Agenda item

Demolition of the existing house and the erection of a two-storey block of flats, with habitable rooms in the roof space, consisting of 5 proposed flats (4 x two-bed and 1 x 3-bed units) and associated parking.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Demolition of the existing house and the erection of a two-storey block of flats, with habitable rooms in the roof space, consisting of 5 proposed flats (4 x two-bed and 1 x 3-bed units) and associated parking.

Item 6 was taken after item 7.

Officers introduced the application.

The application had been submitted in response to a previous refusal for a similar development which comprised of a larger scale building and six flats. This application was refused on the grounds that the impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene was unacceptable; the over-dominance of hard surfacing and lack of soft landscaping; lack of usable amenity space which led to a poor standard of living accommodation; lack of evidence to demonstrate compliance with the highest accessible standards; and also the impact that development would have on the visual amenities of the neighbouring property number 277. The refusal of this application was also subject to an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed by the inspector. The current application reduced the scale and bulk, which subsequently reduced the number of units proposed from an initial seven to five. The distance between the elevation facing Warren Road and the boundary had been increased from 2.5 to 3.5 metres. The proposed dwelling had been reorientated to have the principal elevation facing Swakeleys Road.

The applicant and agent addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·       The agent thanked the Committee for the opportunity to address them

·       The design had been developed with lengthy negotiations with the Planning Department to fine tune the design and to overcome the previous reasons for refusal

·       The agent commended the planning officer on their report

·       The applicant had lived in the house for over 20 years

·       The reason for redevelopment was that the applicant lived alone and the house had fallen slightly into disrepair due to high costs and bills

·       The agent highlighted page 31 of the report which noted that the Local Plan advised that the conversion of single dwellings into more dwellings, or the redevelopment of dwellings into new blocks of flats to enable more efficient use of the site to be achieved was very pertinent. This was because there was a large house occupied by a single person

·       The applicant also commended the planning officer for their report

·       The applicant had no issues with petitions in objection and again commended the officers for answering each of the questions that had been posed by the petitioners

Officers clarified that there was a landscaping condition proposed.

Members asked about the existing street scene and the 10% rule. Officers noted that the scale of other nearby flatted developments were greater than that of the current application. The current application for was a corner plot. Furthermore, there was a 10% threshold placed within the policy. The pretext of the policy advised that the conversion of single dwelling homes into more dwellings, or the redevelopment of dwellings into blocks of flats can enable more effective use of the sites.

Members noted that the application history had reduced the size from nine to five flats, and commended officers on their discussions with the applicant.

Members queried the allocated parking, and whether it was allocated to the flats. Officers noted that there was not a parking allocation plan condition but this could be added.

Access to the site would be secured by a landscaping condition. Double yellow lines had been provided to protect the corners so that vehicles do not park on the junction. This formed part of the Ickenham Parking Management Scheme IC3 where parking was restricted between 10:00-11:00 and 15:00-16:00.

Construction hours would be secured by a construction management plan, which would be reviewed once submitted.

The number and type of trees planted would be included within the landscaping condition.

Members asked that if the development were approved but subsequently not constructed, how this would affect the 10% rule. When considering new applications, officers did not just look at those that had been approved and built. Officers undertook a history search of all applications which benefited from planning permission and had not expired. If the current application were approved and a similar application submitted tomorrow, the determination of that application would take into consideration this approval. If the current application were approved but not built, it would not make up part of the 10% rule.

Members asked if there was any requirement for additional hard surfacing to be permeable. Condition 13 required surface water management details but officers would look for control of water and permeable surfacing of hardstanding.

Officers clarified on the landscaping condition for boundary treatment that this would be required to be of a certain size and that if gates were installed, that vehicles would be off-road while the gates were open so as to avoid blocking traffic.

Officer’s recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.