Agenda item

Erection of two storey building to include 4 x 2 bed self contained flats with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing outbuildings

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of two storey building to include 4 x 2 bed self contained flats with associated parking and amenity space, involving demolition of existing outbuildings

Officers introduced the report, and asserted that the proposed development was out of keeping with the scale of neighbouring properties, was not in keeping with the layout and appearance of the street scene, and that the separation distance of 15m from bedroom windows of existing flats to the proposed units would result in a loss of privacy to future occupiers of the proposed flats.

Furthermore, the applicant had not provided evidence that sufficient parking, servicing and delivery arrangements or refuse collection facilities could be provided on site.

The addendum was referred to, which highlighted that 20 letters of support had been received, and that an objection from the Eastcote Conservation Panel had also been received.

The application was recommended for refusal.

A petitioner address the Committee in objection to the application. Points included:

·         The refusal reasons set out in the officer’s report were strong, and supported by the petitioner.

·         The petition had obtained 83 objections, not 43 as specified in the report.

·         The objection from Eastcote Conservation Panel included environmental issues, such as loss of trees.

·         There was one parking spot currently granted by lease. This parking spot was used by the owner of a large vehicle who had difficulty with the current layout of the site, highlighting how difficult things would be if the application were to be approved.

·         The site was not suitable for residential accommodation.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee. Points included:

·         Given the location of the site in the urban area, in conjunction with the fact that it was previously developed land, there was no objection to the principle of its development.

·         Housing was in short supply in the borough, and creating new homes was crucial to addressing this growing demand.

·         The site was in a sustainable location with easy access to local shops and services, as well as being a short walking distance from public transport.

·         Development in the manner proposed was consistent with prevailing guidance.

·         The design of the proposal would enhance the appearance and amenity of what was a deprived local area.

·         The officer’s assertion that the prevailing character of the area being single story buildings did not take into account the two storey buildings on Field End Road.

·         With regard to internal and external space, the proposed houses exceeded recommended standards, and sunlight and daylight levels were also acceptable.

·         With regard to concerns of overlooking from upstairs bedroom windows of the properties along Field End Road to the proposed terraces of units three and four, the second-floor windows of the flats were set back from the first floor which itself inhibited downward views. In addition, it was unlikely that bedrooms and terraces would be used at the same time given their relative prospective uses, and the terraces would be protected by glass privacy screens.

·         The issue of the 15m distance between properties was not applicable as the subject windows were set at the same level as the upper floor the proposed houses. In addition, the flats would face well-treated green roofs and soft landscaping.

·         No windows on rear elevations, and privacy screens on terraces, meant that there was no loss of privacy, and the development met the 25 degree test.

·         Regarding parking, seven of the retail properties had the right to park a vehicle within the service road, all of which were proposed to be replaced. The one lease holder, referred to previously, had the right to park a car, not a truck.

·         All parking spaces would be reproduced, alongside an additional six parking spaces for residential flats.

·         Regarding the layout of the access road, while concerns had been raised, the highway Authority had offered a solution by way of an adjustment to the positioning of the proposed bollards, providing a wider service road for larger vehicles whilst also improving manoeuvrability into the parking spaces.

·         Lit bollards could be conditioned to address lighting concerns.

Members raised concerns regarding the functionality of the site, loss of privacy, and delivery access to the existing shops. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.