Agenda item

Demolition of existing two-storey dwelling and erection of a replacement two-storey dwelling with solar panels, associated bin storage, parking, electric vehicle charging and air source heat pump. Installation of vehicular crossover and alterations to landscaping including hardstanding for driveway, soft landscaping and new boundary treatment and siting.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved

Demolition of existing two-storey dwelling and erection of a replacement two-storey dwelling with solar panels, associated bin storage, parking, electric vehicle charging and air source heat pump. Installation of vehicular crossover and alterations to landscaping including hardstanding for driveway, soft landscaping and new boundary treatment and siting.

Officers introduced the application and noted the addendum which highlighted two representations received post-publication, and revised conditions.

It was noted that there was a typo in paragraph 6.1, under the consultation section. The most recent consultation period expired on 21 August rather than 21 March 2025.

The petitioner addressed the Committee, showed some images, and made the following points:

• The existing four-bed house had two on-site parking spaces
• Recent extensions at #11, #15 and #17 all had on-site marking provision for multiple cars
• A reduction to one parking space for a 4-5 bed house was inadequate
• The proposed location of parking was in close proximity to a T-junction, where cars often travelled at speed
• All houses in this section of the drive had on-site provision for at least two cars as it was impossible to park on the road as it was too narrow
• There was the opportunity to reproduce the current provision for two parking spaces
• The planning report noted that the proposed dwelling was visually unassuming and not overly dominant. Petitioners disagreed with this. #35 was located at the highest point in the section of the road. The adjacent property #34 was 1.2 metres lower
• The proposed facade was 50% wider than existing and will have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties
• There was currently a homogenous form and scale of existing buildings in this section of the road
• The planning report referred to #17 as similar in size to the proposal at #35. #17 was in fact very dominant, but its impact on the houses opposite was mitigated by a larger distance. The distance from #35 to the houses opposite was significantly shorter
• The planning report referred to the proposed sighting as centred on the existing dwelling, when in fact it was extended predominantly towards #34
• Historical planning documents suggested that the conservatory at #34 was not part of the original approved plans and lacked legal status
• Using the conservatory to justify the new siting was inappropriate
• Recent developments at #15 and #17 had no side windows facing adjacent properties
• The proposed #35 included windows that would project above the fence line
• The planning report noted an increased separation distance from #34, but this was only minimal
• Unlike the old conservatory, the new windows would serve a frequently used living area, increasing the impact on neighbours

The applicant addressed the Committee and made the following points:

• This application represented a carefully considered development opportunity shaped through extensive collaboration with Hillingdon Council Planning Department from the outset
• The applicant and agent had worked closely with the planning team to ensure that the proposals were aligned with local policy and contribute positively to the character of the area
• Council procedures were followed, including a pre-app, and all advise given was followed
• The proposal was for a self-built home, designed to fit comfortably within the existing streetscape
• The design took inspiration from the surrounding architecture
• The proposal was a fresh yet respective addition to the estate, one that enhanced the visual character of the road
• While there had been some objections, many were not planning related
• On the width of the second elevation, this was similar to #34
• On parking, the main reason for bringing the car parking forward was the excessive distance from the pre-existing garage to the main entrance
• The window on the first floor would be obscure and so would have no overlooking impact on #34
• There were no planning grounds for refusal, and the proposal complied with relevant policies
• The Committee were asked to support the application and help bring forward a high quality, sustainable new home

Members asked why one off-street parking space was deemed appropriate for such a large property. The distance from the main entrance to the property boundary was insufficient to accommodate a standard parking space. A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) existed on a tree located at the corner of the property, which would have prevented the installation of hardstanding for parking. Originally, the scheme had been designed around retaining a tree in the front garden, which justified the provision of only one parking space. Although the tree had since been removed, an amendment was not required to increase parking provision.

Members queried whether the condition preventing the garage from being used as a separate family dwelling was sufficiently robust and suggested the inclusion of restrictions on water and toilet facilities. Officers advised that the condition was considered strong and clearly stated that the garage cannot be used as a living room, bedroom, kitchen, or separate unit of accommodation. Access to the garage would be through the main dwelling. Recent appeal decisions supported the robustness of such conditions.

Members asked whether the property was within an Article 4 Direction area and whether conditions could be imposed to prevent conversion to a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO). Officers confirmed the property was not within an Article 4 area. The property currently benefited from permitted development rights to be used as an HMO for up to six persons. Imposing a condition to restrict this use would be considered unreasonable under current planning policy.

Members questioned whether planning legislation allowed for a minimum parking requirement. It was acknowledged that while the property size suggested more parking should be provided, there were no planning grounds to refuse the application based solely on parking provision. Existing conditions may be lost if the application were refused and subsequently approved on appeal.

Members commended the applicant and agent for following the correct procedures, including the pre-application process.

Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved