Agenda item

Part single storey part two storey rear extension; single storey front extension and entrance porches plus raising of roof incorporating front/rear dormers and rooflights; and alterations to elevations to allow for conversion of existing dwelling to 2 x two storey with habitable roofspace, 6-bed semi-detached dwelling houses with associated amenity space and parking.

Recommendation: Refusal

Part single storey part two storey rear extension; single storey front extension and entrance porches plus raising of roof incorporating front/rear dormers and rooflights and alterations to elevations to allow for conversion of existing dwelling to 2 x two storey with habitable roofspace, 6-bed semi-detached dwelling houses with associated amenity space and parking.

The proposed scheme had been assessed against the relevant Council policies and the London Plan and it was considered that the proposed increase in size, scale and bulk of the original  building  would  unduly  detract  from  the  character  of  the  street  scene  and  its surroundings. In addition, the proposed on-site parking layout was inadequate and was likely to raise issues of general highway safety.  For these reasons, the proposal was recommended for refusal.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting. Mr Ian Philips spoke on behaviour of the petitioners:

• The application was on a prominent site on Swakeleys Road.
• The context for development was mainly a 2 storey family style dwelling.
• It was a mature property and situated back from the road.
• The application was on a rat-run, busy road, with 2 schools in the area.
• Traffic management and parking issues were highly relevant to this application.
• Residents in the area were aware that the site required development and asked that the application was in-keep with the street scene.
• The view from the neighbouring property was a concern.
• The petitioners felt that a family detached house would suit the area.
• The height of the roof was a concern and the profile needed to be sympathetic to neighbours.
• Most of the buildings in the area were 2 storeys but this application was for a 3 storey application.
• There was an issue with the bulk and mass, in particular the roof lines. This made the building seem intrusive.
• Petitioners felt that the proposal did not meet planning criteria, therefore objected to the application.
• Petitioners were happy to assist in the development and would be happy with an application that met planning criteria.

Mr Chris Barrett on behalf of the application submitted:

• Mr Barrett was not aware this application was going to Committee until the day before.
• He believed the application would be considered at the North Planning Committee on 26 April 2012, as this was the advice he received from the Planning Officer.
• The applicant stated that this application was almost identical to another application which had been approved.
• He had been working with the Council and architect to sympathise the application to something that was acceptable.
• Mr Barrett asked for a deferral in order for plans that he was currently working on to be made available.
• He believed he could accommodate the requested changes and a meeting for new drawings had been scheduled.
• He had consulted with neighbours and would continue to do so, in order to submit an application which they would be happy with.
• The applicant was not prepared for the meeting as he believed the application was not ready for Committee.
• Mr Barrett would be amending the application and asked the Committee to defer the item to give him the opportunity to do so.

Officers clarified that information had not been passed to the applicant to say this application was being deferred. That the option of deferral was open for the Committee to discuss and consider. That if minor amendments were to be made than it could be acceptable but as considerable amendments were required to this application, officers would not recommend a deferral. This application would involve re-consultation with residents and would not be ready for the next North Planning Committee. Officers confirmed that were there were substantial changes to an application then it was usually the officer view that a new application be submitted.

Members discussed the application and felt that it should not be deferred. That the issues with the side elevation was not going to be resolvable by a small change to the application. The rear extension was also huge and looked like a new building rather than an extension.

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.