Agenda item

Two storey, 4-bed detached dwelling with habitable roofspace (incorporating a rear dormer and front/side rooflights), parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing bungalow.

Recommendation: Approval

Resolved -    (a)       that the application be approved; and

(b)       that the Head of Planning be delegated authority to add a condition setting out the maximum building height, relevant to neighbouring properties.

Two storey, 4-bed detached dwelling with habitable roofspace (incorporating a rear dormer and front/side rooflights), parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing bungalow.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the application had been presented to the Committee on the 13 October 2016, with a recommendation for approval, but was deferred to enable further details to be sought in respect of the impact to the adjoining occupiers and the proposed inset dormer windows.

Since then, the applicant had revised the development by reducing its depth, had replaced the front inset dormer window with a rooflight, and replaced the rear inset dormer window with a more traditional projecting dormer. In addition, the revised plans now accurately showed compliance with the 45 degree rule in relation to windows that serve neighbouring properties. The application was located in an area of special local character, though as there was no cohesion with the design of existing properties within the area, it was felt that the proposed application would have no detrimental impact on the character of the area and the application was therefore recommended for approval.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal. It was confirmed that, since the previous Committee meeting, the applicant had worked with local residents to address their points, though concerns remained. These concerns included the potential overdominance and overshadowing in relation to neighbouring properties due to the height and size of the proposed building, as well as the potential for a precedent to be set for future applications in the area, should permission be granted. The proposed height of the building, inclusive of flood prevention foundations, would exceed that of no. 47 Frays Avenue, whilst a kitchen extractor fan would discharge directly into patio doors of no 43 Frays Avenue. The vehicle crossover arrangement to the proposed new garages on the east side of the property would bring vehicle activity close to the living quarters of no. 43, and could result in a loss of green spaces and spoilage of newly created parking zones. For these reasons, it was requested the application be deferred until such time as a site visit could be undertaken to accurately assess the scale and effect of the planning proposal on the local area.

The applicant and agent then addressed the Committee. The applicant confirmed that they understood the local resident's concerns, though these concerns were not shared by all local residents, many of whom understood the family's need for an expanded family home. The agent confirmed that significant work had been undertaken to address the concerns of residents and of the Committee since the last meeting. The footprint of the building was significantly smaller than that of the proposed development previously, in an effort to reduce any overshadowing or overdominance. Overall, it was expected that the final height of the building would be somewhat higher than adjoining properties, though this was not expected to be a material difference, and was still to be determined. The current building line was forward of no. 47, whilst the new property would be set back, into line with the neighbouring property thereby improving the street scene.

Councillor Jan Sweeting addressed the Committee as Ward councillor for West Drayton, on behalf of residents objecting to the proposal. Residents requested the Committee clarify why Members had not visited the site, why the application had been previously put forward for approval when in breach of the 45 degree rule, and what was the final maximum height of the building? Councillor Sweeting concluded by stating that previous applications in the area had been refused due to height, and requested that the application be deferred to that Members could visit the site before making a final decision.

The Chairman then read a statement on behalf of Councillor Dominic Gilham, Ward Councillor for West Drayton, in support of the application. Councillor Gilham confirmed that the applicant had worked with both planning officers and local residents to overcome their concerns. As a result, the total floor plan at the rear of the property had been reduced to minimise any shading issues. The plans showed a building no higher than the neighbouring property, without the balcony concern raised previously.  The proposal was a quality build for a family home that would enhance the street scene of the road, and it was therefore requested that the Committee approve the application.

Members sought clarity on the points raised above. Officers confirmed that with regard to the proposed amendments to the building line and vehicle crossover, the setting back of the property, together with the landscaping proposed, would improve the visual amenity of the street scene. In relation to the 45 degree angle and the previous recommendation for approval, this was due to an error in assessing the impact of the first floor windows.

The size of the proposed bedrooms, and relevant parking provision, met the Council's minimum standards. With regard to the extractor, such matters were not normally subject to conditions, but if the Committee felt strongly, the extractor could be relocated to another part of the building.

The maximum height of the building was still to be finalised, thought it was not expected to be materially different to that of the plans brought before the Committee. Officers confirmed that if material changes were proposed, then the application would need to be brought back to the Committee for further approval. However, the Committee could approve the application with the inclusion of a further condition limiting the maximum height of the building, relevant to that of neighbouring properties. It was suggested that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to agree this height restriction.

Members discussed the proposed site visit, but felt that this was not necessary in this instance. Members were minded to approve the application, subject to the suggested height restriction. Approval, subject to conditions, was therefore moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

Resolved -    (a)       That the application be approved; and

(b)       That the Head of Planning be delegated authority to add a condition setting out the maximum building height, relevant to neighbouring properties.