Agenda item

Two storey building with habitable roofspace to create 5 x self-contained flats with associated parking and landscaping and installation of vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

Recommendation: Approval

Two storey building with habitable roofspace to create 5 x self-contained flats with associated parking and landscaping and installation of vehicular crossover, involving demolition of existing detached dwelling.

Officers introduced the report and the changes set out in the addendum.

In accordance with the Council’s constitution a representative of the petition received in objection to the proposal was invited to address the meeting.

The petitioner raised the following points:

• The street consisted of single family homes and the proposed scheme would be out of character and appearance with the surrounding properties and set precedence.

• Parking would be a problem as visitor parking would have to park on the road and cause access and egress of vehicles difficult at No.49b.

• There was no need for luxury apartments to be created or offered on the road.

• The number of recent examples of older houses being demolished and replaced by new, larger buildings had already eroded the traditional residential character of the road and therefore object to more of the same;
• No. 49b was a two storey property with a single storey rear element. The proposed three storey building would result in a loss of light to this property.
• The proposal would overlook No.49b house and garden as the plot sits about a foot higher;
• Planning applications for flats/apartments had been turned down on the road because they did not suit the street scene;
• Rubbish and recycling would be a problem.
• The site was located in a predominantly low-density residential area where occupiers could reasonably expect a level of amenity concurrent with a detached house. The use of the property as flats would introduces noise, disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of neighbouring homeowners amenity.

The agent made the following points:

• The contextual drawings illustrated that the proposal would fit in with the street scene
• The development would provide generously proportioned accommodation
• The photographic montages illustrated that the height, mass and scale of the development were appropriate
• Mature planting surrounding the development would be retained
• An education contribution via section 106 agreement would be made
• The applicants would restrict the age of potential residents to 55 years or older
• The proposal would not set a precedent for development in the area and would not open the floodgates to further development.
• The developer had complied with the parking requirements for the specific type of development

A Ward Councillor addressed the meeting and made the following points:

• The ward councillor endorsed the concerns which had been raised by the petitioner in objection to the scheme
• The officer report and addendum sheet had omitted to include the comments of a ward councillor whom had written to the Planning Department with concerns about the proposal
• The plans did not appear to show refuse of cycle storage arrangements for the development
• The plans and diagrams did not appear to show defendable space in front of the building
• The proposal incorporated too much hard standing at the front of the building
• The bulk, size and scale of the development would be detrimental to the area.

In response to the points raised about refuse and cycle storage, officers confirmed that these were shown in the diagrams in the plans pack provided.  In relation to hard standing at the front of the proposal, officers explained that a compromise would always have to be reached in providing sufficient car parking space and the degree of hard standing which was required to ensure the development complied with policy. The Head of Planning informed the meeting that the car parking proposals met the requirements of the London Plan and in his view could not be defended at appeal.

In discussing the application, several members of the Committee expressed the view that they thought the proposal would create parking and landscaping problems.

Concerns were also expressed at the bulk of the rear of the building, the depth this extended and the visual impact this would have to properties to the rear of the development. The Committee asked officers about the effect this would have on the side window of 49b the Drive and whether this was a habitable room.

Officers were unable to provide an answer about whether the side room in 49 b was habitable or not. As a result it was moved, seconded and agreed unanimously that standing orders be suspended and the meeting be adjourned for 15 minutes to ascertain whether the room in the adjoining property, 49b was a habitable room or not. When the meeting resumed, officers confirmed that they had been unable to establish the status of the room and officers would need to inspect the adjoining property and report back before any decision could be taken.

The Head of Planning suggested to the Chairman that as officers were unable to provide this material fact at the meeting, that the application be withdrawn from the agenda.

It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed that the application be withdrawn from the agenda by the Head of Planning.

Resolved –

That the application be withdrawn from the agenda.