Agenda item

Erection of garage to front (Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That refusal reason 2 be removed.

Erection of detached garage to front (Retrospective)

Officers introduced the report, confirming that part of the application site fell within the Metropolitan Green Belt, and that the site was also situated within the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character.

Officers recommended that the application be refused, as it was felt that the garage was sited in a visually prominent position and, due to its siting, size and scale, was overly dominant and incongruous in relation to the street scene and wider locality. In addition, while it was recognised that the garage was currently partly obscured by hedging, the retention of such a hedge could not be conditioned and so there remained a possibility that the hedge could be removed in future, further exacerbating concerns over the visual impact of the garage.

The applicant addressed the Committee. The applicant had also submitted a petition in support of the application. The applicant highlighted a number of points, which included:

·         No 1 Court Drive was situation on a unique plot which was triangular in shape and that narrowed to a point in the garden.

·         Neighbours had more traditional rectangular size plots with larger rear gardens.

·         The garage had been set as far as possible from the front of the property and at a minimum distance of 0.5m from the border.

·         The side facing the property was covered with small trees and foliage, and the north side facing Court Park was covered by a hedge.

·         The garage provided one off-street parking space in accordance with Council policy. Internal dimensions of the garage were acceptable, and would not result in demand for off street parking, in accordance with UDP Policy AM14.

·         The sole purpose of the garage was domestic use for the safekeeping of one classic car.

·         The garage had no detrimental impact on the existing hedge, the footpath, or vehicle access to the driveway.

·         The garage was only visually prominent when standing directly in front of it, and had no impact on the character of the house.

·         The officer’s report contained a number of errors, including reference to wooden sheds that had been removed in 2012.

·         No 15 Court Drive had a double story rear extension and a large outbuilding at the rear, which was approximately 10 times larger than the garage.

·         The report referenced that neighbouring properties were consulted, but neighbours confirmed that they had not received any consultation letter.

Officers highlighted that refusal reason 2, as set out in the report, was not felt to be robust. Officers recommended that, if the Committee was minded to move the officer’s recommendation, this should be subject to the removal of refusal reason 2.

Officers highlighted concerns that a precedent for garages in front gardens would be set, should the application be approved. Officers confirmed that Court Drive was the only road in the Borough that had Green Belt land as part of their land plots.

Members were mindful of the need to avoid setting a precedent for future similar applications, and moved the officer’s recommendation, subject to the removal of refusal reason 2. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That refusal reason 2 be removed.