Agenda item

Closure of existing access and formation of new access and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out details of the application, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses and analysis. The report recommended that the application be granted, subject to conditions. The Planning Officer gave a presentation highlighting key elements of the report, and responded to questions from the Committee.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the Planning Inspector’s view that a crossover at the site proposed would not pose a hazard in respect of road safety, and whether this was still valid, Maurice Richards, Transport, advised that the data with regards to road safety at that site had been looked into and it was not felt that there was any safety implication. It was also confirmed, in response to a question from the Committee, that there was no issue in respect of the ground level at the site of the hard standing. The Committee asked about the scope for planting between the parking area and Parkland Walk, in response to which it was confirmed that planting could be undertaken by the applicant, but that the difference in ground level and existing fence between the site and Parkland Walk meant that the parking area was currently not visible from Parkland Walk.

Cllr Jim Jenks addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents, and expressed concern at the proposal when previous applications for similar works had been refused. The Planning Inspector had stated that the retention of access at the current location was harmful to the character and appearance of the area and that use of the hard standing area for off street parking would further harm the appearance of the area and street scene. It was also reported that objections made by the Cranley Gardens Residents’ Association had been omitted from the report. Cllr Jenks advised that the proposal would contribute to an erosion of open space in the area and asked the Committee not to grant the application.

A local resident, Ms Sutton-Klein assisted Cllr Jenks in responding to questions from the Committee. In response to a question regarding the nature of the appeal considered by the Planning Inspector in March 2011, it was reported that it was a very similar scheme to the current application, for the retention of the western access, closure of the eastern gate and associated works, including hard standing and parking. The Committee asked the nature of the objections from the Cranley Gardens Residents’ Association which were reportedly omitted from the report, in response to which it was advised that these clarified the comments of the Planning Inspector. Ms Sutton-Klein advised that residents’ original objections to the new houses on the site had been addressed by means of assurances regarding the soft landscaping, which were now not being met.

Colin Marr, representing an informal campaign group opposed to crossovers across the borough, addressed the Committee and stated that the four large houses on the site had very limited garden amenity, and that this proposal would reduce that further. Mr Marr felt that while the planning report recommended granting permission ‘on balance’, in fact the balance of the report should lead to a recommendation for refusal. Concern was raised that a process of attrition was being used to achieve this scheme, and that if permission were granted, it would lead to the private appropriation of a public asset and the introduction of unsightly and uncontrolled parking. Mr Marr urged the Committee to refuse the application.

In response to a question from the Committee regarding the location of the proposed crossover, Mr Marr advised that it was too close to the roundabout and crossing. Mr Marr did not accept that a crossover at that location would limit parking there, and stated that there was increased risk from vehicles reversing out onto the highway.

Laurence Wilbraham, agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee and stated that the two appeals referred to in 2009 related to the erection of a double-garage in conjunction with the retention of the crossover, and that the appeals in 2011 related to an enforcement notice and non-determination of an application to retain the full width of the existing gateway. In accordance with the view that the height of the wall and width of the access were excessive, a lower wall and narrower access were proposed, and the existing eastern access would be closed up with a wall in keeping with the rest of the streetscape. It was reported that this would improve visibility and would have no impact on the nearby MOL. Dr Christodoulou, the applicant, addressed the Committee and advised that the rear wall at the premises was 2m high, with a further drop of a metre to the level of Parkland Walk, which obscured any view of parked cars at the premises from Parkland Walk. It was further stated that the western crossover was a distance of 26 metres away from the junction. Dr Christodoulou requested that the Committee grant the application.

In response to questions from the Committee regarding the Planning Inspector’s finding that the crossover would be harmful, Mr Wilbraham advised that this was on the basis of the original width of the access being retained – it was now proposed that this be narrowed, and that the height of the posts be reduced in height, in line with others on the street.

The Committee examined the plans. In response to a final question from the Committee on access to the parking space, Mr Richards advised that 2.7m, the proposed width of the access, was the standard access width and that he would have no concerns regarding the ability of a standard family-sized car to enter or exit such a gateway safely.

The Committee voted on the recommendation of the report and on a vote of 7 in favour and 2 against it was:

RESOLVED

That application HGY/2011/1292 be approved, subject to conditions.

Conditions:

1. The development hereby authorised must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, failing which the permission shall be of no effect.        

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of the provisions of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2. The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in the interests of amenity.

3. The vehicular access hereby permitted shall be laid out in the position shown on the approved plan. The applicant is required to re-instate the redundant section of footway, necessary works falling within the public highway will be carried out by the Council at the applicant's expense once all the necessary internal site works have been completed. The applicant should telephone 020-8489 1316 to obtain a cost estimate and to arrange for the works to be carried out.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and amenity.

4. The extent of hardstanding shall be no more than as shown on the submitted drawings and shall be for the parking of no more than 2 private vehicles.

Reason: In order to limit the extent of parking in the interests of visual amenity

5. The existing gate shall be removed and the new enclosing wall built and the redundant drive shall be removed and permanently laid out as a landscaped garden within 6 months of this planning permission being granted and the former hardstanding area shall not in the future be covered in hard landscaping, altered in level or enclosed by a boundary treatment higher than the existing without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and highway safety.

6. The construction works of the development hereby granted shall not be carried out before 0800 or after 1800 hours Monday to Friday or before 0800 or after 1200 hours on Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.         

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposal does not prejudice the enjoyment of neighbouring occupiers of their properties.

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

The proposed closure of existing access, retention of new access and associated works to the front boundary treatment, due to their design and siting, would be in keeping with the subject property, cause no harm to the character and appearance of the area and have no impact on the safety drivers, pedestrians and other road users. The proposal is therefore in compliance with Policies UD3 'General Principles', UD4 'Quality Design', OS5 'Development adjacent to Open Spaces' and OS6 'Ecologically Valuable Sites and Corridors' of the Unitary Development Plan 2006.

Section 106: No