Agenda item

Erection of a 3-bed detached bungalow with habitable roof space involving parking and amenity space.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred to allow a site visit.

Officers introduced the report, detailing an application for the erection of a 3-bedroom dwelling with habitable accommodation within its roof space and associated parking and amenity space. The proposal included excavation works which would involve lowering the ground level of the land associated with the proposed dwelling by up to 1 metre.

Officers advised that, while the proposal would constitute backland development, it was considered that as the context of the site was already characterised by various backland developments, the proposal was acceptable. The matter of backland development was discussed in the Appeal Decision relating to 13A North Common Road (Application ref: 74738/APP/2019/1181), located west of the application site. Whilst the Appeal was dismissed on highway safety and ecology grounds, the Inspector stated in the Appeal Decision that, "Backland development is part of the character of the area and there is an existing access and lane. Similarly, properties and hard surfacing located behind frontage development would not be at odds with the surrounding area."

Due to its modest scale, massing and design, it was considered that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, nor would it adversely impact the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. Highways officers had considered that there would be no risk to road safety, the free flow of traffic, or parking, and the London Fire Brigade had raised no objection regarding access for emergency vehicles. The application was therefore recommended for approval.

Petitioners objecting to the application addressed the Committee, making the following key points:

·         170 and 170A Harefield Road was already a subdivided plot, with the application seeking to subdivide again. This was unreasonable, with the plot built for two houses, not three.

·         The housing documents showed that the occupants of 168, 170 and 170A shared responsibility for the access road, and if the application was permitted there would be questions over who would maintain the road, pay for damages during the build, or have a say in its use.

·         A manhole with accompanying pipework was present at the site, but no drainage survey had been undertaken.

·         170A includes a single use access route via a private driveway with no turn around space. No safety surveys had been undertaken.

·         The new build would likely contribute to increased traffic and parking requirements.

·         20 petitioners had signed the petition in objection to the application, showing the depth of feeling against the proposed development.

·         Site boundary fence between 172, 170 and the main building was 11.9m long, which would result in a face to face position around 15m, well under the policy dictating there would be a 21m separation.

·         The height of the building would result in a loss of light for neighbouring properties.

The agent for the applicant addressed the Committee, making the following key points:

·         The proposal was for a modest bungalow dwelling at the rear of no. 170.

·         There was precedent in Harefield Road and North Common Road for subdivision of plots to create new homes beside and behind existing ones.

·         Examples of developments included 12A North Common Road in 2019, and land to the rear of 15, 16 and 17 North Common Road adjoining to 170A Harefield Road.

·         The proposal would utilise an existing shared access road used by 170 and 170A, and would replace a garage and parking space serving 170. No new vehicle movements would be established by the new bungalow.

·         There was no requirement to demolish existing properties or build any new access road.

·         The proposal would widen the roadway to provide additional passing space, and the Council’s Highways officer has considered the proposal acceptable.

·         The bungalow was modest in scale, and its siting would minimise the impact of overlooking or light levels of neighbouring properties.

·         Windows would be positioned at angles from neighbours, and separation distance would be sufficient to comply with policy. Windows at first floor level would be obscured.

·         No mature trees were present on the site, and would therefore not be lost as a result of the development.

·         The proposal helped support Hillingdon’s need for new housing.

·         The applicant had extensive experience with similar projects and would ensure minimal disruption to residents.

·         The developers would resurface the access road.

·         The claim that 168 shared responsibility for the road seemed to be erroneous as there was no access to 168 from the road. The road was owned by 170.

Councillor Raymond Graham addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor, making the following key points:

·         Councillor Graham supported the petitioners objecting to the proposal.

·         The proposal constituted an overdevelopment of the site, and would have result in an adverse impact to the visual amenity of 170A.

·         The separation distance from the development site to neighbouring properties was not sufficient and did not comply with policy.

·         Responsibility for the access road was shared, and could result in issues over its use and maintenance.

·         despite the Fire Brigade raising no objections, it was unclear how emergency vehicles would be able to access the property.

·         It was unlikely that the road would allow for two cars to pass each other safely.

·         The application should be refused, though deferral  for a site visit could also be useful.

Officers advised that the responsibility for the maintenance of the road was a private matter and was not a material planning consideration. Regarding backland development, it was reiterated that the precedent for such development was established, and it was unlikely that the Council would win any appeal should the application be refused on such grounds. On the matter of impact on neighbouring properties, including window siting and separation distances, the Committee was informed that there were no grounds to refuse the application due to concerns relating to these matters.

Members discussed whether a site visit would be beneficial to the reaching of a decision. Some Members felt that a site visit was unnecessary, and that the application should be approved (perhaps with the addition of a condition to help vehicle turning on the access road.) Other Members were minded to approve a site visit.

Deferral to allow for a site visit was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed for a vote of 4 to 3.

RESOLVED: That the application be deferred to allow for a site visit to be undertaken.