Agenda item

Erection of 2 x two-bedroom, two storey and 1 x one-bedroom, single storey dwellings with semi- linked lobby and associated parking and amenity space.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL

Erection of 2 x two-bedroom, two storey and 1 x one-bedroom, single storey dwellings with semi-linked lobby and associated parking and amenity space.

67335/APP/2010/2355

Planning permission was sought for the erection of 2 x two-bedroom, two storey and 1 x one-bedroom, single storey dwellings with semi- linked lobby and associated parking and amenity space on the land adjacent to and forming part of 30 Harvey Road. The officer report statedthe proposal was to develop the side and rear garden of a ground floor maisonette to provide a pair of semi-detached two-bedroom houses and a linked one-bedroom bungalow on this prominent corner plot.

It was considered that although the proposal would satisfy the recommended density guidelines contained within the London Plan, it would appear unduly cramped in relation to the spacious character of this part of Harvey Road and would appear incongruous within the street scene. The proposal failed to provide sufficient internal floor space for the bungalow, adequate amenity space for the occupiers of the residential properties and involved the provision of off-street car parking from the side access road which had restricted access due to it being bollarded.

Also, no provision had been made at this stage to ensure that the scheme would make adequate provision to secure an appropriate contribution towards education facilities.

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

Points raised by the petitioner:

• Ms Caroline Wood spoke on behalf of the petitioners who had signed the petition objecting to the application.
• Ms Wood lived in property 30a and moved into the area because of the spacious sizes of the homes, the garden space and how the street looked.
• The bollards were put there for a reason, and cars could not get through because of their existence on the road.
• Motorbikes currently parked behind the area where car parking was proposed for, this meant that spaces were left available for cars to park.
• The development seemed like it was being squeezed in and was out of character with the area and also contrary to planning policies.
• The property, if developed, would be erected against her garden. This would mean she would overlook this property, along with other residents nearby.
• There were similar spaces on the road and there was a risk that more applications would be received by the Council if this was approved.
• The views of trees and green area would be restricted for residents if this application was approved.

The applicant was not present at the meeting.

Ward Councillor Shirley Harper-O’Neill addressed the meeting. The following points were raised:

• Councillor Harper-O’Neill was in full support of the petition and the officer report on this application.
• The application was detrimental to the visual character of the area.
• The proposed bungalow had insufficient floor space.
• That the suggested parking would cause issues, in particular with regards to the bollards that were currently there.
• The area was unique and almost like the countryside. That this development would take away from this if it was approved.

Members were in full support of the officer’s recommendation, and it was commented that the area was an oasis. Members stated that the plans and application were of a very poor quality. That it would detract from the openness of the area and the application was over-developed.

Members questioned officers on whether the bollards could be removed. Officers commented that this would go to the traffic department who would consider why they were put there and the safety measures. The history would also be looked at before the department took a view on whether they could or could not be removed. The Legal Advisor commented that removal of the bollards was outside of the remit of Planning Committee and that this would be a Cabinet Member Decision for Planning, Transportation and Recycling. Members asked that if the removal of the bollards was requested that this issue should be directed as soon as possible to the Cabinet Member. 

It was moved, seconded and was unanimously agreed that the application be refused.

Resolved –

That the application be refused as set out in the officer’s report and addendum.