Agenda item

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of building to provide 3 x 1-bed, 5 x 2-bed, 1 x 3 bed flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of building to provide 3 x 1-bed, 5 x 2-bed, 1 x 3 bed flats with associated parking and amenity space.

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval. There was no addendum, but officers suggested an amendment to conditions to require that all windows shown as obscured on the elevation plan be fitted with obscure glazes. It was also proposed that the reference to EV points be removed from Condition 5 as this was already covered sufficiently under Condition 9.

A petition had been received in objection to the application and a written representation had been submitted which was read out for the attention of the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

?

• Previous similar applications by the same applicant had been rejected multiple times. ?
• The current application prioritised one- and two-bedroom dwellings, not aligning with the Council’s ethos of providing family-sized accommodation. ?
• The property’s roof size was too large compared to the surrounding area and not in keeping with the area’s character and appearance. ?
• Significant negative effects on neighbouring properties were noted, including reduced space, increased noise, and air pollution. ?
• Additional traffic from a hypothetical increase from two to nine households would impact noise, air pollution, and traffic safety on Harefield Road. ?
• The application increased the risk to existing residents and pedestrians from Braybourne Close crossing Harefield Road to go to Hermitage School.
• No consideration had been given to the dangerous junction from Fairfield Road to Harefield Road where cars would be unsighted to vehicles leaving the property.
• The amount of green space would be reduced due to converting garden space to a car park and would not meet the minimum green space per person. ?
• There would be a net reduction in trees, with reliance on trees from adjoining properties for cover. ?
• There would be an inadequate number of car parking spaces (12 instead of the recommended 14). ?
• Potential privacy issues from balconies overlooking surrounding properties were noted. ?
• The lead petitioner urged the Council to consider the repeated rejections and appeals by the applicant and not to waste valuable time and resources on this application. ?

The applicant was in attendance at the meeting and addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

• The current application being presented was very different from the first iteration.
• The scale of the building had been substantially reduced, with the height now much lower than its neighbour to the left and equal to the neighbour on the right.
• The width had also been reduced to match the width of the buildings to the left.
• The gaps left between the buildings were a minimum of 5 metres.
• The building to the right was much wider and screened by a 65-meter row of protected trees.
• The rear projection had been reduced in depth significantly.
• The previous application had been approved by the inspector, and the building being considered was the same size as the approved scheme.
• The application proposed a car parking area to the rear, replicating the parking arrangements of the two neighbouring blocks of flats.
• The parking area abutted the petitioner's property at the very end of their long garden.
• Twelve car spaces were provided for the nine flats, supported by the Highways Officer.
• The 2021 census showed that less than 50% of flat owners had access to a car or a van hence the amount of car spaces proposed was deemed suitable.
• An undertaking with the Council restricted future occupants from applying for parking permits on surrounding streets.
• The two previous planning applications for nine flats on the site were comparable in terms of highways impact.
• The appeals inspector had concluded that refusal on highways amenity grounds would not be justified.
• The Council's Highways Officer had never raised any objection on highway safety grounds.
• The development would only add two to three extra vehicle movements during peak hours.
• The previous applications had been refused due to the scale of the building being considered overdevelopment and its impact on the street scene..
• The criticisms had been taken on board and acted on constructively, gaining support from the inspector.
• Creating seven much-needed extra dwellings was believed to benefit the area.
• The improved scheme had the full support of the planning department.
• An alternative site layout plan and revised BNG report had been submitted to the planning department.

In response to questions from Members, the applicant confirmed that, although it was a requirement to include a replacement family dwelling, one and two-bedroom apartments were much more desirable than a three-bedroom flat hence only one of the latter had been included in the scheme.

Members sought further clarification in respect of the rear area and enquired whether a barrier would be installed to protect the community amenity green space. The applicant confirmed that a full landscaping plan would be submitted, and bollards could be installed if required.

Ward Councillor Tony Burles was in attendance and addressed the Committee Members in support of petitioners. Councillor Burles expressed concern that the applicant was not building in accordance with the planning permission granted to him. He also highlighted the fact that Harefield Road was a very fast road and additional cars in the area would exacerbate the problem. Councillor Burles noted that there was a need for family accommodation in Hillingdon rather than additional flats.

In response to further questions from the Committee, it was confirmed that the PTAL rating of the site was 1 which was considered poor. The Highways Officer in attendance confirmed that it was felt the number of parking spaces would not cause risk to the traffic within the area as Harefield Rd had a 30 mile an hour speed limit, street lighting and footways. Moreover, sight lines for vehicles pulling out onto the highway were protected. It was noted that the number of cars leaving the site was deemed to be insignificant and could be absorbed by the existing traffic flows.

In reply to their requests for further clarification, Members heard that planning officers deemed the proposed development to be an efficient use of the site. In respect of tree retention, it was confirmed that all the trees which were of visual amenity value and contributed to the character of the area would be retained on the site.

Councillors enquired whether the previous refusal on appeal had been purely based on size and scale. It was confirmed that this was the case.

Members requested the inclusion of a condition to protect the amenity space to the rear of the site as previously discussed. They raised no further questions. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to amendments to Conditions 5 and 6 as outlined in the verbal update, the amendment of Condition 5 (landscaping) to include details of a method to demarcate the communal amenity space from the shared accessway and completion of s106 agreement.