Agenda item

Erection of two storey detached building with habitable roof space for use as 5 flats: 4 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed flats with associated amenity space and parking, involving demolition of existing building (Outline Planning Application with All Matters Reserved).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: 

1.         That the application be approved; and

2.         That the Head of Planning being given delegated authority to amend conditions relating to the retention of trees on site and the removal of the outbuilding.

Erection of two storey detached building with habitable roof space for use as 5 flats: 4 x 2 bed and 1 x 3 bed flats with associated amenity space and parking, involving demolition of existing building (Outline Planning Application with All Matters Reserved)

Officers introduced the report, and highlighted the addendum. Members were informed that one additional letter of representation had been received, and that most of the points contained therein had been addressed by officers as set out in the addendum, which included confirmation that Highways officers were content with the revised parking layout.  Similarly, all points raised by the newly received petition had been addressed within the officer's report.

An email objecting to the application had been received from the occupant of one of the adjoining properties, and while the points contained therein had also been addressed within the report, these were expanded on by the officer. With regard to concerns over the design of the application, Members were reminded that the proposal to be determined was for an outline application that sought for all matters to be reserved, to be assessed at a later date.

The email asserted that the application site should not be taken as the midpoint of the survey. The policy was clear in stating that the application site, 66 The Drive, was in fact the midpoint for the purposes of the survey.

The email also raised concerns over the 15m separation distance listed. In response, the officer suggested that this had likely been misinterpreted, and confirmed that the 15m rule related to distance from habitable rooms front and rear.

With regard to the application, it was confirmed that this had previously been deferred by the Committee until further detail on the quantum of development, and whether the development could be accommodated on the site, could be received. Additional plans had since been secured, and showed that the proposal could be accommodated on site and that it would not infringe on a 45 degree line.

Highways officers had previously asked for a minimum of seven parking spaces on site. In response, the applicant had demonstrated that eight parking spaces could be accommodated on the front driveway, and Highways officers had confirmed that the proposed layout met the standard required. It was therefore deemed that local resident concerns over a perceived under provision of parking had been addressed.

The officer concluded by recommending that the application be approved.

A petitioner objecting to the proposal addressed the Committee, and asserted that the latest proposal had not fundamentally changed from previous applications. The proposal was for high density flats, to accommodate twenty-one people, which was out of character with the local area and would impact on the street scene, in what was a rural location.

The Drive was an unmaintained private road, which lacked street lighting, pavements or drainage. Much of the road was less than 4m wide, and it was difficult for cars to pass each other at the north end. This already presented safety concerns due to the lack of pavements, as residents (including children) were required to walk in the road.

The PTAL rating for the location was 1; the bus stop for Ickenham/Uxbridge was 15 minutes walk away, with pavements absent for some distance. According to table 6.2 of the parking standards, in suburban locations with a PTAL rating between 0 and 1, up to two spaces per unit may be required. As this was a rural location, other properties in the road generally had one car per adult. The proposed flats were likely to be priced to appeal to couples and professionals, who would need access to a car to get to and from work. The proposed eight parking bays for twenty-one people would therefore be inadequate, and it was unclear where other cars would park.

The golf course and residents' properties were required to be accessible to utility vehicles. The main access was from the south, as there was a blind, narrow junction at Harvil Road. Evening functions at the golf course used coaches, which would be unable to exit with on-street parking. Given the lack of pavement, street lighting, road width and the proximity of the golf course access, residents of The Drive requested that the application provide two car parking spaces per dwelling as a minimum, and even with such provision, concerns remained over where other cars could be safely parked. The parking bay was proposed to be 2.2m from the flat, but there appeared to be a bay window projecting into this space, which further reduced parking space.

The proposal was out of character with its surroundings, was an overdevelopment of the site, and construction was not possible without permanent damage to the privacy and enjoyment of neighbour's gardens. Though it was understood that this was only an outline application, it was believed that the proposal conflicted with a number of guidelines. The proposed bulk would overdominate and overshadow 68 The Drive, due to the increase in ridge height and its location at the southwest. In addition, 64 and 68 The Drive would lose all privacy to the rear, and this could not be safeguarded, regardless of the development's proposed internal layout. There were no elevation drawings provided, which prevented a full assessment of the impact of the street scene and neighbouring properties.

The petitioner concluded by stating that, if the application was to be approved, residents requested two car parking spaces per dwelling, in accordance with residential parking standards, to mitigate the inevitable pressure to park on the road and the resulting highway and amenity problems. However, it was maintained that this was an overdevelopment in a rural location, and therefore requested that the application be refused.

Members sought clarity from the petitioner as to whether there were any other, similar developments located nearby. The petitioner confirmed that there were no such developments on this section of The Drive, but there was a development that comprised 5 flats on a larger plot, elsewhere.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee, and reminded the Committee that the application to be determined was purely an outline, to establish the principle of development only. It was therefore normal that no details of elevations were being provided at this time. The Council was not being asked to assess the effect on the amenity of adjoining occupants above the 45 degree line, which had been addressed on the plans.

The application had been substantially reduced from the previous application, with a large amount of bulk removed from the rear of the building to address the Committee's concerns. The agent asserted that generally, those accessing the golf course car park did not use Harvil road, as this was a dangerous junction and the road was in some state of disrepair. In addition, it was asserted that coaches rarely went to the golf course, as it was felt to be in decline.

The proposed parking provision met the Council's standards, and two spaces would be excessive in light of attempts to reduce the dependence on the motor car and the London plan's recommendation for one car per unit as a standard across London.

The agent disputed the petitioner's claims that this was a rural site, and asserted that this was a suburban site, with houses on both sides of the road. The footprint of the proposed development, as shown on the plans, was not dissimilar to what was currently on site, and therefore was not out of character with the local area.

Members sought clarity from the agent over what was planned to be done with the outbuilding at the rear of the property. The agent confirmed that this would likely be removed as part of the detailed design.

Members discussed the application, and were pleased that the applicant had sought to address the Committee's previous concerns by amending the proposal. However, concerns remained over the parking provision on site, in light of the weak transport links from the area and the likelihood that future occupiers of the dwellings would own vehicles. In addition, Members raised concerns that there would be overdominance of 68 The Drive.

With regard to the parking provision, officers considered that with eight spaces for five flats, a refusal could not be granted on the basis that there was not enough parking provision. On the matter of overdominance, officers reiterated that this was an outline application. A belt of mature trees was located between the properties in question, which were proposed to be retained, whilst the proposal was compliant with the policy regarding 45 degree lines. The Committee was advised that the detailed design at the reserved matters stage would assess matters such as layout and design in more detail. Officers confirmed that, were the Committee minded to do so, conditions could be added to ensure that the outbuilding was removed and the trees were retained.

Members raised concerns that the principle of flats to accommodate twenty-one occupants was out of character with the road in question, Officers confirmed that, as set out in the report, there was a precedent for flatted development within The Drive, and the development was complaint with the Council's 10% policy over flatted developments.

Members sought clarity over the percentage of the front garden would be left as soft landscaping, and whether that met Council policy. Officers confirmed that the front garden met the 25% threshold for soft landscaping within the indicative layout received.

On the basis that the development complied with the Council's 10% rule for flatted development, as well as the Council's parking policy, Members moved the officer's recommendation with the addition of conditions relating to the removal of the outbuilding and the retention of the tree line separating the development property and 68 The Drive. This was seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.         That the application be approved; and

2.         That the Head of Planning being given delegated authority to amend conditions relating to the retention of trees on site and the removal of the outbuilding, notwithstanding the approved plans.