Agenda item

Erection of a detached two storey 4 x bed house with associated parking and amenity space including the demolition of existing double garage

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the addendum, confirming that a proposal for a detached dwelling in this plot had been considered under a pre-application submission in April 2020 Subject to details, the Council's Conservation Officer considered the proposed separate dwelling more suited to the site than the previously approved extension.

Though the site was located in the Gatehill Farm Estate Area of Special Local Character, it was considered that the design and appearance of the proposed dwelling would respect the character and style of the Gatehill Farm Estate. The dwelling frontage would be 8.3m, though the plot was 20m at the rear, resulting in an average width of over 14m. The materials to be used in the construction had been conditioned to ensure they were of high quality. The Conservation Officer had confirmed that the proposal would set a good design precedent with the area. It was considered that the application would not result in an unneighbourly form of development and would provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers.

For these reasons, the application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the report and as amended as shown on the addendum.

A written submission was read to the Committee on behalf of petitioners objecting to the application, key points of which included:

·         Over 150 residents had signed petitions objecting to the application, which was felt to be contrary to policy DHMB 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2, regarding width of new houses.

·         The proposed new dwelling had a frontage one third of the plot widths of the surrounding properties, and would not be of a similar scale, form or proportion as adjacent houses.

·         The application was also felt to be contrary to policy DHMB 5, which mandated that developments within Areas of Special Local Character should reflect the character of the area and its original layout. The proposed development would fail to harmonise with the existing street scene.

·         Allowing the development would set a harmful precedent for future developments within the Area.

·         Concerns remained over the protection of mature greenery and trees affected by the build, with the Council’s tree officers advising that they would be unable to check compliance moving forward.

·         The proposal would require contractors to work on top of the root protections areas of trees.

·         The report did not include comments or conditions relating to flood mitigation, or future development of the current property at the site.

A written submission was read to the Committee on behalf of the agent/ applicant and petitioners in support of the application, key points of which included:

·         In June this year, a planning approval had been granted by this Committee on the same site for a two storey side extension to the existing property at 17 Woodside Road. Since, then the current application had been submitted, with the Council’s own Conservation team stating that  ‘A separate dwelling would be more suited as it would better respect the original dwelling and would not result in adding bulk to an existing built form’.

·         The proposal adhered to policy DHMB6. The overall site was  one of the largest sites on the Estate.

·         The planner’s pre-application report asked the applicants to consider three design issues, that had subsequently been addressed as follows:

o   The crown roof had been amended to a traditional pitched roof;

o   The wedge=shaped planform had been amended to a rectilinear one;

o   The first floor rear glazing had been reduced and made more traditional in appearance.

·         The materials to be used in construction would be complimentary to the two existing houses to the immediate left and right.

·         The Council’s Conservation officer considered that the proposed design respected the character and appearance of the Estate.

·         The proposed new dwelling would be congruent with existing building lines on both plan and elevation.

·         Sides of the two properties would be 3m apart. On the border with property no. 15, at its nearest point, the new build would be in excess of 1.5m away, and heavily screened by vegetation.

·         There would be no breach of the 45-degree rule, at either the front or rear of the site.

·         The proposal would be built on brown field land that was currently occupied by a double garage, with redundant paths and hard landscaping to be demolished.

·         The Council’s landscaping officer had considered the extensive arboricultural report and had not raised ay concerns. Applicants had already agreed to a condition requiring soft landscaping proposals to be submitted, should approval be granted.

A written submission was read to the Committee on behalf of Councillor Bianco, Ward Councillor for Northwood Hills, key points of which included:

·         The application was the subject of great concern to many Northwood Hills residents, and the objections raised by petitioners were fully supported by the Ward Councillor.

·         The application appeared to be contrary to many of the policies that the Council had developed to keep such areas special, not least of which was to avoid cramming in new houses on part plots and potentially creating new precedents which others could then seek to take advantage of elsewhere.

Officers addressed concerns over trees, flooding, width of plot and the principle of backland development. With regard to trees, it was highlighted that the Council’s landscaping officer had not raised any objections, subject to adherence to the relevant conditions as set out in the report and addendum. With regard to flooding, the site was located in a critical drainage area, but conditions had been proposed to mitigate flood risk. Such conditions could be amended and strengthened, if the Committee was minded to approve the application.

The development was not considered to be backland development, and while it was accepted that the width of the plot was narrower at the front than at the rear, average widths were deemed to be acceptable. The comments of the Council’s Conservation officer were highlighted, who had stated that the current proposal was considered to be an improvement on the previously approved scheme.

Members discussed the application, and concerns were raised that the application was contrary to policy DHMB 6, and would result in adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene due to the width of the frontage resulting in a cramped looking development. In addition, Members were concerned over the loss of the boundary treatment and the development’s impact on neighbouring properties.

For these reasons, the Committee moved that the application be refused, with delegated authority granted to the Head of Planning to draft the wording of the refusal. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to draft the wording of the refusal.