Two bungalows at 112-114 Burns Way, London TW5

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing two garages and an outbuilding to build two two-bedroom bungalows with access, parking, gardens and refuse storage.

“P/2024/2720 Address: 112-114 Burns Way, TW5 9BB Proposal: Erection of 2x bungalows consisting of 2 bedrooms with associated access road, private parking, private amenity space and refuse bins following the demolition of the existing 2x garages and 1x outbuilding This application is presented to planning committee as a result of a call in by a Councillor…”

“SUMMARY/PLANNING BALANCE 1.1 The proposal is for the demolition of two existing garages and an outbuilding, in their place it would see the erection of 2x bungalows consisting of 2 bedrooms with associated access road, private parking, private amenity space and refuse bins. The scheme would create two units for which there is an identified need, the units are subject to good design and a good level of accommodation for end users.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site lies behind two homes in a residential cul-de-sac, where surrounding properties are mainly two-storey semi-detached houses.

“Figure 1: Site location plan 2.1 The site is located to the rear of the gardens at 112 & 114 Burns Way. This section of Burns Way is within a residential cul-des-sac as shown in figure 1. The area is residential and predominately contains two storey semi-detached dwellings.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and changes

A side and rear extension at 112 Burns Way was approved in 2023, and the proposal was reduced from three bungalows to two.

“History- 112 Burns Way P/2023/0869 Erection of a two storey side extension with single storey rear extension, changing existing front door and rear roof extension to the house Granted: 28/09/2023 114 Burns Way- No planning history 4.0 DETAILS OF AMENDMENTS RECEIVED 4.1 During the proposal it was from:”

“The proposal erection of 3x bungalows consisting of 2 bedrooms with associated access road, private parking, private amenity space and refuse bins following the demolition of the existing 2x garages and 1x outbuilding.”

Officer report

What people said

Sixty-four objections were received in the first consultation and sixty-five in the second, while the local MP also objected.

“All units would comply with internal space standards set out within the NDSS. CONSULTATIONS 6.1 25 neighbouring residents on 20/08/2024 & 30/04/2026. 64 responses were received in objection to the application in the first round of consultations and 65 objections were received in the second round of consultations.”

“Local Plan Policies and parking issues. Comment Response Overdevelopment of site/bad design See assessment section 8.14 to 8.23 Traffic and parking concerns See assessment section 8.45 to 8.58 Loss of privacy and amenity for neighbours & noise disturbance See assessment section 8.32 to 8.44 Noise & other disturbances associated with construction See assessment section 8.32 to 8.44 The proposal will reduce the community feeling in the area Not a planning consideration Impact…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A local resident spoke against the application, while the applicant’s representative supported it and described the homes as needed and policy compliant.

What members debated

Members debated highway safety, cars crossing the footway, the missing pedestrian route, children playing nearby, overdevelopment and the need for new homes.

“[name withheld] advised that the officer’s report covered trees to be retained and trees lost. The development would result in a biodiversity net gain of around 10%. Opening the debate, Cllr Dan Bowring stated that there were many aspects of the proposal that he liked, including the very good sustainability criteria, but he was concerned about the question of public safety.”

“Cllr Vickram Grewal advised that the proposal appeared to be overdevelopment. It was already difficult to move vehicles with the existing number of homes and parked cars and children playing in the street made it a safety concern. Existing residents could not be expected to get rid of cars they already owned, so if built the new homes would create a bottleneck. He believed the Committee should refuse the Application.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted nine against refusal, two for it and two abstentions, so the application was refused by a majority.

“Cllr Bowing moved refusal of the recommendations, giving the reasons as highway safety and the fact that the proposal did not meet standards around pedestrian/footway access regarding residential offstreet parking that applied to residents. The motion was seconded by Pamila Rodrigues. Members voted by a majority to refuse the Application.”

“For – Two votes Against – Nine votes Abstentions -Two.”

Minutes