Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection a residential building housing 6 flats with associated bins and cycle provision. Removal of corner drop kerb and creation of new drop kerb and widening of front drop kerb (revised drawings received).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to an additional condition relating to junction kerb heights.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum. The planning history regarding the development was set out, together with the outcome of previous appeals. Officers confirmed that, since the dismissed Appeal Decision relating to planning application reference 60130/APP/2020/4166, the housing mix had been revised to include 1 x three-bedroom unit, thereby addressing the Inspector’s one concern.

Therefore, and taking into consideration the Inspector’s decision, officers considered that there was no objection, in principle, to the creation of additional residential units in land use terms. The proposed siting, size, scale and height was not considered to unduly impact the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers, nor would the proposal generate such a significant increase in demand for road parking that its effects would result in harm to highway safety. On this basis, the application was recommended for approval, subject to amendment to Condition 20 to ensure pedestrian safety by raising kerb heights to prohibit vehicles overrunning the pavement at the junction.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Key points highlighted included:

·         This was the third application for development of this site, with the previous two applications refused, and it was felt that the application should be treated as a standalone application.

·         The officer’s report inferred support from the Inspector on matters where no comment had been issued.

·         Residents had concerns over the height and density of the development, locations of windows and their impact on the privacy of neighbours, its impact on the character of the area, and its potential harm to highways safety.

·         The development would require vehicles to manoeuvre from the parking spaces into a busy road, contributing to congestion and potential danger.

·         Accident figures quoted in the report were not relevant, as the previous owner of the property did not drive.

·         The proposal failed to provide the required accessibility measures, particularly for wheelchair users.

·         The design was of poor quality, with substandard access and a lack of energy sustainability.

By way of written submission, the agent for the applicant addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         Regarding Appeal Decision 3273062, for a similar development, the Appeal was dismissed for lack of a 3-bedroom dwelling though the Appeal Inspector determined that all other matters were found to be acceptable.

·         The application included almost all of the same dwelling numbers, siting, design, scale, amenity, living spaces, external garden and parking spaces as the Appeal Scheme, with the only changes relating to a modification of the ground floor footprint with a 1.2m rear depth addition and inclusion of a 3-bedroom dwelling to address the Appeal Inspectors remaining concern.

·         The modest ground floor rear addition would not be of a scale that would result in a scheme materially different to the one determined by the Appeal Inspector in terms of scale, siting, character or harm to adjoining properties.

·         The applicant considered the present application to have addressed the Appeal Decision shortfall and requests members to grant approval, subject to conditions.

Ward Councillor Makwana addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         The Ward Councillor supported the resident objections.

·         Due to its size and scale, the proposed development failed to harmonize and would cause harm to the street scene.

·         The report appeared to acknowledge that the proposed development would cause an element of harm, seen through the imposition of 21 conditions.

·         The proposal would result in potential danger to pedestrians and vehicles. The construction of the development would further intensity such issues during the building phase.

Officers addressed the points raised by the petitioner and Ward Councillor. Regarding height, officers considered the elevations of the proposed development versus neighbouring properties, as set out on the revised plans, to be acceptable.

On density, while it was accepted that the development would contribute to a higher density than that recommended within the Hillingdon Local Plan, the context of the overall proposal, together with the decision of the Inspector, meant that the proposal was felt to be acceptable.

On accessibility, the Council’s accessibility officer had deemed the scheme to be acceptable, while the accessibility policy allowed for further flexibility to adapt the property in the future, in line with accessibility standards.

Regarding construction, condition 4 set out the requirement for the applicant to submit a construction management plan, that officers would review, to ensure minimal impact on neighbours.

On traffic congestion and highways safety, the Transport officer advised that based on the lighting, road markings, and speed limit currently in place, together with the low occurrences of road traffic accidents, safety was not a material concern.

The Committee was advised that the proposed new vehicle crossover would be set back 5m from the junction with Oak Grove, in line with Council guidelines, and as per amendment to condition 20 as set out, would also prohibit vehicles from overrunning pavements.

The Legal advisor confirmed that the Committee should have due regard to the Inspector’s decision, and set out the implications for the Council should the Committee be minded to refuse the application.

The Committee voiced their concerns over the design of the proposed development, including its size, scale and prominence, its impact on the street scene, and its potential for harm to pedestrians and motorists. However, the Committee was mindful of the Inspector’s decision relating to previous reasons for refusal. The Committee suggested that the vehicle crossover should be filled in as well as built up, though with space for pedestrian/wheelchair access, prior to the start of main construction.

The officer’s recommendation, inclusive of the change to condition 20 and the infilling of the vehicle crossover, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, agreed by 4 votes in favour (with two abstentions).

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to an additional condition relating to junction kerb heights.