Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of building to provide 6 x 2-bed and 3 x 3-bed flats with associated parking and amenity space

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of building to provide 6 x 2-bed and 3 x 3-bed flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the item noting that the principle of the development was deemed acceptable, but issues arose from the scheme’s design and impact on adjoining occupiers. The design was not deemed compatible with the surrounding properties, although it was noted to have taken some design cues from the adjacent property, the front gables and roof had significant differences and the rear element of the scheme, particularly the depth of extension and a very large crown roof, specifically warranted reason for refusal by way of it’s impact on adjoining occupiers. The application was recommended for refusal.

Two petitions objecting to the development had been received. The lead petitioners’ nominated individual was present and addressed the Committee with their concerns, key points included:

• It was highlighted that of the two petitions objecting to the proposals, the ePetition had received 83 signatures and the paper petition had received 60. Further to this, there had been 28 letters of objection, it was noted that this was a strongly opposed development locally.

• Petitioners acknowledged the officers recommended reasons for refusal and alluded to further areas of concern which could be considered as reasons for refusal.

• On car parking, the location of 10 of the 12 parking spaces was highlighted as a major concern being proposed at the back of the property adjacent to residential gardens. It was deemed a small car park being placed directly in the middle of a residential area. On this subject, further concerns were raised around air quality around the adjacent gardens and the adverse impact that 12 cars would have.

• 12 extra vehicles would contribute to traffic congestion in the local area, specifically on a section of Harefield Road that is often subject to congestion pressures. It was specifically noted that there were already three junctions leading onto Harefield Road, the development would effectively add a fourth with 12 vehicles manoeuvring in and out of the car park.

• With regard to the impact the development would have on the daylight and sunlight levels of adjacent properties, it was noted that the height of the building would block the view of sunsets from a number of properties on Cambridge Road and Fairfield Road.

• It was noted that proposed balconies would project over the adjacent back gardens prompting concerns over noise and nuisance.

The applicant was also present and addressed the Committee, key points raised included:

·         The application in front of Members was a result of extensive consultation with planning officers and the original plans had been submitted by way of the pre-application advice service. Feedback from the pre-application process resulted in several design changes including reducing the rear projection of the building and amending the original tiled pitched roof to a crown roof with a dummy pitch. The applicant was surprised to see that the recommendation was for refusal given what was seen as the necessary alterations had been made.

·         The applicant had also met with the tree officer to alleviate their concerns, which were addressed to the officer’s satisfaction.

·         Once the applicant was informed that a petition had been received objecting to the application, they were aware that it would be determined at a meeting of the Planning Committee. Shortly before this process the planning officer had informed the applicant that their draft recommendation was one of approval.

·         Four main points of concern were raised by planning officers, two of which were technical questions and were answered immediately. The third concern related to the height of the roof design and overall look of the building, CGIs were provided for the Committee and it was noted that the planning officer had initially felt the design was satisfactory. With regard to the fourth concern relating to the rear outlook for neighbouring properties, specifically those to the right of the development, it was noted that the view from these flats was blocked by a row of evergreen trees protected by a TPO.

·         Making any further reductions to the scheme would render it unviable. The applicant questioned the advantages of going through the pre-application process.

·         The applicant was a local property developer and a similar scheme, which had also been opposed by a petition, had been approved by the Committee in Ickenham.

·         On the matter of car parking to the rear of the property, it was highlighted that the properties on either side of the development had their car parking at the rear of their properties.

Councillor Martin Goddard, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North, was in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points raised included:

• The scheme was seen as gross overdevelopment of the site; this was seen in the impact on the street scene and the impact upon neighbouring occupiers and their outlook.

• The Ward Councillor was fully supportive of the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

• The nine flat development would have the capacity to contain 35 people. It was noted that 12 spaces were appropriate but the reality would be that more than 12 vehicles would be used by occupiers adding to parking and congestion pressures nearby.

Officers clarified that, in their view, although the matters raised by the petitioners were material planning considerations, they did not warrant the imposition of additional reasons for refusal and therefore officers advised that, should the Committee be minded to refuse the application, that Members retain just the reasons stated in the officers report. On matters of the pre-application process, it was noted that this was evidently a finely balanced application, but pre-application comments were given in good faith and they do not prejudice the Council’s formal decision-making process.

Members stated that they felt the existing dwelling contributed to the street scene and the proposed development would be an overdevelopment of the site due to its size and bulk; in addition to this, there were concerns over the amount of vehicles likely to be associated with the development and where these vehicles would park. The officer’s recommendations were moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused as per the officer’s recommendations.