Agenda item

Erection of two storey side and single storey rear extension and demolition of existing outbuilding.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation

31 Bryony Close - 72073/APP/2016/2692  (Agenda Item 7)

Officers introduced the report, which sought planning permission for the erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extension and demolition of existing out building. The application was recommended for approval. Officers made an amendment to the report and corrected the legal test so that it was clear that conditions were only imposed in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the exceptional circumstance was that the use of an HMO would not be able to comply with parking requirements.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application and gave a background of events thus far. He made the following points:

·         neighbouring properties in Bryony Close were not consulted by a letter dated 26 July 2016 as indicated in the section entitled "Considerations" in the report;

·         residents first became aware of the planning application by way of a planning application notice attached to a lamp post on 18 August 2016;

·         subsequent to the change of description of the development, a second petition was submitted to the Council and additional concerns were raised about public safety matters including access;

·         the property owner had not lived in the property since it was purchased in 2015 and it has always been used as an HMO. The petitioner questioned whether it was legally enforceable that the property would not return to a HMO as it was already being used as a HMO and Hillingdon regulations stated that up to six people could live there;

·         health and safety concerns - there were loose and displaced rain water gully covers in the area. There were gas, electrical, water services and heavy traffic movement which presented a potential hazard in that corner of Bryony Close. The petitioner questioned whether suppliers had been consulted on this potential development.  There was also a possibility of tarmac skin over the former grass verge of breaking up causing a hazard to residents and restricting access to parking and emergency vehicles;

·         access to the planned areas of work would cause problems;

·         parking would present serious challenges. Contractors would need to have vehicles parked on site for various reason and there was not enough parking available to satisfy the needs of local residents and also accommodate contractors; and

·         the property owners within close vicinity had lived on the road for a significant number of years and most of them were suffering from long terms illnesses or were pensioners. The possibility of the continuation of the dwelling in HMO status and the other concerns raised left the residents concerned and worried over the future.

At the outset of Member discussions, the Chairman placed on the record that the fact that a petition had been raised, and that there were a number of petitioners in attendance, suggested that there was adequate knowledge of the proposed planning. He referred the issue of whether the letters dated 26 July 2016 were sent out to residents to the Head of Planning in order to ensure that this was properly done in the future.

The Legal Advisor explained the enforceability of the condition in relation to an HMO. She advised that the applicant had permitted development rights and did not need to apply for planning permission to operate a six bed HMO. If this application was approved, the applicant was not entitled to the same permitted development rights as he was entitled to now, namely the ability to have a six bed HMO.  With planning permission, once the applicant had started building, condition seven would become enforceable and would need to be complied with.  Enforcement procedures could be taken by the Council if any conditions recommended were breached.

In response to matters raised by Members, officers confirmed that:

·         the applicant would have to implement the planning permission for condition seven to apply;

·         the issues surrounding utilities and the implications whilst the development was being constructed could not be taken into account as they were covered by other legislation outside of the Planning Committee's power;

·         if the planning permission was granted and the applicant started building, it could not continue to be an HMO without the applicant coming back and asking for new planning permission;

·         the applicant was forfeiting their rights by wanting to extend their property.

A motion for the officer's recommendation was moved, seconded, and upon being put to a vote was unanimously agreed. The application was granted with the grounds that it remained a single dwelling.

RESOLVED:  The application was approved as per the officer's recommendation.