Agenda item

Erection of a two storey side extension with pitch roof and single storey side and rear extension with pitch and flat roof.

Recommendations: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Erection of a two storey side extension with pitch roof and single storey side and rear extension with pitch and flat roof.

Officers introduced the application, noting the addendum which noted that there be no roof alteration without further permission from the Planning Authority. 

A written representation from the lead petitioner was read out:

In June, residents submitted a petition with 26 signatures objecting to this planning application, because of their concerns about inadequate information, overlooking, poor design and harm to the Greenway Conservation Area.

This followed the unlawful construction of a very large conservatory extension built without planning permission when work was done at all hours and without consideration for the neighbours. Enforcement were notified, but did not keep us updated or take action, leaving us in limbo. After the planning application and our petition, we made enquiries and had no response from planning until our local councillor got involved. This was worrying as we thought no-one was listening.

It is welcome that the plans now show the conservatory extension has now been removed and changes have been made to the façade (thanks to officers). However, there are still concerns that:

·         the property is too wide (far in excess of current policy) creating a terracing effect contrary to the character of the road.

·         that the property will be too large to be much needed family accommodation and will default to being an HMO (noting that the proposal would include more building at two storeys than No.12 and already includes an irregular full 3rd storey on the outrigger).

·         That the proposal does not step back at ground floor. This is a different building to No.12 with a different entrance location providing different design challenges. Brick matching etc.  

This application illustrates the concern local people have over recent developments in the Greenway Conservation Area and the pressing need for a conservation area appraisal which would identify what is significant and protect the things that contribute to character. For example,

·         Walls and gardens at the front of properties (already lost in this case) so that front gardens contribute towards green space and attenuation and do not just become parking lots.

·         The spacing between houses (which would be lost between number 10 and 12 (Not a pair as stated, but different houses). 

There is much to protect in the Greenway Conservation Area with its unique history and its development, described to some extent in the Hillingdon Townscape study. We believe that a conservation area appraisal would assist officers, save their time and preserve the valuable and valued asset of the Greenway Conservation Area.

A written representation from the Councillor Tony Burles as Ward Councillor was read out:

Apologies for not being there in person tonight but I would like to make a couple of comments on the above application 77809/APP/2023/1129.

I fully support the residents in opposition to this application. The residents and I appreciate the hard work put in by the planning team in negotiating conditions with the applicant in particular over the removal of the conservatory and some better detailing on the front facade.

However, the property as proposed is too wide (far in excess of current policy) creating a terracing effect contrary to the character of the road.

The worry that the property is too large to be family accommodation and will end up as another HMO in the Greenway Conservation area.

On the subject of the conservation area this application illustrates the concerns local people have over recent developments and presses the need for a conservation area appraisal.

There was an Article 4 Direction applicable to this site, which removed permitted development rights to turn the property into an HMO without planning permission.

There would be a separation distance of 1.25 meters from the boundary so that there would not be a terracing impact. This was consistent with the street scene.

Members asked about sufficient of parking. Officers noted that the development would provide two car parking spaces. The London Plan standard would be 1.75 so two car parking spaces was the maximum policy would allow.

Members discussed the width and depth of the property in comparison to others on the street.

Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendations

RESOLVED: That the application be approved