Agenda item

Two storey side/rear extension and conversion of roofspace to habitable use to include 4 rear and 3 front rooflights to allow for conversion of dwelling house into 2 x 2-bed and 2 x 1-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and amenity space

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.

Officers introduced the application which proposed a two-storey side and rear extension and conversion of the roof space to habitable use to include 4 rear and 3 front rooflights to allow for the conversion of the dwelling house into 2 x 2-bed and 2 x 1-bed self-contained flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers confirmed that the current application was a re-submission of an identical scheme which was previously approved under application reference 68788/APP/2019/2659. The previous permission had lapsed on 3rd October 2022; hence the submission of the current application.

The proposed introduction of a flatted development at the site had already been established through the granting of planning permission ref. 68788/APP/2019/2659. There was no objection, in principle, to the creation of flats at the site in land use terms. It was noted that the proposal would not provide any family sized units (i.e. dwellings with three or more bedrooms). However, this would be no different to the scheme approved under planning permission 68788/APP/2019/2659. It would therefore be unreasonable to introduce this matter as a ground for refusal under the current application.

Having regard to the planning permission ref. 68788/APP/2019/2659, it was considered that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area. The proposal would not adversely impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and would afford future occupiers with a high standard of internal and external living accommodation.

The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who were satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any measurable highway safety concerns.

The addendum was highlighted, which set out the officer’s response to an additional representation received from the Ruislip Residents Association which challenged the proposal in respect of Policy DMH 4(i) of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020).

It was therefore recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, making the following points:

·         The application would result in significant loss of light to neighbours, which would negatively impact occupiers wellbeing, as well as their ability to work;

·         The proposal (including installation of roof terraces), would result in a loss of privacy due to overlooking;

·         Noise would increase;

·         Parking and amenity provision was insufficient;

·         Car use would be hazardous due to a lack of room to manoeuvre;

·         Traffic congestion would increase, and could potentially increase accidents and road rage incidents;

·         The area was already highly congested, with bus drivers regularly complaining of issues;

·         The application would increase air pollution in an area that was already heavily polluted;

·         Police regularly attended the area to respond to crime, and the application would exacerbate this;

·         Trees had previously been removed by the applicant.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee, making the following points:

·         The application complied with all relevant current policies;

·         Since the previous application’s consent, policies had not materially changed to now allow for a refusal;

·         No roof terraces were proposed.

By way of written submission, Ward Councillor Philip Corthorne addressed the Committee, making the following points:

·         There is strong local opposition to the application.

·         The principle of this flatted development is understood to have been established in a 2019 planning consent.

·         It is requested that the Committee consider whether the rule of a maximum of 10% flatted development, which has been established via past Planning Inspector decisions in adjoining Kingsend, applies in Pembroke Road. And if so, whether subsequent flatted development which has been constructed following the 2019 consent, including Corinthian Court, takes the totality of such development in Pembroke Road over 10% and makes a further consent at this location contrary to policy.

Officers responded to the petitioner’s and Committee’s comments, confirming that the proposal’s impact on amenity had been considered and there was felt to be insufficient grounds to sustain a refusal on this basis. Rear windows were confirmed to exist already, the parking provision was in fact higher than usual, and impact on congestion was considered acceptable. Impact on air quality and noise was covered by condition 4, which mandated a construction management plan to minimise such issues. A refusal based on loss of privacy/light through the side windows was considered unsustainable at appeal, and the 45 degree guidelines were being adhered to. Any noise due to increased visitors was felt to be typical for a residential area.

The Committee supported the officer’s recommendation, and highlighted that due to the previous consent, there was little scope to suggest a refusal. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved.