Agenda item

Addition of a first floor to provide 2 x 3-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Addition of a first floor to provide 2 x 3-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the information in the addendum which included comments from the Ruislip Village Conservation Area Panel and a proposed fourth reason for refusal. Members heard that the proposed development would alter the character of the existing building and would not enhance the Ruislip Village Conservation Area. The development would be over-dominant, impact negatively on the amenity of 28a Kingsend and on the street scene and would fail to safeguard a protected tree. The 10% rule in terms of flatted developments would also be breached as detailed in the addendum.

Petitioners had submitted a written representation in objection to the application which was read out for the consideration of the Committee. Key points included:

·       The original bungalow at 28B Kingsend had been a modest single storey bungalow. It had been progressively extended on all sides over the years resulting in a large irregularly shaped footprint;

·       The property had recently been divided into two bungalows -28B and 28C. The proposal would add another storey with a much higher roof structure;

·       The additional storey would dominate the outlook for many surrounding properties;

·       The site was predominantly landlocked;

·       The site was located over 45m from Kingsend accessible via a single track gated driveway. This single car track with no dedicated footpath was intended for 1 or 2 cars, not to access a block of flats;

·       Residents adjacent to the property would feel hemmed in;

·       Properties at 21, 23, 23A Ickenham Road were already curtailed by the presence of the Methodist Church with its excessively high roof, the church hall and outbuildings;

·       The proposed development would be located just a few feet from rear garden fences with overlooking to gardens and patios;

·       Access to the site for emergency vehicles and refuse collection would be problematic – there were no bin stores or cycle storage at present;

·       Petitioners objected to the proposal due to the unsuitable location, bulk and close proximity to boundaries of many adjoining properties. The development would be visually intrusive, overbearing and detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. It did not respect design guidelines in terms of form, volume, elevation treatments, outlook and vehicular access. Its bulky appearance would fail to harmonise with the character of the Ruislip Village Conservation area.

A written submission had been received from the agent and was read to the Committee. Key points included:

·       The application site lay between Kingsend Road and Ickenham Road. Ickenham Road properties were over 45m away, Kingsend properties 35m away and Sovereign Close properties over 30m away from the property;

·       The application site was not easily visible from Kingsend road and was dominated by a large modern flatted development. It could only be seen through a narrow gap between No.28 and 30 Kingsend Road. Even with the addition of two flats on the first floor, the property would be overshadowed by the large Methodist Church building;

·       The property was barely visible from Ickenham Road – a pocket-sized view of the property could be seen through the gap between the Church and 21 Ickenham Road. Even with the addition of two flats, the property would be in line with a series of large two storey buildings and would be inconspicuous compared to the sprawling building block of the Church;

·       There was a pocket-sized view of the property from Sovereign Close. However, Sovereign Close was a small cul-de-sac with no passing pedestrians. The application site was a back-land development surrounded by large mature trees which provided a natural screen;

·       The development would not adversely impact the character of Ruislip Village. Changes to proposed windows had been made to include a reduction by half in the size of the lounge and bedroom windows, removal of three small windows, replacement of bathroom windows and the 3^rd bedroom with skylights and the removal of the kitchen side window;

·        The protected tree was approximately 8m from the property. The applicants were willing to obtain a tree report from an expert to confirm that the proposed development would not harm the cedar tree;

·       The development would be similar in size and character to nearby properties and would not be incongruous. The site was barely visible from the road therefore could not be detrimental to the character and visual amenity of Ruislip Village. The proposed windows had been changed to ensure that the development did not impact negatively on the privacy of surrounding properties.

A written submission in objection to the proposal had been received from Ward Councillor Philip Corthorne. This was read out to the Committee. Key points included:

·       Ward Councillor Corthorne supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal commenting that the proposal would result in overdevelopment within the Conservation Area and would not harmonise with the local area. It would also result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity;

·       Some inaccuracies in the officer’s report were highlighted – the percentage of flatted development in Kingsend already exceeded the 10% that the Planning Inspectorate previously deemed an appropriate upper limit. This had been acknowledged in previous appeals – the correct figure was 13% whereas the report stated 8%. The report also failed to reference the objections of the Ruislip Conservation Panel.

Members concurred with the officer’s recommendation for refusal citing considerable concerns regarding overdevelopment and overlooking. The Committee noted that there were four good reasons for refusal set out in the report and the addendum.

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

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.