Agenda item

4 x two storey, 4-bed, detached dwellings with habitable roofspace, associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossovers

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused, and that the Head of Planning and Enforcement be delegated authority to amend refusal reason 2.

4 x two storey, 4-bed, detached dwellings with habitable roofspace,

associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossovers

Officers introduced the report, and asserted that due to its siting and layout, the development would fail to harmonise with the existing local and historic context of the surrounding area. For these reasons, the application was recommended for refusal.

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

·         The application was located within an Area of Special Local Character, and was not congruent with existing houses.

·         The development would result in a cramped development within the application site.

·         The proposed number of trees to be removed was unacceptable, and there was no space for large replacement trees. This would make it difficult for the Council to achieve its aim of achieving carbon neutrality.

·         There was existing access from Sweetcroft Lane, so there was no need for the proposed extension.

·         The proposed development did not include a turning circle, which would make it difficult for delivery, refuse and emergency service vehicles to manoeuvre, while making the area unsafe for pedestrians.

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

·         This was still an early planning outline, which could be amended.

·         The proposed extension from Portman Gardens was a natural extension.

·         Access from Sweetcroft Lane was currently difficult, being tight and with poor sightlines.

·         An arborilogical report had been commissioned, and many of the trees to be removed were diseased or old. The proposal die include some planting.

·         The development would be screened by new trees.

Members sought clarity on a number of points, including what would happen to the access road to Sweetcroft Lane, once closed, and why the decision had been made to build four houses, rather than two.

In response, the agent confirmed that the use of the access road was still to be determined, though it could potentially be sold to a neighbour. Regarding the decision to build four houses, this was due to a demand for smaller houses.

Councillor Raymond Graham addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North. Points highlighted included:

·         The proposed development was bulky and failed to harmonize with the area.

·         The removal of trees was a concern.

·         The proposed new access was unacceptable.

·         Due to its scale, proportion and mass, the development failed to enhance the area, and should be refused.

Members asserted that the proposed development site was backland development. Officers confirmed that this was the case, but was not referenced within the reasons for refusal, which were concerned with issues over the developments’ impact on the local area.

Officers recommended that that the wording of refusal reason 1 be amended to include reference to ‘cumulative tree loss’. In addition, it was recommended that for clarity, the word ‘rear’ and reference to Policy H12 be removed from paragraph 7.01 of the officer’s report.

Members felt that the proposal was out of character with the existing street scene, and the officer’s recommendations were moved. These were seconded, and when out to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused, and that the Head of Planning and Enforcement be delegated authority to amend refusal reason 1 and the officer report, as set out above.