Issue - meetings

Demolition of existing lock-up garages and the erection of a 2 storey 4 bedroom dwelling with 1^st floor partially accommodated within the roof space.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out details of the application for land to rear of 10 – 12 St James’s Lane, N10, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and analysis. The report recommended that permission be granted, subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining key elements of the application, and responded to questions from the Committee. For the Committee’s information, an appeal decision in relation to the site, dating from 2005, was circulated.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding whether the proposal enhanced the Conservation Area, it was reported that, as this was a backlands site that would not be visible from the street and the proposed design was simple, it was felt that it would have a neutral impact on the Conservation Area.

Three local objectors addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal on behalf of a number of local residents in the area. Residents stated that the proposed building was excessively large for the site. There would be an impact on the privacy of local residents, as the building would overlook neighbouring gardens. The existing garages were agreed to be unsatisfactory, but at least they were not visible, whereas the bulk of the proposed building would affect the overall outlook. Residents had come together to object to the application out of concern regarding the dominance of the building, which was felt to be out of keeping with the surrounding area and would result in significant overlooking. It was further stated that the proposal would result in loss of light and the sense of open space in the area. The Committee was urged to come and view the site from the homes that would be affected in order to gauge the full impact. 

The Committee asked questions on the representations made by local residents. Local residents advised that they had some drawings illustrating the impact of the proposal, and it was agreed that these should be circulated, although the Planning Officer advised that, without knowing the background to how the drawings were prepared, the Committee should use their judgement in assessing this information, in conjunction with the information provided in the technical drawings. Objectors advised that the bulk of the proposal was their primary concern; Residents were not opposed to the principle of development on the site, but were concerned regarding the scale of this proposal and the resultant overlooking.

The agent for the applicant, Mr West, addressed the Committee in support of the application. Mr West advised that the design process had begun with scrutiny of the planning history of the site, and it was felt that the current proposal addressed all of the issues which had arisen as a result of previous proposals. It was reported that the responses to the pre-application consultation process with local residents and groups had been encouraging, and that suggestions made by planning officers had been incorporated into the scheme submitted. The Committee was advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95