Agenda item

Erection of a replacement dwelling.

Recommendations: Approval

Erection of a replacement dwelling.

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the information in the addendum and took Members through the plans. A recommendation for approval was made.

A petitioner in objection of the application addressed the Committee and referred to photographs that were circulated to Members prior to the meeting. Concerns were raised about the planning application, stating that it would be detrimental to other residents due to increased car movements and noise. It was submitted that the neighbourhood was not suitable for commercial property development. The importance of preserving the 1930s bungalows, which were suitable for elderly and frail residents and the need for high daylight factors in housing for elderly was emphasised. The petitioner highlighted issues with the overshadowing of neighbouring properties, reducing visibility and sunlight. It was submitted that the proposed development would cause a cold, gloomy, and damp environment. Concerns were also raised about the lack of privacy due to the height of the proposed development and the impact on neighbouring properties front and back gardens. The Committee was urged to insist on higher standards for developments and to consider the full impact of the proposal. The importance of protecting the neighbourhood and preserving the existing housing stock was emphasised.

The agent for the application addressed the Committee and outlined the proposal. It was submitted that the project had been under consideration for over  year and the project aimed to keep the new development in line with the changing street scene. An independent verification of the daylight and sunlight assessment had been conducted. Members were assured that the property was intended to be a family home and that there were no plans for it to be used as a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) or hotel. The applicant planned to move into the property when the development was complete. 

Councillor Martin Goddard, Ward Councillor for Ickenham and South Harefield addressed the Committee and supported the points raised by the petitioners. Parkfield Road was a road that had 66 houses or bungalows, most homes on this street were bungalows. It was submitted that the emphasis placed on larger houses was disproportionate and the considerable impact of these developments on the residents were highlighted to the Committee. They were inconsistencies in the drawings supporting a particular development. The design and intended use of a property with multiple bedrooms and facilities, suggesting it could be used as an HMO with significant implications for the area was questioned.

The Committee noted that this application had been previously deferred for a site visit. At the site visit Members were surprised by the number of similar-sized developments in the area. Many of these developments were approved on appeal, setting a significant precedent. The petitioners’ points were acknowledged however there was a concern that if this went to a planning appeal and was allowed, then there would be no or limited opportunity to impose conditions.

Members enquired whether a condition could be imposed restricting the change of use to a HMO. It was explained that permission would need to be granted for a HMO or hotel. If a large HMO was found to be in operation then this would be investigated under the enforcement route.

During Member discussions it was noted that the daylight and sun assessment had been independently scrutinised, and the standards had been met in full including the 45 degree test on both the front and rear windows. Officers also provided clarification on the number of bedrooms and the location of the two kitchens.

It was agreed that if a future application for change of use to a HMO and hotel were to be made by the applicant, then using the Chair's authority this would be considered at a full Committee meeting.

The officers’ recommendation, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, there were six votes in favour and one against.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved as per officer recommendation.