Agenda item

Outline application for a new dwelling with means of access, layout and parking to be determined

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED That had a non-determination appeal not been received, the application would have been refused.

Officers introduced the application advising the Committee that an appeal for non-determination had been received and as such, Members would be deciding whether they would agree with the officer’s recommendations had a non-determination appeal not been received.

Members were informed that the application was in outline form and that they were considering matters related to access and layout. Matters relating to appearance, landscaping and scale would be reserved for future determination, should the application be approved by the Committee.

The Committee were informed that Kent Close and Fairlight Drive were dense developments and the availability of undeveloped space provided relief within the vicinity; officers deemed development of the site in question to be against the character of the area. Regarding parking allocation, the intended parking provision was deemed insufficient as the intended space was already allocated to another property and due to a low Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of two, any resident of the dwelling would be likely to rely on a vehicle for transport. Although details were not available in relation to the dwelling’s height and scale, officers felt that given its siting, there may be an impact on adjoining occupiers in terms of visual intrusion, overlooking and loss of privacy.

A petition in objection to the application had been received and written representations from the lead petitioner were read out for the consideration of the Committee. Key points raised included:

• Petitioners supported the recommendations made by officers in the associated report;
• That the proposed application was considered to be ‘backland’ development and petitioners saw it as harmful to the character of the area;
• The undeveloped nature of the site made a positive contribution to the open character of the sites surroundings;
• The development of the dwelling close to the side boundary would fill the gap between numbers 10 and 11 Kent Close, this was deemed to provide an important visual break and would disturb the spaciousness of the area;
• There were concerns relating to a loss of privacy for existing and future residents of the adjoining properties.

The agent had also submitted written representations which were read out for the consideration of the Committee. Key points raised included:

·       Although the application had been appealed against non-determination, the agent wanted to address the reasons for refusal as set out in the associated Committee report;

·       Regarding the point of overdevelopment, matters relating to scale, appearance and landscaping of the development had been reserved and the Council would have had the opportunity to refuse any subsequent reserved matters application where these aspects of the proposal were deemed unacceptable. Therefore, it was not considered reasonable that the current application be refused for reasons of overdevelopment.

·       The proposal was shown to be underdeveloped when considered against the density matrix as prescribed in the London Plan.

·       As the scale was reserved and the building was likely to be single storey, the agent disagreed that the proposal would impact on the openness or spaciousness of the estate.

·       As the appearance of the building was reserved, it was not evident how the proposal would cause any overlooking.

·       The agent stated that the proposed parking space for the dwelling was in fact owned by the applicant.

·       Although it was recognised that the site was in PTAL of two, the dwelling was located less than 600m from Uxbridge Metropolitan Town Centre where there was access to Uxbridge Underground Station.

Members noted that they were only to consider matters relating to access and layout; the Committee deemed the application not to be viable due to the insufficient parking allocation and the likelihood of overlooking when details of height and scale were established.

No further concerns were raised and Members 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 had a non-determination appeal not been received, the application would have been refused.