously.

Resolved: That the application be refused and that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to agree the wording of the reasons for refusal in conjunction with the Chairman and the Labour lead.