Agenda item

32 Norwich Road, Northwood - 35516/APP/2021/2969

Demolition of existing detached property, and construction of new part two storey, part three storey building comprising 8 flats with associated vehicular crossovers, car parking and amenity space

 

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Minutes:

Demolition of existing detached property and construction of new part two storey, part three storey building comprising 8 flats with associated vehicular crossovers, car parking and amenity space.

 

Councillor Steve Tuckwell had expressed an interest in agenda item 8 therefore left the room and did not take part in the discussion or voting on this item.

 

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for refusal. Eight reasons for refusal were cited.

 

A petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal. It was felt that the officer’s report was thorough and covered all the salient points. The proposal was deemed to be a crude attempt to cram as many units as possible onto a plot with no consideration given to neighbours. It was reported that the parking allocation was misleading as only 2 of the proposed 6 spaces would be usable without driving across the bus stop. It was noted that a previous application for the site had proposed a 4 flatted development in the style of a semi–detached home which would have been far preferable. It was suggested that any future development on the site should take the form of a semi-detached or detached family home given the need for family accommodation in the Borough.

 

The agent for the application was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. He commented that he felt that the proposed reasons for refusal had not been fully justified in the report. Key points highlighted included:

 

·       Setting - the proposal was for an L-shaped development along Norwich Road and Cranbourne Road. This was a common layout for a corner plot which created a sense of enclosure and provided privacy;

·       Scale and bulk - the report did not consider that the proposal constituted overdevelopment. The proposed development would have no adverse impact on neighbouring properties;

·       Height – the proposal did not exceed the height of existing buildings nearby;

·       Design – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), section 12, paragraph 134 encouraged innovative designs and use of balconies -  buildings in the vicinity were 1930s houses with no architectural merit therefore something new was to be welcomed. Balconies would provide amenity space for the occupants and would enable them to enjoy the fresh air;

·       The tree referred to was not a mature silver birch tree. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature considered the silver birch to be the least important to include on the red list; 

·       A mix of units including 3-bedroom flats could easily be incorporated into the scheme and ground floor flats could be made accessible to disabled people.

 

Councillor Duncan Flynn was in attendance and addressed the Committee on behalf of petitioners in objection to the application. Councillor Flynn commented that the proposal in question was one of the worst he had ever seen in all his time as Ward Councillor. The fact that there were eight refusal reasons in the officer’s report spoke for itself. Councillor Flynn commented that the height, bulk and mass of the proposed development constituted overdevelopment and the design was not in keeping with the local area. The proposed siting of a vehicle crossover next to a bus stop was very concerning, particularly given the proximity of a school and nursery. There was a failure to provide family-sized accommodation and the proposed flats did not meet the required minimum housing standards. Additionally, the parking situation would be undesirable and did not meet the Council’s standards.

 

Members commented that they liked the innovative design in principle but found it to be wholly inappropriate in the proposed location. The development was far too big and was not at all in keeping with the local area. Moreover, it did not offer the kind of accommodation that Hillingdon Council wanted its residents to live in. On these grounds Members were minded to refuse the application.

 

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Supporting documents: