Agenda item

Two x 2 storey, 3 bed semi-detached dwellings with habitable roofspace, 1 x 4-bed detached dwelling with habitable roofspace with parking and amenity space, installation of vehicular crossover to front and demolition of existing bungalows

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED That: the application be approved.

Officers presented the application which sought planning permission for the erection of two x 2 storey, 3-bed semi detached dwellings with habitable roofspace, 1 x 4-bed detached dwelling with habitable roofspace with parking and amenity space, installation of a vehicular crossover and demolition of the existing bungalows. A similar application had previously been refused due to insufficient parking provision. In the current application six car parking spaces would be provided - two for each of the semi-detached houses and two for the detached property. It was not considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on visual amenity.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. Key points raised were:-

·         58 residents had signed a petition objecting to the proposal;

·         The proposed planning conditions addressed some, but not all, of residents' concerns;

·         It was alleged that a case could be made regarding the detrimental impact on neighbours - particularly those at 48a and 50 Lime Grove;

·         It was claimed that there would be a sense of dominance due to the increased height of the proposed buildings which would effectively be three-storeys high;

·         It was suggested that the application did not meet the requirements of B20, B21 and B24 of the Hillingdon Local Plan;

·         Residents felt the site was being overdeveloped - two small bungalows would be replaced by new dwellings which could potentially accommodate a total of 19 people;

·         Most houses along that side of Hawthorne Avenue were small therefore the new development would not be in keeping with the road.

The applicant's agent spoke in support of the application. Key points mentioned included:-

·         It was claimed that the proposed development had been designed to match the existing houses and be similar in style to no.55;

·         Adequate parking was now being proposed;

·         The internal area would exceed the minimum standards required;

·         The proposed vehicular crossovers had been approved by the Highways team;

·         It was claimed that there would be no detrimental impact on visual amenity;

·         The development would not exacerbate parking stress in the road;

·         In response to questions, it was confirmed that the previously proposed scheme did not include rear dormer windows.

Members requested clarification regarding the matter of overlooking resulting from the proposed dormer windows and it was confirmed that the legal distances would be met.

With regards to parking, the Head of Planning responded to Councillors' questions advising that it would not be possible to withdraw rights to parking permits in this situation since sufficient parking was being proposed as part of the scheme.

Councillors expressed some concerns regarding the proposed development citing potential over-development and height issues. It was confirmed that the previous scheme had not been refused on matters relating to size and scale. The dormers were deemed to be acceptable.

Clarification was requested regarding the lamppost to the front of the property. The Highways Officer confirmed that the developers would have to pay for the adjustment / relocation of said lamp column if necessary.

Councillors raised no further objections. The Committee therefore moved, seconded and, on voting, agreed the officer's recommendation with 7 Members voting in favour and 1 voting against the proposal.

RESOLVED That: the application be approved.