Agenda item

Retention of existing dormers to side and alteration to 1 dormer (Part Retrospective)

Recommendation: Refusal

Retention of existing side dormer facing No.32 and alteration to side dormer facing No.36.

59470/APP/2011/1203

The application site was located on the north east side of Parkfield Road and comprised of a detached bungalow.  The application property was separated from the adjoining property, No.32 also a detached bungalow, by 2.5m. To the northwest was 36 Parkfield Road, also a detached bungalow.

The  area  was  characterised  by  a  mix  of  bungalows  and  two  storey  houses  and  the application  site  lies  within  the  developed  area  as  identified  in  the  adopted  Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies 2007.

The proposal was to retain the dormer window facing No.32 as constructed and to alter and retain the dormer facing No.36. The dormer facing No.32 would measures 4.25m wide, 3.4m deep and finished with a flat roof 2.3m high. It would retain gaps of 0.5m to the eaves and 0.2m to the roof ridge and

would  be  set  some  4.5m  back  from  the  front  of  the  property.  This dormer was as constructed and would retain the existing windows. The dormer facing No.36 would still measures 4.25m wide and 3.4m deep but would be finished with a flat roof 1.96m high. This would involve a reduction in its height by approximately 400mm.  It would increase the gap between it and the eaves  to 0.9m, but would still be 0.2m to the roof ridge and would be set some 4.5m back from the front of the property. It was also proposed to remove both the existing windows from the face of this dormer, leaving a blank facade facing No.36.

The site had an extensive planning history relating to developments in the roof. However, the most relevant is the enforcement notice relating to the existing dormers, the subject of this application, which was  served  in July  2008  and was  the subject  of  an  appeal. The Council had already secured a prosecution through  the courts which  resulted  in  the courts instructing the owner to comply with the terms of the enforcement notice.  This had

not occurred and the matter would be referred back to the courts for further determination.

Ickenham Residents Association were consulted, and two letters had been received objecting to the proposal. Two petitions, one with 21 signatures and one with 20 signatures had also been received. Both requesting that the application was refused and the enforcement notice complied with.

Officers had recommended this application be refused.

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:

·        Mr Noad spoke to Committee on behalf of petitioners. He had lived in Parkfield Road for 50 years.

·        He stated that the dormers at no.34 had be one of the most stressful applications in the area.

·        The dormers should not have been built and there were many applications refused, hearing, enforcements, meetings, emails, etc which supported this.

·        The proposal that was submitted by the applicant was in no way acceptable.

·        That the reason for submitting the application was to delay the process of enforcement some more.

·        This was causing stress to residents and the system was being exploited.

·        This was unauthorised development and Mr Noad requested that the application be refused and he made strong representation that the Council proceed with the enforcement process.

·        Mrs Kirke spoke on behalf of the second petition that was submitted.

·        She thanked the officers for the report and recommendation presented.

·        Mrs Kirke encouraged the endorsement of further enforcement. That since 2004 planning applications had been on-going on this site.

·        The proposal that was submitted was less that was submitted at a previous appeal.

·        The application did not comply with LB Hillingdon planning policies.

·        That the application did not meet the requirements for light.

·        It was having a dramatic adverse effect on neighbouring properties and she had spoken about this in previous meetings.

·        The applicant was continuing to delay the enforcement process and Mrs Kirke said that compliance was needed to be taken asap.

The agent spoke on behalf of the application submitted:

·        He felt that Committee had heard some very prejudicial comments and that he wished for some perspective on this application.

·        The agent felt that the application did not cause ‘distress’ and that there were many larger dormers in the area. That the comments were exaggerated.

·        He had reduced the size of the application in order to reduce the complaints.

·        The agent asked that Committee look at the application in it’s true light.

·        He felt that neighbours had ganged up and some that signed the petition had no relevance and lived streets away.

·        The dormers were modest in size and the removal would cause hardship.

·        There were many similar dormers throughout the Borough.

·        The agent asked that if Members could not approve the application that they deferred the decision to carry out a site visit.

Members stated that they would not get carried away by petitioners comments and their decision would be based on planning.

Members felt that this application showed blatant disregard for the Council’s planning requirements and the dormers were completely inappropriate for the area.

Members felt that they had no hesitation in accepting the officer’s recommendation.

Officers explained to Members that in the last few days the Mayor of London had issued a new London Plan, therefore policies needed to be updated.

It was noted that officers were pursuing Enforcement issues regarding this site.

The recommendation for refusal was moved, seconded and on being put to the vote was unanimously agreed.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as per the agenda and delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Environment, Education & Community Services to update the policies.