Agenda item

Erection of 2-storey detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and the excavation of a basement following the demolition of existing dwelling.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Erection of 2-storey detached dwelling with habitable roofspace and the

excavation of a basement following the demolition of existing dwelling.

Officers introduced the report, confirming that the application sat within the Gate Hill Farm Estate of Special Local Character. Whilst the proposal development was for a large building, it was felt to be replacing an equally large building. The proposed dwelling followed a neo-Georgian style, and whilst this was not typical of the area, the area itself was home to various architectural styles and so was considered to be acceptable. It was not considered that the proposal would result in an overbearing impact on the adjacent properties to the detriment of their residential amenity.

The site did benefit for an existing permissions for significant extensions to the existing properties, which as still extant. The suggested changes from the permitted extension to this new scheme were broadly similar, though was set 1.5m further away, with edges ‘squared off’, and with the proposed footprint under the new application no deeper or wider than the existing building or the permitted extension from 2015. As such, the impact on residential amenity was actually slightly less than previously approved. It was therefore recommended that the application be approved.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal. Members were reminded that a similar proposal was due to be considered at the North Planning Committee meeting held on 11 January 2017m and was recommended for refusal before being withdrawn prior to that meeting. It was now under consideration again, under slightly different plans. The officer’s report in respect of the previous application recommended refusal due to design, bulk, and impact on the local street scene. In addition, the report stated that the development would result in overbearance towards the neighbouring property. This new application was only 5% smaller than the previous proposal, but was four times the size of its immediate neighbours, and nearly twice the size of the largest house in the vicinity.

The proposed new building was 0.9m from the southern boundary, a breach of the proposed policy requiring a distance of 1.5m between the property and the boundary. Guidance from LBH planning officers had confirmed that the proposed policy must be treated as a material planning consideration.

Amendments to the design since January included a deeper roof, which would be visible from the road and overbearing to the neighbouring property to the north. The supporting detail accompanying the application suggest that the floor would be a loft, but the size and scale would in fact make it a whole storey. Houses within the area were predominantly made up of attracted, arts and crafts style properties. The proposed development was not in keeping with this existing aesthetic. The front elevation would be built on the building line, with a porch in front of the building line, contrary to HDAS policy. The officer’s assertion that the proposed property was Georgian design was suggested to be incorrect. For these reasons, it was requested that the Committee refuse the application.

The architect for the applicant addressed the committee in response to the petitioner. The Committee was reminded that there was an existing extant approval for a large building with a basement, and the new application was no deeper or taller, and was more than a meter less wide than the approved scheme, and so was contributing to the opening up of boundaries and flank walls with this area of the estate.

In comparison to the refused scheme, the relief front elevation was removed following comments that this was not appropriate. In addition, roof lights at the front elevation were also removed, The porch described was in fact a simple portico to provide shelter form weather when entering the property. In terms of size, scale and depth, the new application was entirely comparable with the previously approved scheme, and provider a greater separation between 51 and 49 Wieland Road. The estate was home to many different styles including extensions to existing building and new builds.

Members sought clarity from the applicant’s representative over why a new application had been submitted, when his testimony suggested that it was so similar to the previously approved scheme. In response, the Committee was advised that the previously approved application was a compromise to amend an existing building, and his client’s instructions were to proceed with a wholly new build.

Councillor Bianco addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor for Northwood Hills. Councillor Bianco expressed concerns relating to the size and design of the proposed development. In addition, neighbours’ concerns over the size of the basement and its swimming pool, and the resultant impact on water levels or potential damage to neighbouring foundations was highlighted. The scale of the development was incongruous to existing properties in the area, and allowing such a development could set a precedent for future application that could result in the compete change of character of the area. For these reasons, Councillor Bianco requested that the application be refused.

The Chairman opened the item for discussion, and drew the Committee’s attention to the extant permission from 2015, as well as section 717 of the report, on flooding and drainage, which confirmed that the Council’s Flood and Water Management officer had no concerns over the proposal.

Members requested confirmation that a full geological survey had been conducted in relation to the proposed basement. Officers highlighted the report and the comments of the Flood and Water Management officer who was satisfied with the scheme. The scheme did include an additional condition (condition 8) which exerted additional control over the construction process. A basement of similar size did form part of the application that was previously approved.

Members asked for clarity over this application versus the application that was withdrawn from the January meeting. Officers advised that main difference was the further increase in distance from the property to the western boundary. The Committee was advised that, due to the extant permission, it would be very difficult to argue for a refusal based on bulk and mass.

Members raised concerns over the design of the application, and shared the view that the development was out of keeping with the character of the area. Whilst of a similar size to the approved application, the new design exacerbated the impression of size, without the relief to soften this impression.

Officers were requested to explain, on the understanding that the application was for a completely new build, why the design criteria applicable for an area of Special Local Character was not being enforced (for example the minimum side boundary distance). Officers confirmed that all material planning considerations needed to be taken into account, which included the proximity of the existing property to the side boundaries and the distance policy governing such boundaries, as well as the footprint of the existing property on the site. The existing property, and the 2015 approved application, were already very close to the side boundaries. As such, officers were constrained by what had already been approved.

Members felt that the design of the application and its overall appearance was not in keeping with the character of the area, and was incongruous with the aesthetics of the existing properties. For these reasons it was moved that the application be refused, with delegated authority given to the Head of Planning to finalise the wording of the refusal decision. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to finalise the wording of the refusal decision.