Agenda item

Erection of three storey building to create 6 x 3-bed flats with associated car and cycle parking, amenity space and refuse storage, and installation of vehicular crossover to front, involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED That: the application be refused.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three storey building to provide 6 x 3-bed flats with associated car and cycle parking, amenity space and refuse storage and installation of vehicular crossover to front.

Officers presented the report and highlighted the addendum. Members were advised that the proposal was considered to be unacceptable as it would result in an overdevelopment of Fairfield Road. It was recommended that the application be refused as it would give rise to an unacceptable level of flatted developments in close proximity to each other which was contrary to policies in the Hillingdon Local Plan. Moreover, due to its siting in an open prominent position, the proposed development would result in the loss of an important gap characteristic to the area. It was considered that the design of the proposed development by reason of its size, scale and bulk would be detrimental to the character of the street scene and surrounding area. Furthermore, there were concerns in relation to the elevated site, the impact on 45 Fairfield Road, the lack of parking provision and the absence of a lift in the proposed development. Members were informed that the application was the subject of a non-determination appeal; the recommendation had been amended slightly to reflect this (as highlighted in the addendum).

A petitioner spoke in objection to the proposed development highlighting local residents’ concerns. Members were informed that it was a very nice family area with a variety of properties. It was acknowledged that the current flats were not unsympathetic to the character of the area; however, the area was already very busy and congested – particularly at the junction of Fairfield Road and Harefield Road which was a blind corner. It was felt that the proposed development would add to the risk to public safety. Moreover, it would be unsightly particularly in view of its elevated position, would impact negatively on residents in nearby houses and was not in keeping with the character of the current properties in the area.

Councillor Raymond Graham addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North. Councillor Graham commented that the proposed new development would not harmonise with the street scene and would be incongruous. Moreover, it would increase the number of flats in the area to an unacceptable level – exceeding the permitted figure of 10%. The Highways officer’s comment regarding the foreseen increase in traffic was also of concern. Furthermore, the development would have an overbearing effect on number 45 and on the facing properties on Harefield Road.

Members requested further clarification regarding the risk to public safety and the impact on outlook to the properties on Harefield Road. In relation to the public safety query, Members were informed that the proposed development would result in additional traffic and parking stress which were matters of some concern to the Highways Department. It was confirmed that the junction of Harefield Road and Fairfield Road was currently protected by double yellow lines. The Committee was advised that highway capacity and road safety were not deemed to be grounds for refusal in this case. With regards to the impact on outlook to properties on Harefield Road, the Committee was informed that there would be a significant impact; particularly given the site elevation. 

Councillors expressed concern regarding the proximity of the proposed development to the road. It was noted that, if approved, the proposal would move the building line to within one metre of the road; this was unprecedented. Councillors commented that this would be very damaging to the street scene and could set a precedent for future developments.  Given these concerns, Members requested that officers strengthen refusal reason two accordingly. It was agreed that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to strengthen refusal reason two as requested by the Committee.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be refused subject to the strengthening of refusal reason two; and

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to strengthen refusal reason two to protect the current building line.