Agenda item

Land Adjacent to 24 Leaholme Waye - 76330/APP/2022/3014

Erection of a 3-bedroom detached house together with a double garage and amenity space.


Recommendation: Refusal


RESOLVED: That the application be refused.



Erection of a 3-bedroom detached house together with a double garage and amenity space.


Officers presented the application advising Members that the proposal was deemed to be an inappropriate form of development and was recommended for refusal. The application site was located in a flood risk area and the Environment Agency had objected due to the inadequate Flood Risk Assessment submitted. A petition in objection to the proposal had been received with 197 signatories. Ruislip Residents’ Association had also objected to the scheme. Members heard that the proposed development would not be in keeping with the street scene, did not meet requirements in terms of parking provision and was contrary to a number of planning policies. Moreover, there would be a loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers if the proposal were to go ahead. 


The applicant was in attendance and addressed the Committee confirming that he was a Civil Engineer who worked in construction. The proposal was to build a home for himself and his family. The applicant had purchased the plot of land from Taylor Wimpey and had submitted a request to the Council for pre-application advice on 6 April 2021. He had subsequently met with planning officers to discuss the proposal in detail. The Committee heard that a tree report had been submitted and any trees removed to facilitate the development would be replaced. No objections had been raised in respect of the external amenity space. It was acknowledged that the planned garages were slightly smaller than was acceptable; however, the applicant was happy to accept conditions in relation to this. The applicant commented that the same set of drawings had been submitted twice yet the response from officers had been completely different on each occasion. In terms of the claimed reduction in value of surrounding homes, this was not a planning consideration. The applicant noted that there was a shortage of housing in the Borough and the proposed development would be in keeping with the local area. It was suggested that any technical issues could be resolved by way of conditions.


In response to questions from the Committee, the applicant confirmed that he had purchased the land only.


Ward Councillor Corthorne was in attendance and addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents in objection to the scheme. He noted the strength of feeling in the community and the fact that the proposal was at odds with policy. The flood risk was a matter of considerable concern and Councillor Corthorne was pleased to note that the Environment Agency had objected to the scheme. He requested that the proposal be refused in line with officer’s recommendations.


A written submission had been received from Councillor Peter Smallwood in objection to the scheme and was read out to the Committee. Key points highlighted included:


·         Councillor Smallwood fully supported the recommendation for refusal;

·         A large number of local residents had objected to the proposal by way of a petition. Ruislip Residents’ Association also objected to the scheme as did the three local Ward Councillors;

·         Flooding was a significant concern in Ruislip and the application would increase the risk of flooding;

·         The proposal would be visually obstructive and not in keeping with the local area;

·         The loss of green space and mature trees was a concern;

·         Neighbours, especially those at 1-4 Wheeler Drive, would be negatively impacted by the scheme.


The Planning Service Manager informed Members that pre-application advice was an informal process and was not binding. Officers were now in receipt of significantly more information in respect of the flood risk, the impact on trees and the loss of open space, hence the recommendation for refusal as set out in the report.


Councillors expressed concerns regarding the flood risk and the loss of mature trees and confirmed that they supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal.


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


RESOLVED: That the application be refused.


Supporting documents: