Agenda item

Erection of a two storey building with habitable basement and roof space to create 1 x 3-bed and 3 x 2-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and installation of vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing dwelling house.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in the addendum.

Erection of a two storey building with habitable basement and roof space to create 1 x 3-bed and 3 x 2-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and installation of vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing dwelling house.

Officers introduced the report and addendum, which set out comments from a Ward Councillor and proposed additional and amended conditions to address the Ward Councillor’s concerns that related to privacy of neighbouring residents.

In order to protect neighbours’ privacy, a condition was proposed to ensure that all side windows facing no. 9 Sandy Lodge Way were obscure glazed and non-openable below a height of 1.8m. The remaining concerns of the Ward Councillor were confirmed as addressed within paragraph 7.07 of the officer’s report. Condition 8, which dealt with landscaping, was also proposed to be added to, to set out areas of defensible space in front of ground floor habitable windows, to protect the amenities of future occupiers.

The Committee was informed that, with the addition of the above conditions, the impact of overlooking on neighbouring properties was negligible. The proposal was considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and for these reasons it was recommended that the application be approved.

A petitioner addressed the Committee, key points of which included:

·         The petitioner was the owner and resident of no. 9 Sandy Lodge Way, and was speaking on behalf of over 50 local residents who had signed the petition against the proposed development.

·         The application sought to demolish a family style home and replace it with four flats with a large basement and associated parking, in a large development which was out of character with the western side of Sandy Lodge Way and adjacent roads.

·         Residents were concerned that further flatted developments within the area would create a poor neighbourhood environment and reduce the standard of living and enjoyment of the area.

·         Residents were disappointed by the application, in light of planning policy which identified the need for more family homes with garden space within the Borough.

·         The current owners already had permission to develop two detached houses on this plot, meeting the planning policy aims, and at the previous Planning Committee meeting at which those houses were approved, the owners expressed the desire to build the two family houses as they had struggled to find suitable homes in the area. The subsequent decision to develop flats on the site contravened that claim, and suggested a purely financial motive contrary to planning policy aims.

·         In terms of density, Sandy Lodge Way was already at the limit of 10% flatted developments, and the proposed development would take the number of flatted developments over 10%. Together with a further flatted development at 8 to 10 Sandy Lodge Way, whose application predated this one, the number would be closer to 15%.

·         The officer’s report had not accounted for the fact that almost all of the current flatted developments were in a relatively condensed part of the street, along a stretch of road directly opposite to the proposed development. This included 4 flatted blocks next to each other, rather than being evenly split along the road, which had directly resulted in loss of privacy, loss of family accommodation, and change of street scene.

·         A consultant had noted that the proposed basement would extend to the full width of the plot and it was requested that extensive up-to-date analysis should be conducted, or further impact assessments provided, to assess the impact of such a development.

·         The basement was apparently to be used as a games room, although also included three light wells and a bathroom with a shower, which would appear to be unnecessary for a two-bedroom flat that already had two bathrooms and a separate toilet. This suggested that the flats were to be marketed as three-bedroom properties whilst under the guise of a two-bedroom property, without the appropriate safety features.

·         There were concerns that the development would cause overlooking and would result in a loss of light into the nearby bedrooms, currently used by young children. There were also safeguarding concerns due to loss of privacy.

The petitioner concluded by requesting that the application be refused.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee, the key points of which were:

·         The agent had worked closely with the architect on this scheme from the time of the original planning application for two detached houses, approximately  two and a half years ago.

·         The current scheme was on a similar footprint to the permitted development of the two detached houses, except that the gap between the houses was proposed to be filled in.

·         The ground floor depth and spacing was similar, though was marginally further from no. 9, compared with the previous scheme.

·         Parking would be at the front of the properties. A large oak tree at the rear was proposed to be retained.

·         The buildings were designed in a traditional mock-Tudor character with herringbone brick infill panels, similar to No. 9 and other properties in the area. 

·         The roofs were steeper than the previous detached houses, to add character, and were linked by lower flat-roofed elements that fragmented the scale of the building.

·         To add further interest there were projecting gables extending over the front and rear bays, with hipped roofs. The use of dormer windows had been avoided.

·         Overall, the elevations maintained a two-story scale that largely disguised the accommodation in the roof and basement, included to optimise the use of the site without adding to the building bulk. A small part of the roof was now used for accommodation.

·         The basement extended less than halfway to the depth of the building, with a basement under each of the two ground floor flats.

·         The building had a similar overall footprint to the two detached houses, and the traditional style with deeper roof pitches was felt to sit better on the site than the pair of narrow houses with their shallower roof pitches.

·         A small recessed area had been added to the road frontage on Grove Road to add interest and to break the elevation.

·         In terms of height, the eaves line remained as per the two houses. The ridge running parallel to Grove Road was reduced in height from 8.05m to 7.7m, with the apex (top of the two hips) at 8.3m.

·         The front Ridgeline was 0.25 meters higher than previously, and marginally above the height of no. 9, but this was felt to add to the diverse roof line and was not out of keeping with the character of the area.

The petitioner concluded by commending the officer’s report and scheme to the Committee.

The Chairman confirmed that he had received additional comments from Councillor Melvin, Ward Councillor for Northwood, who agreed with the Ward Councillor’s comments as set out in the addendum.

The Head of Planning and Enforcement responded to the objecting petitioner’s assertion that the development would have an adverse impact on the amenity of their property. The Committee was informed that the application could not be refused due to impact on neighbouring amenity, as there was an extent planning permission for two detached houses. The permitted left-hand house already affected the newly reconfigured layout of the adjoining property, and as that impact would not be worsened by the new flatted development, refusal could not be made on that basis.

With regard to the petitioners’ reference to Hillingdon’s guidance on the 10% flatted development, pages 39 and 40 of the officer’s report were highlighted. It was confirmed that this was guidance, not policy, and inspectors had advised that the first consideration should be whether a proposed scheme had an unacceptable visual impact on the street scene. Only if it did, were officers to review the 10% guidance. In the case of this application, officers had concluded that the scheme did not result in an unacceptable visual impact on the street scene.

Members discussed the scheme, with concerns raised over the impact on the street scene, due to size and bulk. However, the majority of the Committee felt that the scheme was presentable, and moved the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed by 7 votes in favour, with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to conditions as set out in the addendum.