Agenda item

Erection of part first floor rear/side extension, alterations to rear elevation to include removal of single storey rear roof, installation of ramps to West elevation and East elevation and external staircase to side.

Recommendation: Refusal

Erection of part first floor rear/side extension, alterations to rear elevation to include removal of single storey rear roof, installation of ramps to West elevation and East elevation and external staircase to side.

Planning  permission  was  sought for the erection of a part  two storey part first floor side extension,  ground  floor  rear  infill  extension  and  provision  of  external  first  escape staircase. 

The application property was an attractive 'Arts & Crafts'  style  building  which forms a  group  with  10, 14  and 16  Eastbury  Road, which  were  on  the  local  list. 

The proposed part first floor side/rear extension was not considered to  harmonise with  the character, proportions and appearance of the main building and would be detrimental to the appearance of the  surrounding area and the  character and appearance of the Northwood/Frithwood Conservation  Area. The proposal would not harm the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the petitioners:

• Mrs Herrning spoke on behalf of the petitioners who signed the petition objecting to the application.
• She stated that the reasons given by petitioners at the North Planning Committee last year on an application on this site all still applied.
• The lead petitioner had lived at no.14 for a number of years and wished that the area would stay an attractive area. She believed it was a conservation area and should be maintained.
• Malcolm Ruddock, Northwood Association, emailed his comments and he would actively oppose any further development on the site.
• The staircase on the site was a concern for any emergency access and any new proposed staircase needed to consider this.
• The proposed application would obstruct the sunlight and there would be an increase in the noise levels for neighbours.
• Currently during the day time the noise levels were loud. Loud screaming could be heard as well as bad language.
• The petitioner urged the Committee to uphold the planning department’s advice to refuse the application.
• Mrs Nuttall stated that residents supported Mrs Herrnings petition for refusal.
• The site was already over-developed and that residents were already troubled by the noise from the nursing home. Complaints had been made numerous times about this. The nursing home staff were not cooperative and told residents to take the matter up with Hillingdon Council.
• That in 1988 the then Director of Planning said that the site had reached its maximum development levels.
• The footprint of the site was already too big.
• The resident’s basic human rights were in being breached.
• The petitioner also stated that the owner of the nursing home had ignored the planning application.

The agent made the following points:

• The agent stated that they had been instructed on the current application. The previous application had been done by different architects.
• The agents did not understand why it had been necessary to contradict the conservation officer’s recommendation which gave approval for this application.
• A lot of the objections had been replied to by the agents directly to the individuals who gave objections.
• This application was for 1 additional bedroom, which would make current residents lives easier and would bring them up to speed with their needs.
• It would provide local needed community care.
• They had received Quality Care Commission Star Award.
• The application was not for commercial gain but to upgrade and meet the standard requirements.
• A 2 bedroom development which was well within requirements was approved, and there was a very large hedge which gave privacy.
• Agents believed that the matter had been blown out of proportion and they hoped that the Planning Committee would overturn the officer recommendation in light of all the correspondence that had been sent.
• They stated that the agents had adhered to all government and Council legislation.

Membersseeked clarification from the agent on whether the works to the site had already commenced. Officers confirmed that there were no unauthorised extensions as far as they were aware.

Members asked whether the agents could upgrade without planning approval. The agents replied that they could not. That the number of occupants would remain the same, they wished to go from 20 to 21 bedrooms and that it was mixed double and single rooms.

Officers commented that this was a much improved scheme then what was originally submitted, that they were working towards approvals. The reasons given for refusal by officers were valid and that the Committee had the final report which containing the facts for the final steps of determining an application.

Members were unsure of the reasons for refusal. Officers commented that the site was in a conservation area and was a listed building. There was the visual impact to consider.

Members discussed the site and commented that there needed to be a limit to the size of the site.

Members also discussed the option of a site visit before reaching any decision as they felt they did not have sufficient information to make a decision. That the officer report did not contain enough information on any potential over-development of the site for them to make a decision.

The recommendation for a deferral pending a site visit was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be deferred for a site visit.