Agenda item

Erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking, amenity and bin/cycle stores (updated plans)

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Erection of a detached house with 4 bedrooms and associated parking, amenity and bin/cycle stores (updated plans)

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the information in the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

The lead petitioner was in attendance and addressed the Committee on behalf of the petitioners. Key points highlighted included:

1.    The property developer had initially stated that the rear walls of the main house and the ground floor extension would not exceed the rear walls of the lead petitioner’s house or extension to minimise overlooking, but this promise had not been kept.

2.    The developer had claimed that the petitioner’s building was incorrectly positioned relative to the ordinance survey map but had provided no evidence of this.

3.    It was believed that the developer was only interested in adding significant space to each room to increase the property's value.

4.    The petitioner had been confident Hillingdon Council would hold the developer accountable, but it appeared the Council may approve the build retrospectively.

5.    The breach had been brought to the attention of the Planning Department, but no action had been taken. The petitioner had therefore been obliged to hire a solicitor.

6.    Objections focussed on the position of all rear walls and the floor height of the building, impacting the lead petitioner’s privacy.

7.    Residents request the Planning Committee defer their decision and visit the site to see the impact for themselves.

8.    The raised floor heights compromised the privacy of neighbouring gardens, and residents preferred that the floor levels be reduced rather than having a higher fence.

9.    The ground floor bathroom was overlooked by a side door and window not in the original plans, exacerbated by the raised floor heights.

10.A covenant was requested to ensure the patio was lower than the house as per the plans and to ensure that the side window was obscured and non-opening.

11.The petitioner suggested that the building be demolished and rebuilt with lower floor levels and rear walls level with their rear walls.

In response to questions from Members, it was clarified that the original plans had not been accurate. All floors in the new building were higher than on the plans which impacted the privacy of neighbours.

The agent for the application was in attendance and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included: 

1.    The agent confirmed that he had originally designed the house.

2.    He addressed concerns about overshadowing, stating that the back of the garden was south-facing and would therefore not be affected by shadowing.

3.    The ground floor side-facing window was higher than the neighbouring window, but the floor level was lower due to a larger window.

4.    It had been agreed with the planning department that the fence would be 2.2 meters high to prevent looking in.

5.    It was suggested that silhouettes through the window could be avoided by using a blind.

6.    The agent affirmed that the building was not larger than originally planned and that the back wall was slightly further back than the neighbouring house.

1. The original site plan had been based on the Ordinance Survey as required by the Council.
2. The agent had tried without success to discuss the discrepancy with the neighbour.
3. The scaffold had been used to measure the distance between the houses, resulting in two different colours on the plan to show the Ordinance Survey vs reality.
4. The building size had been checked by the enforcement officer and matched the original planning permissions.
5. The agent offered to reduce the floor level by 50mm by using a thinner screed.
6. He explained that moving the building forward would result in seeing more of the garden.
7. The attic dormer room was obscured by the roof, preventing any overlooking.

Ward Councillor Tony Burles was in attendance and addressed the Committee in support of petitioners claiming that the development had flouted the planning permission and was out of proportion. He recommended that the building be demolished. Councillor Burles confirmed that he had visited the site and advised the Committee Members to do the same before reaching a decision on the matter.

Officers were invited to respond to the points raised.

They empathised with residents and the petitioner, acknowledging the difficulty in understanding the plans due to multiple iterations across different applications.

.

The concern about the building extending beyond the rear elevation of the neighbouring property was addressed. It was noted that the replotting of the neighbouring property had resulted in a minor protrusion of 0.7 meters at ground floor level. The committee report reflected this 0.7-meter protrusion, and officers had considered whether this extension was harmful. It had been concluded that a 0.7-meter extension was acceptable compared to the local plan allowance of 3.6 meters for a single-story rear extension.

Ground levels were discussed, with officers noting a land level change and a difference of approximately 40 cm between the rear garden and the area around the building.

The increase in finished floor levels was deemed not significant enough to depart from policy or cause harm to neighbouring properties in terms of flooding.

It was noted that the side elevation window had moved since the original planning application due to the inclusion of an air source heat pump. The window served a bathroom and was mostly obscurely glazed, with no policy position to protect non-habitable rooms from overlooking or overshadowing. Members heard that a 2.2m high fence had been installed to mitigate potential overlooking into the window.

The request for a member site visit was addressed, with officers not seeing a departure from the original consent. It was noted that the application needed to be determined within a specific timeframe to avoid the risk of a non-determination appeal.

Officers confirmed that the dwelling itself had been built in accordance with the plans, but the neighbouring property had not been plotted correctly, leading to a breach of planning control.

The enforcement approach involved negotiation and the submission of a retrospective application to assess the acceptability of the proposal as built2.

It was noted that the previous consent had been considered a fallback position, and the focus was on the differences between the previously accepted design and the current proposal.

Members requested further clarification regarding the ground levels at the site. It was confirmed that there was a natural ground level change between the application site and the neighbouring property and that a difference in height of a new development of up to 30 cm was not unusual. No concerns regarding flooding impact had been raised. Members were informed that there was no policy justification for refusal and refusal would be difficult to justify at appeal.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that a compliance condition would secure all flooding matters. A further condition would ensure the side window and door would be obscure glazed. Officers did not feel a reduction in screed height was required but were happy to add this as a condition if deemed necessary by Members.

The legal advisor noted that a site visit would not be advisable unless it was essential to enable Members to reach a decision due to lack of information currently available to them.

Members raised no further queries or concerns. The officer’s recommendation, subject to the addendum, amendments to Conditions 3 and 8 as outlined by officers and the addition of a Condition in relation to the reduced finished floor levels was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to amendments to Conditions 3 and 8 as outlined in the verbal update and the insertion of an additional Condition to address the reduced finished floor levels as put forward by the agent in the meeting.