Agenda item

Replacement of existing property with a 2.5 storey building comprising 4 x self-contained flats, parking, landscaping works and widening of vehicular crossovers to front

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:

1.    That delegated authority be granted to the Planning Service Manager to amend the reasons for refusal to reflect the changes in the revised ground floor plan including concerns regarding upper floor resident access to the rear garden; and

2.    That the application be refused.

Replacement of existing property with a 2.5 storey building comprising 4 x self-contained flats, parking, landscaping works and widening of vehicular crossovers to front.

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for refusal. It was noted that the agent had submitted a revised ground floor plan 24 hours in advance of the meeting. The Council was not obliged to consider this revised drawing at this late stage but had opted to do so since it was likely, if the application were to be refused and an appeal lodged, that the drawing would be submitted at that time; it was therefore deemed sensible to have regard to it within the meeting. Members were informed that the agent had attempted to overcome the reasons for refusal by omitting the footpath in the revised plan. However, officers felt this had not addressed overlooking concerns satisfactorily as cars would still be parked in close proximity to ground floor habitable windows. Moreover, the revised plan created an additional issue for residents on the upper floor as access to their rear garden would be impractical. It was noted that the Chairman had decided to allow the revised plan to be considered on this occasion since it did not change the building itself – only the outer area.

A written representation in objection to the proposal was read out to the Committee on behalf of petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

·       Beech Avenue was currently a quiet friendly street. The petition had been signed by 63 local residents who vehemently objected to the proposed development. Many of these residents had lived on the street for many years;

·       The proposed flats were not in keeping with properties in the immediate vicinity which were family homes. There was a worrying trend whereby bungalows were being knocked down to be replaced with huge developments, thus ruining the street scene;

·       The development would result in an unacceptably high density of people for the building. This would lead to an increase in noise and waste pollution and would create additional parking stress. The proposed car park would also lead to a significant increase in air and noise pollution to surrounding properties;

·       The proposed development would be 2.5 storeys high, hence would result in a loss of privacy to surrounding properties.

A written representation (accompanied by an updated ground floor plan) was read out to the Committee on behalf of the agent. In response to proposed reason for refusal 1, Members heard that, as set out in the proposed revised plan, at the front of the windows to the bedroom of Flat 1 and the living room of Flat 2, a buffer at least 1.5 metres wide with 1.2 metre high hedges or similar and with a flower bed and shrubs would be created to ensure an adequate visual and physical barrier. This buffer would prohibit future residents from passing in front of these habitable windows thus safeguarding the privacy of the ground floor flats. Additionally, car parking bays P1 and P2 would be allocated to Flats 1 and 2 respectively thereby further reducing the chance of overlooking or loss of privacy. Moreover, soundproof triple glazed windows would be installed to the habitable rooms at the front at ground floor level.

Ward Councillor Heena Makwana was in attendance and spoke in objection to the application noting that policy DMH2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan set out a requirement for a mix of housing units. The current need in the Borough was for family sized units; however, the application in question failed to propose any such units. Moreover, the application proposed two side windows which would be likely to result in a loss of privacy to no. 47. Additionally, the footpath and car parking spaces outside flats 1 and 2 would result in a lack of privacy and noise disturbance to said flats. No lift was proposed at the site therefore accessibility to the first-floor flats for wheelchair users would be limited. Finally, Ward Councillors were concerned that the proposed disabled parking bay had not been reflected in the drawings.

Members observed that the proposed development was excessively bulky and incongruous. In response to the Committee’s request for the addition of another reason for refusal in relation to the loss of a family home it was confirmed that it would be difficult to raise new material concerns at this stage given the planning history at the site and the recent appeal.

Members requested further clarification regarding access. It was confirmed that the newly proposed omission of the footpath would result in a somewhat contrived access to rear garden. This additional concern could be incorporated in the refusal reasons.

The Committee enquired whether the hedge had been conditioned and whether the amenity space was deemed to be sufficiently private. It was confirmed that officers were satisfied with the privacy to the rear of the application site but were not convinced by the proposed green strip to the front.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote unanimously agreed. Councillor Jazz Dhillon was absent for part of the discussion, therefore did not vote on this item.

RESOLVED:

1.    That delegated authority be granted to the Planning Service Manager to amend the reasons for refusal to reflect the changes in the revised ground floor plan including concerns regarding upper floor resident access to the rear garden; and

2.    That the application be refused.