Agenda item

Erection of a part single storey, part three storey building to provide 5 x 1-bed flats and 1 x 2-bed self-contained flat with associated parking including demolition of existing garages.

Recommendations: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the report, detailing an application for erection of a part single storey, part three storey building to provide 5 x 1-bed flats and 1 x 2-bed self-contained flat with associated parking including demolition of existing garages. Members were reminded of the relevant planning history as set out in the report, and it was confirmed that the proposal site was located within an area of Special Local Character.

Officers advised that by virtue of its size, scale, bulk and height, the proposed development would fail to respect the traditional appearance of the Old Northwood Area of Special Local Character, and would be detrimental to the amenities of adjacent residential occupiers in the adjoining terrace at the rear of St Matthews Church and to 1 to 6 of St Matthews Court by reasons of overdominance, overshadowing, visual intrusion, loss of outlook, overlooking and loss of privacy. In addition, it was considered that the proposed development would provide insufficient amenity and access for future occupiers. For these reasons, the application was recommended for refusal.

A petitioner objecting to the application was present and addressed the Committee, making the following key points:

·         The proposed development would result in poor vehicle access to the site, as the road in question was narrow – with the narrowest point of Forge Lane having a width of 350cm, not c.5 metres as noted in the report.

·         St Matthew’s claim ownership of 1.6m of Forge Lane width from the Church side, and 0.8m from Church Hall-side. Total right-of-way width of Forge Lane without trespass on St Matthew’s land is therefore only 3.2m.

·         The proposed development would result in a loss of amenity for nearby residential occupiers.

·         The development would unduly affect St Matthew’s Church and its parishioners by impeding ingress and egress to church facilities & creating potential noise and disruption during daily religious services during the construction phase.

·         The proposed development would result in a development located very close to neighbours and would overshadow and overdominate those existing dwellings.

·         Due to proximity and overlook, the development would interfere unduly with the full-time residence of the Parish Clergy, with bedrooms, office and living space all overlooked.

·         The proposed outdoor communal space was at eye-level of the neighbouring habitable rooms, and would result in noise and overlooking from neighbours and guests.

·          The planning report listed some petitioner concerns as immaterial planning considerations, but these concerns remained.

By way of written submission, the agent for the applicant addressed the Committee, making the following key points:

·         In respect of the size, scale and design of the development, officers have stated there would be no objections to the loss of the existing garage structures. However, officers have given no weight to the fact the current garage structures contribute negatively to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal represents an improvement to the character and appearance of the area when compared to the existing situation.

·         Officers do not clearly state that the proposal will to overlooking and loss of privacy to windows along the first and second floors of No.1 to 6 St Matthews Court, only that it is likely or may happen.

·         Unlike other London Boroughs, Hillingdon do not have any overlooking standards. The London Plan refers to privacy distances of 18-21 metres between facing windows of habitable rooms but advises to not have a rigid consideration, otherwise high-density sustainable development may not be possible. In this case, only three windows face St Marys Court, with the two nearest being over 20 metres away. Therefore, the proposed windows could not be reasonably considered to result in harmful overlooking.

·         The proposal does include amenity space provision, which is closer to St Marys Court, but this amenity space provision is at first floor level and is surrounded by a 1.7 metre high obscured glaze screen.

·         Officers are of the opinion that flat 2 would have a poor outlook, but the proposed plans for flat 2, show that the outlook for this property is very good.

·         The officer report criticises the provision of communal amenity space and states that the provision of communal amenity space is not generally supported by the Councils policies. This is not correct. The preamble to the policy (paragraph 5.72) refers to private amenity space, quote, “whether individual or communal”. The officers report does though advise that the non-provision of balconies could be supported if there were planning reasons to do so. The officer criticism of the size and design of the proposal demonstrates that more visual clutter provided by balconies would not be supported, and as such this is a planning reason not to provide balconies.

Members supported the refusal reasons as set out, and moved the officer recommendation. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.