Agenda item

Erection of new 3-bedroom bungalow with dormers and roof lights serving accommodation in the roof on land to the front of existing dwelling; garden and bike stores in garden.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Erection of new 3-bedroom bungalow with dormers and roof lights serving accommodation in the roof on land to the front of existing dwelling; garden and bike stores in garden.

Officers introduced the application which was recommended for refusal. The application followed a previous application which had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The current application was recommended for refusal as it was felt it would form an uncharacteristic, cramped and incongruous form of development which would obscure the host dwelling, reduce openness and fail to harmonise with the character of the area and the street scene. It was also felt that the proposal would give rise to harmful overlooking and loss of privacy between the proposed dwelling and numbers 170 and 172 Harefield Road.

A petition in objection to the development had been received. The lead petitioner addressed the Committee highlighting the following key points:

·       Residents were concerned that the properties would effectively disappear from the street scene due to the gradient of the road.

·       Nos. 217 and 215 across the road had been offset to ensure they did not look at each other and it was important they did not lose their outlook.

·       Numbers 172, 170a and 170b shared the driveway and in excess of 7 vehicles a day could use it. This raised a concern in terms of road safety as there was a blind bend when exiting.

·       The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site and the  current infrastructure was inadequate.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee and highlighted the following points:

·       The applicant had amended the scheme in accordance with the inspector’s comments.

·       The inspector had been satisfied that the siting of the dwelling would not be uncharacteristic, and the sub-division of the site would not be harmful to the appearance of the area.

·       The inspector had concluded that limited separation to side and rear boundaries would cause the dwelling to appear cramped but the harm arising from the obscuring of 170 and 172 Harefield Road would be modest. Harm to the area would also be modest.

·       To address the inspector’s concerns, the proposal had been reduced in width, depth and height. Separation distances had been increased and the roof height reduced by 1m. The building footprint had been reduced by 14% and the internal floor area would be 26% less than the previous scheme.

·       The new proposal would be more in keeping with the street scene. 

·       The lounge doors would be set 21.4m away from the front of the attached garage to no.170.

·       Planting would minimise overlooking. The garden to the proposed dwelling had been increased in size and now provided 43 square metres more than the Hillingdon standard.

·       There was now adequate space to the front of numbers 170 and 172 to provide additional planting if required.

·       The site had been separated from no. 170 and did not form part of the front garden therefore should be considered as undeveloped land.

·       All concerns of the inspector had been addressed. If refused, the applicant would consider appealing the decision.

Ward Councillor Tony Burles was in attendance and spoke in support of petitioners stating that the proposal was effectively to build a large unit in a front garden. This would be detrimental to the amenity of numbers 170 and 172 and constituted an unacceptable level of overdevelopment.

In response to questions from the Committee, Members were informed that the distance between properties had been scaled at 18m. It was confirmed that previous reasons for refusal relating to transport and highways and access had been dismissed by the inspector. The 2 remaining reasons for refusal as set out in the report related to overdevelopment and overlooking.

Members expressed considerable concern regarding the uncharacteristic nature of the proposal. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.