Issue - meetings

Additional third story comprising 3 x one bedroom units and formation of additional 2 x one bedroom units at lower ground floor.

The Sub Committee resolved to vary the order of the agenda to take agenda item 10 next, followed by item 9 and then items 6 and 7.

The Sub Committee considered a report, previously circulated, regarding an application for planning permission at 58 Jameson Lodge, Shepherds Hill, N6. The application set out details of the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and analysis of the application. The report recommended that permission be granted, subject to conditions. An appeal decision in respect of a previous application on the site had been circulated for the information of Sub Committee Members. The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the key aspects of the report and responded to questions from Sub Committee Members.

In response to a question regarding the difference between the application which had previously been refused and the current application, the Planning Officer advised that the previous proposal extended over the entire roof area and it was felt that this would be visually intrusive in relation to neighbouring Panorama Court, while the current application for the development of the roof area was set back on the side facing Panorama Court. It was confirmed that the proposals for the lower ground floor had no planning history. It was further confirmed that the proposal did not include any expansion of the existing parking area.

Cllr Paul Strang, Ward Councillor, and three local residents addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal, and raised the following points:

• The needs of and impact on local residents were not taken into account;
• There were no feasible refuse arrangements proposed, and current arrangements were inadequate for existing occupants of the site;
• The proposal did not incorporate a mix of different-sized units, to reflect the housing needs in the area;
• The proposal would result in loss of sunlight to at least one nearby residence;
• No consideration had been given to the impact on the Conservation Area – the proposed addition to the roof would make the building much higher than surrounding buildings and the contrasting materials proposed would be incompatible with the Conservation Area environment;
• Parking arrangements would be inadequate to cope with increased occupation of the site;
• There was concern that this could lead to ‘development creep’;
• There would be a loss of communal space as more residents were required to share the same outdoor amenity and there would be a loss of access to potential internal storage space, although this was currently not used under the terms of the current leaseholds;
• The proposal represented over-development of a small site;
• The scheme would be visually intrusive and should be set back further at the roof level;
• Disturbance during construction of the scheme would cause significant distress to existing residents;

In response to questions from the Committee to the objectors, the following issues were covered;

• Residents were concerned that there would be an application to expand the parking area in future, resulting in a loss of existing soft landscaping;
• There were concerns that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104