Agenda item

170 Harefield Road - 23469/APP/2020/3612

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


Recommendation: Approval



The Chairman briefly introduced the item noting that determination of the application had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow for a site visit. It was also noted that the petitioners and agent had used their speaking rights at the previous meeting however, as a Ward Councillor for the site, Councillor Raymond Graham would have the opportunity to address the committee.


Officers drew Members attention to the suggested conditions proposed in the addendum following the site visit; namely that the access road to the site be widened and that the applicant demonstrate that an internet delivery van could turn at the site even when both car parking spaces were occupied to ensure it leaves in a forward gear rather than reversing down the access road.


Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North, Councillor Raymond Graham, was present and addressed the Committee. Key points raised included:


  • Overdevelopment of garden areas was discouraged in favour of brownfield sites.


  • The proposals were deemed to be in breach of Hillingdon Local Plan Policy DMH6 in so far as there was a loss of garden area to the detriment of local amenity space, character and biodiversity.


  • Residents at 168, 170, 170a and 172 Harefield would lose significant levels of privacy and light coverage due to the size and height of the proposals.


  • Regarding the site access road, it was highlighted to be too narrow and noted that 170a had right of way over the final section of the driveway and could not be impeded at any time. Specific concerns were raised over the requirement for emergency vehicle access to 170a at all times. A request was made for a fresh London Fire Brigade consultation.


Officers highlighted that the principle of development could not be opposed as it was in an area of the Borough with high levels of backland development. On the matter of the access road, it was noted that London Fire Brigade had been consulted with due to the concerns of residents and specifically highlighted that they had not objected to the proposals.


Officers emphasised the importance of the two additional recommended conditions highlighted in the addendum. It was also noted that the applicant had confirmed through plans that the construction compound would not be on the driveway and would therefore not impede emergency vehicle access during construction, this was also enforced through the officer’s recommended condition 10 relating to the Construction Management Plan. Officers suggested that, should the Committee be minded to approve the application, the original plan be used rather than the revised plan as one of the petitioners’ complaints was that they had not been consulted on the revised plan.


Members discussed the importance of the site visit in giving them clarity on matters around the access road and were supportive of the suggested additional conditions in the addendum which made clear the applicant’s obligations. The officer’s recommendation, including the suggested conditions in the addendum and the advice to use the original Construction Management Plan, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed by five votes for and one vote against.




1)    That the application be approved;


2)    That the original Construction Management Plan submitted with the application be used rather than the revised plan.

Supporting documents: