Agenda item

Alterations to the existing house including the conversion of garage to habitable use and raising of garage roof height and erection of an attached 3-bedroom dwelling on land adjacent.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Alterations to the existing house including the conversion of garage to habitable use and raising of garage roof height and erection of an attached 3-bedroom dwelling on land adjacent.

Before the commencement of this item, Councillor Roy Chamdal recused himself from the room.

Officers introduced the application and delivered a detailed presentation summarising the proposed development. Officers highlighted that the application was recommended for approval.

A petition had been received objecting to the proposals. The lead petitioner had prepared a statement which was read out for the benefit of the Committee, key points raised in the statement included:

·         The proposals would create a terrace of three houses instead of the existing one semi-detached structure on what was a quiet residential street.

·         The design of the proposed new building was inconsistent with the street scene. The fact that a similar development had been approved in Salt Hill Close was deemed irrelevant as petitioners felt the street scene in Beacon Close was fundamentally different to that of Salt Hill Close.

·         The PTAL rating of the site was low and therefore the absence of viable public transport would maximise future residents’ reliance upon the use of private vehicles adding to the traffic volumes on Beacon Close.

·         The site was immediately adjacent to the junction with Harefield Road; any increase in kerbside parking would therefore heighten the potential for road traffic accidents on the junction.

·         It was stated that the applicant had already removed and pruned landscaping on the site which rendered officers proposed condition 14 unnecessary.

·         The extent of the new development would leave minimal external garden amenity space for 2F and the new house.

·         Noise, disruption and traffic arising from construction of the development would cause considerable nuisance to neighbouring properties in Harefield Road and Beacon Close.

The agent for the application had also submitted a statement which was read out for the benefit of the Committee. Key points raised in the statement included:

·         On road safety issues, it was stated that the development had been discussed with the local highways authority who had confirmed that the distance between the new parking space and the junction was sufficient to avoid any safety issues.

·         On restricted parking space size, it was stated that the parameters of the space were in keeping with highways standards.

·         On the creation of terraced housing, it was noted that the design had been modified as requested so that the front projection matched the adjacent dwellings of 2E and 2F. The creation of a three dwelling terrace would now be in keeping with the existing terrace at 15 to 2D Beacon Close.

·         On matters raised by the petitioner on the inconsistency of designs with neighbouring houses, it was stated that the new dwelling would have facing brick, white cladding, concrete roof tiles and white upvc windows and doors which would match the adjacent property.

A written statement had been prepared by Councillor Keith Burrows, Ward Councillor for Uxbridge. The statement was read out to the Committee, key points raised in the statement included:

·         The Ward Councillor fully supported the petitioners’ objections to the proposed development.

·         It was highlighted that Salt Hill Close had little in common with Beacon Close.

·         The Committee were requested not to go with officers recommendations and were encouraged to defer determination for a site visit to better understand the petitioners’ objections and the implications that the proposals would have on residents of Beacon Close.

On matters of parking spaces, Highways officers confirmed that the provision of car parking conformed with the standards of the London Plan highlighting that each property would retain one car parking space each. Members agreed that there were good existing public transport links which would alleviate use of on street parking.

With regard to the concerns raised by petitioners in terms of disruption from construction, officers highlighted that there was a condition requiring a construction management plan which would reduce any adverse impacts on neighbours. Members discussed construction delivery times to ensure minimal impact on neighbouring properties during the construction phase; officers confirmed that hours of construction work could be restricted through the condition to ensure work took place during social hours only. With regard to construction delivery times specifically, it was confirmed that there was an informative regarding noise and nuisance and that deliveries to the site could be restricted to after 8am.

On matters of inconsistency between proposals and the existing street scene, the Committee agreed that the proposals were in fact in keeping with other properties in the vicinity. Officers highlighted that the previously refused application on this site had been for a bungalow, since that refusal, two properties to the rear site had been granted planning permissions. It was confirmed that the proposals in front of Members were for a matching attached terraced property, similar to the property next door.

The officers recommendation, inclusive of the amendment agreed to the Construction Management Plan condition restricting delivery times, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be approved;

2)    That the Construction Management Plan condition be amended to restrict deliveries to the site to after 08:00.