Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of application amended to read, “Demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a two storey block containing 8 two bedroom and 1 three bedroom flat with additional accommodation in the roof space, associated access, 9 parking spaces, refuse and cycle storage. (Outline application for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale).”

Oral representations in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Neil Reddin, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.

It was reported that on page 47 of the Chief Planner’s report the first word of the second paragraph under the heading, ‘Highways:’ should be amended to read, “Nine”.

There had been a lot of local interest in this application and Councillor Reddin supported the Chief Planner’s recommendation for refusal and the proposed grounds and referred to the paragraph in the Chief Planner’s report under the heading, ‘The Appeal at 145 Hayes’ on pages 46 and 47.  Hayes Lane was a mixture of farmland, semi-detached and detached dwellings and Councillor Reddin objected to a single dwelling being replaced with flats, that would be an over intensive development and out character with the surrounding area.  He also objected on highway safety grounds due to traffic congestion and the view of his local residents’ was that a serious accident was waiting to happen.

The Chief Planner reported that a letter of rebuttal had been received from the agent on 7 August 2018 and circulated to Members and that Highways Division had visited the site and had satisfied some concerns but their view remained as stated in the report.

Councillor Nicky Dykes had visited the site and objected to the application and her view was that a semi-detached would be more appropriate for the site.  Councillor Michael Turner also objected to the application being an inappropriate development on the site.  Councillor Russell Mellor resided in the Ward and he objected to the application.

In principle Members accepted that the site could be developed on a much smaller scale and mass.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Planner with a further reason to read:-

REASON 4.  The proposed development would result in the intensification of the use of the vehicular access to and from the site and would be liable to prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the adjacent highway contrary to Policies T3 and T18 of the Unitary Development Plan, Draft Policies 30 and 32 of the Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan and Policy 6.12 of the London Plan.”