Nine flats at 90 Long Lane, Ickenham

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing one detached home with four three-bedroom flats and five two-bedroom flats, with parking and shared amenities.

“Proposal: Demolition of the existing detached, single dwelling and the erection of a building consisting of 4 no. three-bed flats and 5 no. two-bedroom flats, with associated parking and amenities. Summary of Recommendation: REFUSE planning permission Reason Reported to Committee: Required under Part 3 of the Planning Scheme of Delegation (Petition received)”

“Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing detached dwelling and the erection of a new building comprising 4 three-bedroom flats and 5 two-bedroom flats, with associated parkin g and amenities.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a landscaped detached-house plot within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, beside homes, flats and protected trees.

“The application site is located on the north-western side of Long Lane, some 80m to the north-east of its junction with Swakeleys Drive. It comprises an attractive detached house, set back from the road on a lar ge plot with a deep rear garden.”

“The character of the area has gained recognition through its inclusion within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. The application site and the neighbouring property to the rear (known as Dormy House) are also covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs 438 and 482a). The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and has a PTAL ratin g of 2 (Poor).”

Officer report

Earlier application and changes

A similar nine-flat scheme was refused in April 2024, and the current proposal added family units, reduced some dimensions and retained valuable trees.

“A previous application for a similar development (ref: 8905/APP/2023/2419) was refused by the Planning Committee in April 2024, citing six reasons for refusal summarised as follows: x…”

“Highways concerns raised previously have been satisfactorily resolved. The revised access arrangements ensure both vehicular and pedestrian safety, and sufficient on-site parking provision is also proposed. With respect to trees, the current scheme now retains the previously identified high-value Category A and B trees. The Council’s Trees and Landscaping Officer has welcomed these amendments, and the previous reason for refusal on these grounds has been overcome.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development would harm local character, the conservation area and neighbours, while its fire statement remained inadequate.

“A Fire Statement has now been submitted. However, it fails to fully meet the requirements of Polic y D12 of the London Plan.”

“Overall, the proposed development fails to fully overcome the previous reasons for refusal. The scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of Ickenham Village Conservation Area, the streetscene, and the surrounding context, as well as to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. While the proposal delivers some public benefits, including family-sized housing provision, these benefits do not outwei gh the identified harms.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A petitioner objected, while the applicant and architect supported the revised design and described its benefits for family housing and the setting.

What members considered

Members considered the development huge and accepted the officer reasons for refusal after hearing the objections, support and officer advice.

“Officers advised the Committee that the tree report was deemed acceptable, with a construction management plan required for protection. Overlooking issues were addressed by recommending obscure glazing for the side windows. The proposal's impact on noise and light pollution was considered typical for residential areas. The retention of category A and B trees at the front was highlighted.”

“The Committee considered that this was a huge development and accepted the reasons outlined for refusal in the officers’ report. The officers’ recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, was unanimously agreed.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused because of harm to character and appearance, neighbouring amenity and fire safety.

“Reasons for Refusal 1. NON2CCharacter and appearance The proposed development, by reason of its siting, size, width, scale, massing and overall design would result in an incongruous visually prominent form of development that would fail to harmonise with the character and architectural composition of the surrounding properties, resulting in a visually dominant building which would be detrimental to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the street scene and the…”

“The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (2012), Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).”

Officer report