Agenda item

Amendment of conditions 2 (Approved Plans) and 6 (External Windows) of planning permission Ref:44222/APP/2017/1810 dated 14/08/2017 (Two storey, 2-bed detached dwelling with parking and amenity space) comprising a pitched roof over the single storey rear element; the inclusion of three additional windows across both floors on the South flank elevation; and two roof-lights to the front and rear elevation.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED That:

1.    The application be approved subject to the amendment of condition 7 (to ensure the use of Pilkington 4 obscure window glazing) and the addition of conditions in relation to fixed rooflights, the retention of a single residence and the avoidance of future sub-division of the property;

2.    The Head of Planning explore further concerns regarding trees as discussed at the meeting;

3.    Democratic Services explore further the environmental / antisocial behaviour issues raised by the petitioner at the meeting.

Councillor Janet Duncan had declared an interest in this item and left the room prior to commencement of the discussions.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. The application sought permission for the amendment of Conditions 2 (Approved Plans) and 6 (External Windows), comprising a pitched roof over the single storey rear element and the inclusion of three additional windows across both floors on the South flank elevation; together with two roof lights to the front and two on the rear elevation. It was considered that the proposal would not be harmful to the amenity of nearby residents or to the character and appearance of the immediate locality. It was also considered that the level of parking would be acceptable and the proposed dwelling met The London Plan (2016) and Local Plan space standards. The application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions proposed.

A petitioner spoke in objection to the application. Key points highlighted included the following:

·         It was reported that there were inconsistencies in the plans submitted;

·         Concerns were raised that there was an intention to convert the dwelling into flats at a later date;

·         The site was overdeveloped and out of character with the surrounding area;

·         There would be overlooking into neighbours' gardens;

·         The development was reportedly unsafe - the disturbance had caused the rear of the properties to become destabilised and had resulted in fences collapsing;

·         It had been stated that there would be no adverse impact on trees - this was untrue as the roots of a 60 foot tree in the petitioner's garden had been damaged. A tree surgeon would be coming to investigate this;

·         The work was being carried out at antisocial hours and in an unhealthy environment - an open toilet was on site which was a health and safety concern. Residents had already complained about this to the Health and Safety Executive.

In response to questions from the Committee, the petitioner confirmed that the tree was an Ash. It was confirmed that it was not subject to a TPO and had not been inspected by tree officers.

Councillor Stuart Mathers addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor. Councillor Mathers echoed the concerns of residents commenting on the overdevelopment of the site, the invasion of privacy, the instability of the site, concerns regarding the proposed rear lights and additional windows at the property and the lack of co-operation between developers and neighbours. Councillor Mathers requested that Members visit the site to view for themselves the impact of the work being carried out there.

In response to Members' questions it was confirmed that no building work had been undertaken in neighbours' gardens although the plans appeared to indicate otherwise.

In her capacity as Ward Councillor, Councillor Jan Sweeting had submitted a written submission highlighting her concerns; this was read out by the Chairman. Key points included the following:

·         The petitioners were very distressed by the situation and some neighbours had reported damage to their properties;

·         The building had not been constructed in accordance with the planning permission granted;

·         It was reported that the work had been carried out in an unsafe manner and had resulted in both destabilising an earth bank and destroying boundary fences and mature trees;

·         The damage to neighbours' rear gardens had not been repaired and had made them unsafe and hazardous - enforcement action was suggested;

·         The proposed additional windows in the roof seemed excessive and the height of the roof space suggested that it could potentially be used as a living space in the future rather than for storage;

·         It was requested that the windows to the roof space be disallowed and the other proposed windows reduced in size;

·         A site visit was recommended.

Members were reminded that, although a number of reasons for refusal had been cited, only those which related to material matters could be taken into consideration; these did not include the references to the toilet or the antisocial working hours mentioned.

Comments were invited regarding the allegation that the proposed works would not be in keeping with the surrounding area. The Planning Contracts Manager advised Members that similar sloping roofs were in existence throughout the Borough and the proposed pitched roof was acceptable in terms of Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS). With regard to the matter of overlooking, Members were informed that, although the building work was close to the boundary, none of the main windows overlooked neighbouring habitable rooms. It was agreed that condition 7 be amended to ensure windows were obscured to a specific level (Pilkington Level 4) and non-opening below a given height.

In reference to the alleged unsafe development and concerns regarding trees, The Head of Planning and Enforcement advised Committee Members that it was not possible to consider non-material / boundary matters at the meeting. Any alleged enforcement issues would need to be addressed separately in private (Part II). The Legal Officer commented that an investigation would need to be undertaken first to establish whether conditions had indeed been breached.

In response to Members' enquiries, it was confirmed that the 60 foot tree was considered to be far enough away from the site to be unaffected by the works. Members were reminded that issues regarding trees were not relevant to the application before the Committee.

Members enquired whether it would be possible to impose a restriction on the future use of the roof space thereby ensuring it would remain non-habitable storage space only. It was confirmed that this would be a possibility but was unlikely to hold up should the applicant choose to lodge an appeal. In response to questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that the rooflights could be conditioned to be non-openers. Members were further advised that the windows to the first floor would be obscured whilst there was no requirement for this on the ground floor.

The officer's recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed subject to the amendment of Condition 7 and the addition of a number of further Conditions to reassure residents. It was also agreed that the Head of Planning would further explore the matter of the trees and the Democratic Service Officer was requested to follow up on the antisocial behaviour concerns raised by the petitioner and Ward Councillors.

RESOLVED That:

1.    The application be approved and the Head of Planning and Enforcement be delegated authority to amend condition 7 (to ensure the use of Pilkington Level 4 obscure window glazing) and to add conditions in relation to fixed rooflights, the retention of a single residence and the avoidance of future sub-division of the property;

2.    The Head of Planning explore further concerns regarding trees as discussed at the meeting;

3.    Democratic Services explore further the environmental / antisocial behaviour issues raised by the petitioner at the meeting.