Agenda item

Application for the erection of 3 two storey, two- bedroom residential dwellings with associated parking, landscaping and external works.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved, subject to:

a.     the addition of a Construction Management condition; and

b.    The addition of a parking allocation condition;

2.    That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to amend the Heads of Terms to establish a clear area in front of the three new dwellings that is to be used as a general vehicle turning area.

3 x two storey, two- bedroom dwellings with associated parking, landscaping and external works

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application.  Considerations for the Committee included the parking provision, and the impact of the development on adjoining occupiers.

The development was confirmed to meet all Council standards in terms of car parking (with two parking spaces per residential unit), unit size, and amenity space provision. The development was confirmed to have no material impact on traffic within the area, and impact on adjoining occupiers was negligible, as the development met acceptable distance standards. The development would not result in any loss of amenity to neighbours.

The officer therefore recommended that the application be approved.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application. The petitioner asserted that the development would result in overcrowding, and was not in keeping with the character of the area. Parking would be difficult for local residents, including elderly and disabled residents, one of whom relied on having sufficient space to use 'dial-a-ride' services, which would be unable to manoeuvre in a constrained space.  The constrained space would further impact the ability of emergency services, such as the fire brigade and air ambulance, to service the site.

The petitioner asserted that the plans outlined did not match the actual site dimensions, and that the development would result in significant overlooking and loss of privacy for neighbouring residents. Neighbours would be affected by noise, which could impact on their mental and physical wellbeing. In addition, parking in the area was already difficult, and these difficulties would be exacerbated were the development to proceed, particularly during the construction period.

There were two schools in the local area, and parents parked in the area in both in the morning and the afternoon. Children played in the local park. There were concerns that construction vehicles and additional traffic could impact on the safety of the children. In addition, trees in the area were very old, and should be retained.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee, confirming that the proposed development site was poor quality landfill ground, originally used for parking. The agent asserted that there was no policy protection to stop the applicant from seeking to improve the land.

With regard to potential overcrowding, the application met London Plan standards for houses, and Hillingdon standards for gardens and amenity space. Parking would be sufficient, with two parking spaces per unit. The Council's Highways engineer had deemed the space within the site to be sufficient for vehicles to access and manoeuvre, whilst wheelchair access was also provided.

There were no traffic safety issues arising from construction or the use of the dwellings, and there was no loss of amenity on adjoining occupiers. The loss of two trees would be mitigated by the planting of three new trees. For these reasons, the Committee was urged to uphold the officer's recommendation and grant approval.

Councillor Raymond Graham addressed the Committee, and confirmed that he accepted that the application complied with the relevant policies previously outlined. However, having visited the site, Councillor Graham raised concerns that the area would be overdeveloped, and that there would be highway, parking, and pedestrian pathway issues.

Councillor Graham suggested that the area would not be of sufficient size to allow for vehicle turning, which could be a significant issue for disabled drivers who lived in the area. Councillor Graham also raised concerns regarding tree protection and retention.

The Chairman summarised the points to be considered by the Committee before opening the item for debate. It was confirmed that the Committee could not refuse the application due to concerns over construction arrangements, and that the Committee was duty bound to observe the Council's policies and standards.

Members sought confirmation that the development would not result in overcrowding and poor living standards for the occupiers and neighbours. Planning officers confirmed that the proposal made provision for internal floor areas totalling 80 sq.m, which was in excess of the 79 sq.m required. The proposal therefore met amenity standards.

Regarding the petitioner's assertion that the plans were not correct, the planning officers confirmed that the plans had been checked against distances set out on maps of the area, and appeared to be correct. It was confirmed that, should the application be approved, the applicant would be required to build according to the plans. Further planning permission would be required, should the applicant ever seek to vary the plans.

In response to concerns of overshadowing and loss of privacy, it was confirmed that there were to be no windows in the side elevations, and that the proposal met the 15m standard separation distances required by the Council.

It was requested that the plans for the previously approved scheme, dated 2011-2014, be reviewed to determined whether the public footpath was retained in that scheme. Officers confirmed that the previous plans had not included the retention of the footpath. The Committee was therefore bound by that approval decision and could not now mandate that the footpath be retained.

Upon a request from Members for further clarity, officers confirmed that the proposed parking provision was for tandem parking, with two spaces allocated to each dwelling, totalling six spaces. Members were concerned that these spaces could lead to disputes between neighbours. Officers suggested that to allay these concerns, Condition 2 could be amended to ensure that occupants of the site adhere to the parking rules for the lifetime of the development.

Members sought clarity over whether the dropped kerb listed on the plans would remain Council property. Officers confirmed that this was in private ownership, but that the Heads of Terms regarding the stopping up order for highways work could be amended to ensure that the kerb area was to be maintained as an open and level area, and therefore still useable.

Similarly, it was suggested that a Construction Management condition be added to ensure that the area in front of the units' front gardens be kept clear and open, to enable vehicle manoeuvring.

On this basis, the Committee moved the officer's recommendation. This was seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved, subject to:

a.     the addition of a Construction Management condition; and

b.    The addition of a parking allocation condition;

2.    That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to amend the Heads of Terms to establish a clear area in front of the three new dwellings, that is to be used as a general vehicle turning area.