Agenda item

169 Joel Street - 22642/APP/2022/1923

Demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a part one, part two, and part three storey building comprising 8 flats (1 x studio, 5 x 1-bed, 1 x two-bed, 1 x three-bed) with 4 parking spaces.


Recommendation: Approval


RESOLVED That the application be approved.


Demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a part one, part two, and part three storey building comprising 8 flats (1 x studio, 5 x 1-bed, 1 x two-bed, 1 x three-bed) with 4 parking spaces.


Officers introduced the application noting that it was a resubmission following the refusal of a previous application for the site; a subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Secretary of State; however one of the Council’s original refusal reasons was not upheld, this being the harm that the original scheme caused to the character of the local area. The primary change to the previous application was a reduction in the proposed number of flats from nine to eight, which also resulted in an overall reduction in the size, scale and bulk of the building.


Officers were confident that the previous refusal reasons had been addressed, namely the loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers and that the front dormer was now in keeping with the character of the area. The application was recommended for approval.


A petition had been submitted objecting to the application. The lead petitioner submitted a written statement which was read out at the meeting. Key points included in the statement included:


  • This was the third attempt from the applicant to convert their home into flats with the issues from the previous applications remaining;
  • The proposals were not in keeping with the character of Joel Street;
  • Petitioners were dissatisfied with the changes made to the proposed scheme and felt that the site was unsuitable for the development offlats;
  • On street parking in the local area was under stress already and the proposals would increase the number of residents and visitors would increase traffic congestion and parking on and around Joel Street;
  • The shared amenity space to the back of the property would cause a noise disturbance to neighbouring occupiers;
  • The redevelopment of the site would lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions from the construction and the increased number of occupants on the site.


The agent for the application had also submitted a written statement which was read out. Key points in the statement included:


  • A number of changes to the scheme had been made in response to the previously refused application, most notably the reduction in the number of flats, a reduction in the depth of the building by 1.5 metres, a reduction in the number and size of rear dormers, and the removal of the first and second floor rear balconies;
  • The reduction in units had also meant the parking ratio of 0.5 spaces per unit was now in accordance with an already consented nearby scheme;
  • The Council policies supported the redevelopment of previously developed sites within walking distance of train stations and bus stops to help meet the Council’s housing needs;
  • Two overnight parking surveys had been conducted within a 200 metre radius of the site, identifying tha on-street parking on Joeal Street already existed such that any additional parking would not result in unreasonable congestion or traffic obstruction.


Ward Councillor for Northwood Hills, Councillor Kishan Bhatt, was present and addressed the Committee in support of the petitioners. Key points of his address included:


  • The proposed scheme’s parking provision was inadequate. Joel Street was a busy road and the additional stress on roadside parking would worsen congestion issues. Increased congestion would equal increased risk, particularly with school children in the vicinity;
  • The proposed scheme would have an overbearing visual impact on the street scene effecting residents view of the area.
  • In response to questions from the Committee regarding on-street parking capacity, the Ward Councillor stated that there were a number of local amenities nearby, including the cricket club, which added to parking stresses on a regular basis.


Officers clarified that parking provision was not a reason for refusal given when the previous application was refused by the Committee; the provision of four spaces in the current scheme was policy compliant and Members were advised to avoid using parking provision as a reason for refusal, should they be minded to refuse the application.


The Committee commented that, although they sympathised with petitioners, the addition of eight flats would not have a significant impact on local parking stresses, considering four spaces would be provided by the development. Some Members felt that the scheme could still be improved further however realised that there were no longer grounds for refusal.


The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.


RESOLVED That the application be approved as per the officer’s recommendation.

Supporting documents: