Agenda item

Conversion of integral garage to habitable accommodation with alterations to fenestration.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Conversion of integral garage to habitable accommodation with alterations to fenestration.

Officers introduced the application and made a recommendation for approval.

A petition had been received in objection to the application. The lead petitioner had submitted a written representation and photos on behalf of the Hayes-Arena Residents’ Association, representing 261 households. The statement was read out for the attention of the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

1.    Parking pressure - the proposed garage conversion would result in the permanent loss of an off-street parking space which would exacerbate parking stress in Varcoe Gardens thereby impacting public safety and the quality of life of residents. 

2.    Disruption of community character – the development would disrupt the uniform architectural design of Varcoe Gardens, which was a key feature of the estate’s character and aesthetic value.

3.    Lack of disability justification and past rejections – the Hayes-Arena estate had granted garage conversions only once, for 85 Varcoe Gardens, and solely on the grounds of addressing disability-related needs. The current application lacked any such justification. Similar applications in the estate had been rejected in the past due to increased parking pressure and disruption to community character—concerns that were equally relevant in this case.

4.    Risk of overcrowding and potential HMO use – residents were concerned that the site would be converted to an HMO in the future. Allowing this development would increase the risk of overcrowding and antisocial behaviour, negatively impacting the neighbourhood.

5.    Precedents and community impact - the Hayes-Arena estate had experienced significant challenges due to the HMO at 12 Divine Way, which had led to increased emergency service visits and community disruptions. Residents feared that approving the current application may set a precedent for further profit-driven developments that undermined the community’s cohesion and quality of life. ?

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

1. It was confirmed that there was no intention of applying for an HMO. Members were assured that there was a clause in the deed preventing further applications for an HMO.
2. The precedent for the area had been set by number 85, which had been approved under similar circumstances.
3. The planning team had assessed and found the proposal acceptable and had not set any new precedents.
4. The current internal parking space had been deemed insufficient for new models of cars, especially for disability-enabled cars.
5. The proposal retained one off-street parking space, and no further parking stress was anticipated.
6. The character and design of the buildings were maintained, with a similar approach to number 85.
7. The applicant reassured that the design would match the existing buildings.
8. Concerns about antisocial behaviour were addressed, and it was clarified that a single-family house would not result in more antisocial behaviour.
9. The applicant had a full written agreement with the freeholders and estate management, ensuring alignment with the approval.
10. The application complied with local planning policies and the London plan.
11. The proposal respected the character of the area and addressed the specific needs of the homeowner.
12. There were no material planning reasons to refuse the application.

Ward Councillor Kamal Kaur had submitted a brief written representation in support of petitioners which was read out for the attention of the Committee.

In response to Members’ questions, it was confirmed that the garage was underutilised and likely to decay over time. The proposal involved replacing the garage door with a window, which would match the existing property's development pattern.

Members emphasised the importance of preserving the character and harmony of the terraced homes and suggested setting a condition to prevent the property from turning into an unlicensed HMO.

Members raised no further concerns or observations. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed with 6 votes in favour and one abstention.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the inclusion of a new condition removing permitted development rights to convert the dwelling into an HMO.