Agenda item

Part two, part three storey rear extension, subterranean garage/services and storage room, structural underpinning, external remodelling including new roof construction

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Part two, part three-storey rear extension, subterranean garage/services and storage room, structural underpinning, external remodelling including new roof construction.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the information in the addendum. It was noted that a petition in objection to the proposal with 61 signatories had been received. A petition with 46 signatures in support of the application had also been received. Members heard that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the ASLC. The Tree and Landscape Officer had expressed concern regarding the removal of a tree protected by a TPO and the loss of other B grade trees. The Committee was advised that the proposed subterranean development was in a critical drainage area and no basement impact / flood risk assessments had been submitted.

A written submission on behalf of petitioners objecting to the scheme was read out to the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·       The proposed development would transform the traditional Arts and Crafts based property into a style of property which would be totally unique on the estate. Large full height windows over 3 storeys would completely alter the look of the original property and introduce new features into the ASLC;

·       Photographs of properties had been submitted to the Council by the applicants – many of the photos were not Gatehill properties and were therefore irrelevant. The applicant had been unable to provide any photographs of estate properties with similar features to what they were proposing as none existed;

·       Petitioners objected to the felling of a healthy TPO tree which could be seen from a great distance around the estate. The tree made a significant contribution to the sylvan character of the estate and the ambience and amenity provided. The suggestion to replace this tree with 2-metre high silver birch trees dotted around the site was ludicrous;

·       The land in the area sloped steeply and the road at the bottom of the hill had flooded on several occasions;

·       The proposed staircase to the basement would abut the neighbour’s supporting wall and create a weak low spot for the ground and surface water seepage;

·       A site-specific assessment of the ground and surface water movement within the site was essential;

·       The application would have a detrimental effect on the original house, the street scene, the neighbouring property and the amenity of residents.

A written submission from the applicant was read out to the Committee. Key points included:

·       Previous planning consents were material to the application and, while the development plan had evolved, the principles of planning policy remained much the same and supported the principle of development;

·       The Conservation Officer had not expressed an outright objection to the scheme commenting that, whilst there were some concerns from a historic environment perspective, the quality of the contemporary design and the improvements in sustainability and efficiency of the building should not be dismissed;

·       The ASLC was characterised by an eclectic housing mix and extensions were acceptable in principle. The case office had advised that the proposed development sat well on the plot and had raised no objection regarding the proposed build footprint;

·       The proposed scheme respected adjacent boundaries and would not have a detrimental impact on neighbour amenity in terms of loss of light, overshadowing, overlooking or loss of privacy;

·       The applicant had held extensive discussions with the local authority prior to submission of the application and no overwhelming objections had been raised on the matter of design;

·       The loss of the TPO tree should not impact the principle of the development. There was no risk to any retained trees on the rear boundary;

·       Had the case officer requested it, a flood risk report would have been provided. Advice had been sought from a consultant prior to submission of the application who had advised that the site was a low flood risk therefore a formal assessment was unlikely to be required. The matter of drainage could be addressed by means of a condition;

·       Considering the existence of other contemporary designs in Hillingdon’s ASLCs, the development should be deemed to be acceptable.

Written submissions from Ward Councillor Jonathan Bianco and Ward Councillor Duncan Flynn were read out to the Committee. Councillor Bianco objected to the scheme and shared residents’ concerns. He also expressed concern regarding the abuse of the petition scheme noting that many of those who had signed the petition in support of the application did not live in the local area. Councillor Flynn also objected to the proposed development expressing concerns regarding its design and scale and observing that the loss of a TPO trees was unnecessary and undesirable.

In response to Members’ requests for clarification, it was confirmed that a flood report was required but applicants / agents did not always submit them. Officers requested the information but, if not received, this could not be dealt with by means of a condition. In the case of a basement, a basement impact assessment should be provided.

In response to further enquiries from the Committee, it was confirmed that it was not possible to verify if the photos submitted as evidence were of properties on the Gatehill Estate as no addresses had been provided.

Members noted that they objected to the proposed scheme. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.