Agenda item

Erection of single storey 3 bedroom dwellinghouse with green roof and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application, site and surroundings, planning history, consultation and relevant planning policy and factors. Key issues were highlighted in the Planning Officer’s report, and the officer responded to questions from the Committee regarding fire safety, emergency access and current use of the site. It was confirmed that the height of the elevated section of the roof of the proposed development would be 3.7m at its highest point.

Two local residents addressed the Committee in objection to the application. The local residents stated that the proposed house would be very close to the boundaries of a number of properties, and would lead to disturbance to neighbours, particularly when using their gardens, or when they wished to open their windows. It was also reported that the long access drive to the property would increase the risk of crime, as it would offer access to the neighbouring back gardens. Concerns were raised in respect of privacy, overlooking, light pollution, fire risk and emergency access. Residents reported that the existing plot provided a green space linking the gardens of the neighbouring terraces / gardens and contributed to the character of the Conservation Area. The residents concluded that the proposal went against existing Council policy and that, on the basis of the serious concerns they had raised, the application should be rejected.

Cllr Meehan, local Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Cllr Meehan stated that he concurred with the views expressed by the local residents and in addition felt that it was a misrepresentation to state that the house would barely be visible above neighbouring fences, when in places it would be significantly higher. Cllr Meehan felt that the location was inappropriate for such a development, and would set a precedent if permitted. The Committee was asked to refuse the application on the grounds that it was inappropriate for this site.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee and advised that this was a truly sustainable proposal for a family home on an unused site. It was reported that there was a need for housing in the borough, and that when a family was living on the site, it would in fact improve the security of neighbouring properties. It was reported that this was an application for a well-designed garden house in a garden location, as the proposal was inward-facing around a courtyard and represented how houses should be built in the future.

In response to questions from the Committee, the applicant’s agent reported that, in his opinion, the proposal would have no detrimental impact on the conservation area, as it would be virtually invisible; the proposal would not have a negative impact on the amenity of any neighbouring properties as the house would result in no greater overlooking than at present and would not affect the light to neighbouring properties. It was reported that the design was as sensitive as possible and that, although the structure would be visible over neighbouring fences, it would be constructed of a similar material so as to be less obtrusive. In respect of concerns raised regarding access to the property for maintenance purposes, the applicant’s agent advised that the building would require very little in the way of maintenance. The applicant’s agent confirmed that at its highest, the property would be 1.5 – 2m higher than the neighbouring fencing, however this would be in the centre of the roof and not adjacent to any boundary.

The Committee viewed the plans and had a further opportunity to ask questions of officers. The Committee expressed concern regarding the bulk and mass of the proposal, and that the house would loom over neighbouring gardens due to its proximity to the boundaries of other properties, resulting in a loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. The Committee also noted that, due to the lack of space around the proposed structure, there would be no opportunity for mitigating the building’s impact by means of landscaping.

RESOLVED

That Planning Application HGY/2010/1614 be refused.

Reason:

1. The proposed development by reason of its height, siting, footprint and excessive coverage of this small backland site would represent a cramped form of development which would have an unsympathetic relationship with adjoining properties and would adversely affect the residential and visual amenities of adjoining residents. Furthermore the introduction of such a development on this backland site would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. As such the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policies UD3 'General Principles', UD4 'Quality Design' and CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas' of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development Plan and supplementary planning guidance SPG1a 'Design Guidance', SPG2 'Conservation and Archaeology' and SPG3c 'Backlands Development' and the Council's 'Housing' Supplementary Planning Document 2008.

Section 106: No