Agenda item

Demolition of the existing detached, single dwelling and the erection of a building consisting of 4 no. three-bed flats and 5 no. two-bedroom flats, with associated parking and amenities.

Recommendation: Approval

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

Demolition of the existing detached, single dwelling and the erection of a building consisting of 4 no. three-bed flats and 5 no. two-bedroom flats, with associated parking and amenities.

Officers introduced the application, took Members through the plans and made a recommendation for refusal.

A petitioner objected to the application, citing concerns about privacy, the overwhelming nature of the proposal and its impact on neighbouring properties. The petitioner noted that the recent submission was larger than the original and compared it to previous applications. Concerns were raised about the impact on trees, the amount of concrete used and the proposal's inconsistency with the local character of the area. Additional issues included light pollution, noise pollution and the impact on the conservation area. The petitioner mentioned multiple windows and patio doors causing privacy issues, the small size of the property for the number of people and cars and a history of criminal activity impacting peace and quiet for local residents.

It was noted that the Chair of the Ickenham Residents Association was unable to attend the meeting, but all the comments submitted in previous letters of objection still stood.

The applicant and architect addressed the Committee and issues raised by the petitioner. It was noted that the proposal now included more family units, including four three-bedroom units. The proposal was initially refused due to the perceived impact on the character of the area and conservation area. After discussions with officers, the bulk and massing of the building were reduced by adjusting the depth, width and projection. This resulted in greater spacing to the boundary and improved views beyond the building. The architectural design followed that of number 88 Long Lane, characterised by its projected gable and spanning the width of the plot while being set over three floors. It was submitted that the development was set within a well-landscaped setting, screened by mature vegetation and oak trees, and was considered a significant improvement to the refusal scheme in 2024. It was emphasised that the proposal would complement the plot and wider context of the locality and conservation area. Although concerns had been raised about the impact on neighbouring properties, it was submitted that a sunlight and daylight report demonstrated no loss of light or amenity to neighbouring properties. The primary windows serving habitable rooms faced either forward or rear of the site, with no concerns identified by officers. The proposed development was smaller than the initial scheme and was considered to have no overbearing impact on neighbouring properties.

Officers advised the Committee that the tree report was deemed acceptable, with a construction management plan required for protection. Overlooking issues were addressed by recommending obscure glazing for the side windows. The proposal's impact on noise and light pollution was considered typical for residential areas. The retention of category A and B trees at the front was highlighted. Concerns about the scale of the building and its impact on outlook and sense of enclosure were noted.

The Committee considered that this was a huge development and accepted the reasons outlined for refusal in the officers’ report. The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, was unanimously agreed. 

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