Issue - meetings

Proposal: Demolition of existing vacant property and construction of 6 no. self-contained residential units with associated cycle storage, communal garden and one car parking space.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing vacant property and construction of 6 no. self-contained residential units with associated cycle storage, communal garden and one car parking space.

The Planning Officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

Two residents addressed the Committee to outline their objections to the application, which are summarised as follows:

-           There had been complaints from a number of local residents who were opposed to the application.

-           The documentation provided was not sufficient, and it was not clear on whether the head height would meet the minimum standards, especially in the roof space.

-           The basement was unprecedented for the area, and could potentially cause subsidence issues and damage to nearby buildings.

-           The style of the building was not in keeping with neighbouring properties, and the balconies along with the reduction in the size of the fencing would lead to neighbouring properties being overlooked.

The Committee raised a number of questions and issues, responses to which are summarised as follows:

-           The London Plan specified that there should be a minimum ceiling height of 2.3 metres for at least 75% of the gross internal area of the dwelling, and it was considered that this proposal met that requirement.  There would be some areas in the roof apartment where the ceiling height was lower than standard, but this would be balanced out by the areas where the ceiling height exceeded the minimum standard.

-           The usual procedure for allocating parking spaces was that it would first be used for a disabled space.  If this was not required, it would then be allocated to the largest apartment within the property.

-           Residents of the new properties would not be entitled to apply for a residential parking permit, but would be eligible to purchase visitors permits.  The s106 agreement included a clause which would prevent any future residents applying for a permit.

-           The building control team were satisfied that there had been a thorough assessment of the impact of the basement.

-           Although there was not private amenity space for each of the apartments, there would be a large communal garden which would provide amenity space for all residents.

The Applicant’s agent made a short statement in response to the objections and the questions asked by the Committee.  He informed the Committee that the architecture on Maidstone Road was a mixture of different styles, and that the development would provide a 3 bedroom apartment to replace the loss of the current property, along with a further 5 apartments.  There would be no overlooking neighbouring properties, as any overlooking windows would be fixed and obscured.  He added that the applicant would be happy to continue working with the Council’s Design Officers with regard to the materials used on the building, however he would not withdraw the application as it had already been amended in line with comments made by the Planning Service.  In response to questions from the Committee,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98