Agenda item

Conversion of dwelling into 3 x 1-bed self-contained flats involving part two storey, part single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and extension to existing vehicular crossover to front with associated parking and communal garden.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved;

2.    That the Council’s standard allocated parking condition be added to ensure parking spaces were allocated evenly; and

3.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to amend condition 7, to ensure that at least 25% of the front garden was soft landscaping.

Conversion of dwelling into 3 x 1-bed self-contained flats involving part two storey, part single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and extension to existing vehicular crossover to front with associated parking and communal garden.

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the planning history at the site. The Committee was reminded that the only external change from the previously permitted conversion scheme was the addition of part two-story rear extension. Officers advised that the proposed scheme would provide an appropriate level of accommodation which satisfied all relevant standards and, subject to appropriate conditions, would not result in adverse amenity issues for neighbours. Car parking complied with the relevant standards, and while the development introduced a crown roof, this was also a feature of the extant permission and, on balance, it was considered that this would not be harmful to the character of the dwelling or the wider area. On this basis, the officers recommended that planning permission be granted.

Officers suggested that the Committee may wish to add the Council’s standard allocated parking condition to ensure that the three proposed parking spaces were allocated in an even manner (i.e. one space per flat), and requested that the Head of Planning and Enforcement be granted delegated authority to make changes to condition 7, to ensure that at least 25% of the front garden was soft landscaping.

The addendum was highlighted, in which it was confirmed that a petition in support of the application, totalling 26 signatures, had been received.

A petition in objection to the application had been received, but the petitioner was not present to address the Committee.

The applicant and agent addressed the Committee, the key points of which included:

·         As stated by officers, approval for the majority of the proposal had already been granted.

·         As the proposed drop curb was located in a small cul-de-sac it was felt that this would not cause major problems in the area. In addition, the dropped kerb added an element of landscaping to the front garden where currently there was none, and therefore improved the outlook.

·         In response to the points raised by the objectors in that the development was out of keeping with the area because it would result in flats, the Committee was reminded that flats had already been approved at the site. The current application was to change the number of flats, from a two-bed and one one-bed, to three one-bedroom flats. The number of bedrooms was to remain the same.

·         Objectors had asserted that the proposal would result in a loss of a house. The Committee was reminded that planning permission for the conversion to flats had already been granted.

·         Regarding highway safety issues, three parking spaces had already been approved and set in the front of the property, so this did not amount to a material change. The proposal met the Council’s policies relating to sufficient parking.

·         Regarding potential loss of sunlight to adjoining buildings, there was a large garage to the side, where the current extension was, and so the proposal would have no impact on the adjoining house or garden.

·         Regarding the potential for increased noise, refuse, and intensity of development, it was highlighted that the existing house had four bedrooms which could house up to eight people. The new proposals for three bedrooms meant that, in theory, there could only be a maximum of six occupants, and so noise and refuse should be reduced. Density was as per the London Plan.

·         The application had been considered by the Council for several months, and it was requested that it be approved.

The Committee acknowledged that the majority of the application had been previously approved. Having considered the points raised within the petition in objection and the reply to those points by the agent and applicant, Members confirmed that they could see no reason to overturn the officer’s recommendation. The officer’s recommendation, including the addition and amendment of conditions as outlined previously, was therefore moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be approved;

2.    That the Council’s standard allocated parking condition be added to ensure parking spaces were allocated evenly; and

3.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to amend condition 7, to ensure that at least 25% of the front garden was soft landscaping.