Agenda item

Retention of a single storey detached outbuilding to rear

Recommendation: Refusal

Retention of a single storey detached outbuilding to rear

Councillor Edward Lavery declared a personal interest in relation to this item. He remained in the room for this item.

Councillor Shirley Harper-O’Neill who was present declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to this item and left the room for the duration of this item.

The application site  was  located on  the south east side of Acre Way and comprised a  two storey  end  of  terrace  house  which  had  not  been  extended  with  an  outbuilding  at  the bottom of  the  rear garden,  the  subject of  this application.

The attached house, 28 Acre Way lies to the north east and had an outbuilding at the bottom of the rear garden. To the south west lies 24 Acre Way, a two storey end of terrace property set behind the front wall

of the application property. To the rear lies a footpath and driveway of Jupiter Court, a residential apartment block.

The street scene was residential in character and appearance, comprising  blocks  of  two  storey  terraced  houses  and  the  application  site  lies within  the developed area, as identified in the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (Saved Policies September 2007).

Planning permission was sought for the retention of an outbuilding at the bottom of the rear garden. The outbuilding was set adjacent to the side boundary with 28 Acre Way and along the rear boundary with Jupiter Court, and measure 5m wide, 5m deep and finished with an off-centre ridged roof 2.3m high at eaves level and 3.2m high at its highest point.  The outbuilding had a window  facing  the application property, a door and window  facing south west,  and  a  door which  opens  out  onto  a  footpath  associated with  Jupiter Court. The structure comprises timber elevations, with UPVC windows and a felt finished roof.

42 adjoining owner/occupiers and the Northwood Hills Residents Association have been consulted.  1  letter  of  objection  and  a  petition  with  26  signatories  had  been  received.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. There was no petitioner present on behalf of the petition.

A petition was received in support of the proposal by the agent, who was invited to address the meeting.

Points raised by the agent/petitioner:

• The building was a half complete project as they were told to stop as someone from Juniper Court complained. This was the reason the building looked in the state that it was.
• The agents did not want to continue any further building work in case they were told they could not.
• 2 weeks ago the agent received information of a petition against the application.
• The rear access was not being used.
• The agents wished for clarification on whether they could continue building as the half built project had been left for 2/3 years. 
• They were told to stop building by Housing, after commencing works in January 2008 and stopped around 6 months later.
• The agent informed Committee is was a concrete base and timber frame.
• They did not think they would need planning permission as other properties nearby had similar buildings.
• The agent wished to use this building as a storage shed for his tools, he was a carpenter by trade.

Members asked whether the Housing department had been contacted for input and this was a Council Tenant. Officers informed Members that they were aware and that this was not an issue that the Planning Committee needed to discuss for determination of the application.

Officers confirmed that they had received the planning application on February 2011.

Members discussed the planning history in the area and neighbouring property. Officers confirmed that there was no planning history on the neighbouring property and that this would be investigated.

Members discussed that the size and height of the development was not an issue but that officers were concerned that the visual impact of the development was the issue. Members felt that the visual impact as shown to them in the report was of a half built development. The visual impact of the development could be different once it was completely developed.

Members discussed any potential noise disturbance that could be caused if the development was used as a work shop.

Members felt that subject to the development being completed with appropriate materials, in a timely manner and the rear car park not being used that the development could be considered an acceptable garden shed or for storage.

Officers explained to Members that they could put time conditions on the development, 1 month for clarification, a further month for details on how to prevent rear access; and following these details a further 3 months for completion.

Members discussed the policy reasons in regard to this application and believed it was not contrary to policies B13 & 19. Members agreed an outline of conditions and overturn the officer recommendation.

The recommendation for overturning the officer recommendation and approving the application was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved -

Recommendation overturned and application APPROVED. Details of conditions to be agreed with the Chairman and Labour lead.