Agenda item

Demolition of existing family dwelling and erection of two storey dwelling

with rooms in the roof.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT PERMISION subject to conditions

The Committee considered planning applications HGY/2009/2090 and HGY/2009/ 2091 together.

The Committee considered two reports, previously circulated, which gave details of the applications, the applicant’s case, the site and its environment, planning history and all of the relevant planning factors and policies.

The Planning Officer gave a summary of the report outlining the salient points and took questions from members of the Committee. It was noted that the Committee should disregard the reference to a basement floor as this was incorrect.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Shane of 40 Stormont Road and Mr Davidson of 14 Deanwood Road, spoke in objection to the application and following their statements the Committee put questions to them.

In response to a question Mr Davidson confirmed that he considered that the proposed scheme was out of keeping with the local area due to its scale and mass. He also contended that by building up to the edge of the boundary the semi rural character of the area would be altered.

In response to a question Mr Shane advised that he and other residents considered that it would be more appropriate for the existing building to be renovated.

It was noted that in order for a building in a Conservation Area to be protected from demolition it had to be demonstrated that it made a positive contribution to the Conservation Area or that it was of special architectural merit. As set out in the report the Council’s Conservation Officer did not consider that the building met either of these criteria. In response Mr Shane contended that the existing house was similar in style to a nearby Listed Building, which it was considered to be of architectural merit.

Councillor Rachel Allison, the Local Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. She contended that the footprint and roof of the proposed building were significantly larger than those of the existing building. She also noted that the roof included a flat area that was out of keeping with the character of the local area and that the loss of part of the grass verge to the side of the existing house would alter the semi rural feel of the area.

In conclusion Councillor Allison noted that it would be preferable if the applicant were to renovate the existing property, or if revised plans for a smaller property more in keeping with the character of the local area, were submitted.

In response to a query, Councillor Allison noted the property was situated in a unique area that bordered Hampstead Heath, which was comprised of properties from the inter war period and that the existing property formed a good example of this. Given it’s proximity to the Heath she contended that retaining the semi rural character of the area was important to the character of the local area.

Councillor Allison accepted that there was no single architectural style that dominated the area; however, she noted that there was a uniformity of light and space that pervaded and contended that the scale and mass of the proposed building would damage this and would set a precedent that would alter the character of the area.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Russell Abrahams, the applicant addressed the Committee and questions were put to him by the Committee. 

Mr Abrahams advised that there were not separate flats included within the building as contended. Within the roof space there would be one self contained unit, with a separate entrance, which would be used by the Au Pair employed by Mr Abrahams. The second set of rooms would be used by Mr Abraham’s daughter who lived with family for part of the year.

The Committee was also advised by Mr Abrahams that partial flat roofs, of the type proposed, were incorporated within many large roofs for structural reasons and that these were largely concealed. He noted that there were examples of this in close proximity to the site.

In response to a query Mr Abrahams noted that the grass verge, to the side of the existing property, formed part of the curtilage of the property and that there was no Public Right of Way in place that prevented it being built on. However, there were no plans to build on the verge; the only change would be the addition of an exit onto Deanwood Road from the new garage.

In response to a query Mr Abrahams advised that he had investigated the possibility of renovating the existing property; however, the work required to bring the property back into use would be extensive and it would not be possible to achieve the required layout.

The Committee viewed the proposed plans and discussed the merits of the applications and it was proposed by Councillor Wilson and seconded by Councillor Hare that the applications should be refused on the grounds set out in the resolution below.

The motion was put to the vote and the results were as follows:

For: 5

Against: 4

Abstentions: 0

The motion was carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning applications HGY/2009/2090 and HGY/2009/2091 be refused for the reasons set out below:

Planning Application: HGY/2009/2090

1. The proposed replacement building by reason of its design, bulk and mass would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and as such is considered contrary to Policies UD3 'General Principles', UD4 'Quality Design', CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas' and CSV7 'Demolition in Conservation Areas' of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 and supplementary planning guidance SPG1a 'Design Guidance' and SPG2 'Conservation and Archaeology'.

2. The proposed development is considered contrary to national and local planning policy which seeks to prevent the demolition of buildings in conservation areas which are capable of improvements in the context of the style of the area. As such the proposal is considered contrary to Planning Policy Guidance (PPG15), Policy CSV7 'Demolition in Conservation Areas' of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan and supplementary planning guidance SPG2 'Conservation and Archaeology'.

Section 106: No

Planning Application: HGY/2009/2091

1. The proposed development is considered contrary to national and local planning policy which seeks to prevent the demolition of buildings in conservation areas which are capable of improvements in the context of the style of the area. As such the proposal is considered contrary to Planning Policy Guidance (PPG15), Policy CSV7 'Demolition in Conservation Areas' of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan and supplementary planning guidance SPG2 'Conservation and Archaeology'.

2. The proposed replacement building by reason of its design, bulk and mass would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and as such is considered contrary to Policies UD3 'General Principles', UD4 'Quality Design', CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas' and CSV7 'Demolition in Conservation Areas' of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006 and supplementary planning guidance SPG1a 'Design Guidance' and SPG2 'Conservation and Archaeology'.

Section 106: No