Agenda item

Two storey, 4 bed detached dwelling, parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing dwelling

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That this application be refused.

Two storey, 4 bed detached dwelling, parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing dwelling.

Councillor Janet Duncan had declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item.  She therefore switched off her camera, did not take part in the discussion and did not vote on this item.

Officers introduced the report advising Members that the proposal was a revision of a scheme which had been refused a number of times. It was felt that the proposed dwelling would result in a disproportionately large, dominating and incongruous form of development which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and the character and appearance of the wider West Drayton Garden City Area of Special Local Character. The application was recommended for refusal.

A written submission had been received from petitioners. Concerns raised included:

·         The proposed structure was overbearing and its depth and height would cause a risk to the foundations around the properties in Frays Avenue;

·         The proposal would result in increased activity at the site, including more traffic and heavy machinery / vehicles; this would impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties;

·         The building work would have a negative impact on residents working from home;

·         The development would not be in keeping with the surrounding environment and street scene of the Garden City Estate;

·         The proposed property would be overbearing and too large for a corner plot;

·         The proposed building would be dangerous as drivers and pedestrians would not be able to see round the corner;

·         If the application were approved, it could set a precedent and the Garden City Estate might lose its status as an area of special local character.

A written submission had also been received from the applicant. Key points highlighted included:

·         The current application had attempted to take into account most of the concerns of the planning officer;

·         The case officer had indicated that the new application would not have an adverse effect on neighbours;

·         A sunlight / daylight report from the previous proposed scheme (which was much larger) had been provided demonstrating that the scheme would not have a negative effect on no.14;

·         The height and bulk of the proposed scheme were similar to that of neighbouring properties – particularly no.18;

·         Most of the houses opposite the application site were two storey houses;

·         In the proposal, the roof was designed to look less bulky than nos. 14 and 18;

·         The house at no.8 was on a corner plot on Fray Avenue. It had been built quite recently and was high and dominant on the corner but still blended into the street scene;

·         The applicant was willing to accept conditions on the height or the garage as deemed necessary by the Committee.

Members requested further clarification as to the comparable height and bulk of no.14 and no.18 Frays Avenue and noted that the houses in the vicinity were of different shapes and sizes. It was confirmed that officers and the Planning Inspector had concluded that the proposal would be more prominent than other new builds and concerns had been raised regarding its size and proximity to the boundaries. The Committee suggested that officers should work with the applicant to offer guidance in order to reach an agreement on an acceptable proposal. This would assist the applicant and avoid the likelihood of another unacceptable proposal coming before the Planning Committee in the future.

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

RESOLVED: That this application be refused.