Agenda item

Two x 2-bed semi-detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space and demolishing the existing garage.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED That: the application be refused.

Two x 2-bed semi-detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space involving demolition of existing garage.

Officers introduced the application advising the Committee that the proposal was not deemed to be acceptable as it would not be in keeping with the character of the area and would impact negatively on neighbouring properties – particularly nos. 1 and 3 Lulworth Waye. It was noted that there would be insufficient separation between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring properties which would result in overlooking and a loss of privacy.

A petition in support of the application had been received and the agent had submitted written representations which were read out for the consideration of the Committee. Key points raised included:

·         The proposed site currently consisted of wasteland therefore the new development would make good use of an unsightly area;

·         A petition in support of the application had been received from neighbours;

·         The wasteland area was currently being used for criminal / antisocial activities and was frequented by drug users;

·         If the application were approved, the applicant would improve the condition of the road, provide adequate lighting and consider installing a security gate to provide a safe and secure environment;

·         The proposed development would comply with the London Plan 3.5 Table 3.3 and would meet space standards for new residential developments;

·         A new house – 2a Lulworth Waye – had recently been constructed opposite 1/3 Lulworth in the rear garden of 37/39 Wimborne Avenue. The proposal was in keeping with said development;

·         The proposal did not constitute back-land development or garden-grabbing as the land had not been used as a garden for many years;

·         The garden size retained for the existing properties would meet the specification set out in the London Plan and Hillingdon’s Local Plan;

·         The development would provide much needed housing in the area;

·         The existing land was not a positive reflection of local character and was an eyesore at present;

·         The disused land had been subjected to anti-social crimes including theft, fly-tipping and drug-related activities – reports had been logged with the Police and the Council on these matters;

·         The Council had expressed no concerns in relation to accessibility, parking, highways, refuse and trees.

Members noted that, although parts of the proposal were in line with policy, back-land development of this type was not deemed to be acceptable. Concerns were raised regarding the distance between houses and the detrimental effect the development would have on neighbouring properties. The Committee suggested that the site should be subject to an untidy site notice. Officers agreed to explore this further.

Members suggested that an additional reason for refusal be added in respect of the access road which could potentially be dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. The Committee was informed that, although narrow, the access road was deemed to be adequate as it would serve a very small number of properties. Highways officers considered it to be acceptable and felt it did not constitute a reason for refusal. Members were advised that the length of the access road was particularly relevant – in this case it did not exceed 45m so the fire services would be able to gain access.  

Members raised no further concerns and were in agreement with the officer’s recommendation.

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

RESOLVED That:

1)    the application be refused; and

2)    officers explore the possibility of making the site subject to an untidy site notice.