Agenda item

Erection of 4 no. two storey, detached houses, with habitable accommodation in roof space, garage and associated landscaping, parking and installation of vehicular crossover.

Recommendations: Approval

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

Erection of 4 no. two storey, detached houses, with habitable accommodation in roof space, garage and associated landscaping, parking and installation of vehicular crossover.

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A petitioner in objection of the proposed development addressed the Committee and referred to photographs that were circulated to Members and officers prior to the meeting. It was noted that the petition had 58 signatures and there had been 28 letters of objection. The Committee was referred to policy DMH6  and the report which stated that there was a presumption against the loss of gardens due to the need to main local character, amenity space and biodiversity. In exceptional cases a limited scale of back land development may be acceptable. It was submitted that exceptional was not defined by planning law and this development did not amount to exceptional. Haythop Drive which was a long access road and there were concerns regarding its use as an access road for major development. The road was only 4.8m wide and it would be difficult for large vehicles such as HGVs to access the road particularly when there were cars parked.  It was submitted that there could be a danger to residents as there was no pavements in parts of the road and no barriers to traffic. There was also a serious concern that the construction would cause disturbance to properties and the development was not policy complaint.

In response to Member questions, it was confirmed that the photographs showed the narrowness of the road and the main issue was using the access road during the construction period which could take up to a period of 12 months.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee and outlined the proposal. It was noted that this proposal formed the last phase of a development that started in 1987 and the houses built were deemed acceptable. The report was comprehensive, covered all aspects and concluded that the application complied fully with national and local planning policies in terms of character, impact on neighbours, highways and tress. The development was acceptable, and existing properties had already been built on Haythrop Drive and former rear gardens of Warren Road and Woodstock Drive. The proposal had been designed taking into consideration height and massind and it was concluded that there would be no harm caused to the character and appearance of the area. The development would deliver high quality housing which would widen the choice of family housing in the Borough in accordance with all policies and guidance.

Councillor Kaushik Banerjee, Ward Councillor for Ickenham and South Harefield addressed the Committee and supported the points raised by the petitioner. It was submitted that this application was back land development, the application should be considered in accordance with current planning policy and a precedent had been set 30 years ago. The distance of 21m between the properties in terms of distance breached planning policy and it was requested that a construction management plan be considered to safeguard residents.

Further to the Chairman’s clarification on whether emergency vehicles would be able to adequately access the road, it was confirmed that the road was be 4.8 metres wide which was the minimum width requirement. 

It was noted that the main concerns raised were regarding traffic during the construction period and clarification was sought from officers. It was acknowledged that it would be inconvenient for neighbouring properties during the construction period of the development however this would not form a sound reason to refuse planning permission as the inconvenience and disturbance would be temporary. It was also reiterated that the width of the road was deemed acceptable and there were no safety grounds for refusal. There was a thorough construction management condition in the report.

It was acknowledged in the report that this was back land development however factors such as amenity, value for the garden space, concerns about vehicle access and the impact on neighbours had been considered. After taking into account all the factors, it was concluded that the proposal complied with the exceptionality test. The planning history for the case was also outlined for the Committee.

Although there was a construction plan condition proposed and the works would be temporary, the Committee sympathised with residents. It was queried whether any other measures could be added to safeguard resident interests and it was confirmed that the condition could be amended to request that the developer provided details about the size of vehicles and times that would attend the site.

The officer’s recommendation, inclusive of strengthening condition 4 to include further information regarding the size of vehicles and times they would access the site, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation subject to strengthening condition 4 relating to the Construction Management Plan and changes in the addendum.