Agenda item

Erection of 2 x two-storey, 4-bedroom detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossovers 

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation.

Erection of 2 x two-storey, 4-bedroom detached dwellings, associated parking and amenity space and installation of vehicular crossovers

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval. This item was deferred for a site visit at the meeting on 2 November 2021 and the site visit took place on 26 November 2021.

The petitioner presented additional/supporting information to assist with their speaking time. The Legal Adviser explained that the Iate information had not been provided within the Council’s time frame on documentation submission for planning meetings and may therefore cause prejudice to all parties. The Committee and officers had not had an opportunity to review the information prior to the meeting. It was advised that the representation was also dense in literature and would have been difficult to digest in such a short space of time. The Legal Adviser confirmed that the same case would have applied if the agent/applicant had submitted information at this late stage. It was noted that the petitioner made reference to documentation that was submitted at the Committee meeting on 2 November 2021 and felt disadvantaged that this was not made available on the presentation screen. (On that occasion, the documentation was circulated to Members prior to the meeting and hard copies were also made available for Members at the meeting). Ultimately, the Legal Advisor advised that it was the Chairman’s discretion.

The Chairman noted that the timeframes for additional/ supporting information had not been complied with and that the item had been deferred at the previous meeting. The Chairman therefore disallowed this information.

A petitioner in objection of the application addressed the Committee and referred to the (PTAL) rating of the site. It was explained that 51 Sweetcroft Lane was one of six properties and was adequately serviced by long access driveways. Granting access via Portman Gardens would result in even greater reliance on motor vehicles as future residents would have to walk even further to reach the main road or access public transport. This would erode the current (PTAL) rating of the site. It was highlighted that the Urban Design and Conservation Officer had commented that the proposed demolition of the existing property and subdivision of the site would continue the erosion of the ASLC’s original plan and would be an extension of Portman Gardens establishing an unwelcome precedent. In terms of the strip of land between the end of Portman Gardens and 51 Sweetcroft Lane, it was noted that the petitioner had been in contact with Berkeley Homes, the original developer, and they had confirmed that they owned the land. This contravened the officer’s report. Even if the Council was authorised to grant access to the land, it was questioned whether it would be authorised to remove the tree belonging to Berkley Homes.

The petitioner referred to the case of London Borough of Southwark v Transport for London 2018. It was submitted that the Council had never maintained the strip of land and residents had considered it to be a non-maintained highway. Concerns were raised about parking vehicle movements, peak traffic periods and restrictive covenants of some residential properties in Portman Gardens. The petitioner summarised that the residents did not want access via Portman Gardens, there were legal issues involved and there was adequate access to the property via Sweetcroft Lane. The environmental impacts and precedents being set had been considered and it was requested that the views of residents were put before any commercial enterprises.

The architects for the application addressed the Committee and noted that planning permission was sought to provide two detached family dwellings to replace the existing dilapidated dwelling. Policies encouraged the effective use of land and the use of previously developed vacant land to maximise development potential. The development gave support to housing provision to meet and exceed the Council’s minimum requirements. Concerns raised had been addressed in terms of the quantum, design and layout and the impact on local character had been considered. There had been amendments to the roof form, windows, removal of balconies and the existing narrow and long access from Sweetcroft Lane would be closed. New access would be provided by extending the existing highway at Portman Gardens. It had been confirmed that the principle of the new access car parking, cycle parking and servicing were all acceptable and raised no safety concerns. It was reiterated that the proposed development met much needed family homes and was sympathetic to the character of the area. It respected the historic character and appearance of the ASLC. Policies had been met in respect of floor standards and there would be a landscape buffer in the side elevation. It was noted that there were also no issues of loss of privacy and daylight to neighbouring properties.

During Member questions to the architect regarding the non-maintained highway, it was confirmed that the applicant’s solicitors had checked that it was adopted land between the site and Portman Gardens.

Councillor David Yarrow, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge North addressed the Committee and supported the points raised by the petitioner. This was an emotive application and impacted the lives of the residents of Portman Gardens. Councillor Yarrow reiterated that this was a quiet cul de sac. It was noted that the application had been put before the Committee three times, rejected twice and deferred for a site visit and the appeal had been dismissed. Councillor Yarrow fully supported the petitioners and comments outlined. Disappointment was expressed at the fact that not all Committee attended the site visit. The Council opposed garden grabs and it was questioned why this was going to be approved. It was submitted that once Portman Gardens became a through road, a precedent would be set. The Committee was urged to put Hillingdon’s residents first. This application had to be rejected on the grounds of using Portman Gardens as an entry point and further legal clarification was sought on the adopted highways.

Prior to Member discussion, officers referred the Committee to DMH 6, Part 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan.  It was advised that the DMH 6, Part 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan was directly applicable to garden or back land development and long access roads between dwellings would not normally be acceptable. Although the petitioner’s point had been taken into consideration, the access at Portman Gardens was more appropriate and there were no sustainable grounds to refuse on this basis.

In relation to the impact on the area of special local character, officers advised that this was a matter for Member determination on the level of harm. Officer considered that the previous reasons for refusal had been overcome. It was noted that land ownership was not a material planning consideration and a construction management plan had been requested as part of condition 10. This would limit the impact of construction works on residents.

The Committee considered that the site visit was useful and residents’ concerns were acknowledged. Questions were raised about the access road on Sweetcroft Lane and safeguarding any future extension of Portman Gardens. It was confirmed that the existing access on top of Sweetcroft Lane would be closed and the redundant crossover would be reinstated as a footway. A condition had been proposed to agree a landscaping scheme and a maintenance condition needed to be provided for a minimum period of five years. In terms of future application, Members were advised that every application was determined on its own merits. It was noted that there were a number of Tree Protection Orders that would make it more challenging to develop land further.

The Chairman reiterated that the application before the Committee had to be considered.

The Tree Officer’s comments were highlighted to the Committee and it was noted that condition three had been amended via the addendum to strengthen and safeguard the offsite trees.

The Committee was mindful that the properties would only be built once the developer had acquired the strip of land.

The Committee considered that there were no planning considerations to refuse this application, the application was policy compliant, heavily conditioned and there had been a strengthening of condition 3. It was unlikely that Portman Gardens would be extended further because of the presence of Tree Protection Orders. As such, the officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation and the additional information in the addendum.