Agenda item

Demolition of existing house and erection of a 2 storey, 5 bedroom house with rooms at basement level and in the roofspace.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission, subject to conditions.

The Committee considered reports, previously circulated, on the Planning and Conservation Area Consent applications relating to 6A Grange Road, N6. The reports set out details of the proposal, site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis and assessment, human rights and equalities issues, and recommended that the applications for planning permission and Conservation Area Consent be granted, subject to conditions. The planning officer gave a presentation on key aspects of the report, and responded to questions from the Committee.

 

The Committee asked whether the proposed basement for the previous scheme, which went to appeal on the grounds of non-determination, had been of a similar size to the one currently proposed, and whether the Planning Inspector had made any comment regarding the basement element of the application. Mr Smith advised that the previous application had a basement of a similar size to the current proposal; the fact that the Inspector had not raised any issues in respect of the previous basement suggested that this had been considered acceptable. Mr Smith further confirmed that the Inspector had had information with regards to other basements constructed in the area and the issues raised by Professor Wright earlier in the meeting. The Committee asked whether it would be possible to mitigate against any issues that might be revealed by a hydrological survey, in response to which Mr Smith advised that measures could be taken as long as the issues were known and that this was why a hydrological and hydro-geological survey condition was proposed. It was unlikely that the outcome of a survey would mean that construction of a basement would not be possible.

 

The Committee asked further about whether it was possible for hydrological surveys to look at neighbouring properties to ensure all relevant issues were identified, and whether the authors of such surveys made firm recommendations or conclusions on the basis of their findings, or whether they presented the evidence and final conclusions were made by planning officers. Mr Smith reported that such surveys did take into account the impact of cumulative development in an area, and that any conclusions were made by the professional who was qualified in relation to basement issues, and not planning officers. If the Council were to have concerns regarding a surveyor’s professional qualifications then it would be open to them to challenge their findings with an independent survey of its own, but this would be in extraordinary circumstances only. Mr Dorfman suggested that in order to address any concerns, an informative could be added highlighting those concerns, an additional condition could be imposed requiring construction to be monitored and a further condition could be imposed in respect of cumulative effects, with suggested wording along the lines of “No work shall be carried out on the site until a detailed report examining the cumulative impact of all basements granted planning permission, built and not built, and all permitted development basements built, with regard to ground water flow, land stability, surface water flooding in Grange Road and the necessary mitigating construction methods and the extent of studies to be agreed by the local authority”.

 

The Committee asked about the impact of the proposed development on the conservation area; it was reported that this application differed in design from the previous proposal and was of a more ‘traditional’ design in order to fit in with the character of existing properties on Grange Road. Mr Ledden advised that the requirements in respect of conservation areas were that the building should preserve and/or enhance the conservation area; the impact could be neutral and did not need to make a positive contribution.

 

The Committee asked about how potential issues in future could be managed, for example where there may be issues arising in respect of mitigating construction measures for basement developments. Mr Ledden advised that construction of the development would only be able to commence once it was confirmed that a professional with expertise in this field was satisfied that no harm would result from the development. Were such satisfaction not obtained, the entire development could not proceed and a new application would be required. In response to a question regarding whether residents of neighbouring properties would have the opportunity to participate in the production of the professional report, Mr Ledden advised that the condition would be satisfied by the submission of an expert’s report and that this submission would be a formal record which anybody would have the right to consult. It would be expected that neighbours would be consulted.

 

At 9:30pm, the Committee agreed to suspend standing orders in order to conclude the application under discussion. It was confirmed that items 15 and 16 would be the only remaining items considered on the agenda.

 

Carolyn Purves, resident at the neighbouring property, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Ms Purves advised that 6A adjoined her property at ground floor level, and had access to the rear of her property. Mr Purves advised that she had not objected to any of the previous applications for extensions at the site, but that this particular application represented a significant extension of the building lines at the upper-floor and basement levels; this would cause drainage problems and place additional load on the party wall, and she had obtained professional advice that the development could lead to an artesian well forming below her kitchen. No BIA had been produced, or an assessment made of the cumulative impact of the development, despite the scale of the proposal. Ms Purves stated that the fact that the Planning Inspector had made no comment in respect of the basement could not be taken as approval, as the Inspector had only been required to consider the above-ground elements of the previous application. The current application was still not in line with the previous appeal decision, and the Committee was asked not to approve it.

 

The Committee asked about the professional advice that had been received with regards to the hydrological and hydro-geological impact of the basement, and it was confirmed that this had been on the basis of a desktop assessment  by a professional who was qualified in this field. In response to questions regarding whether this application would qualify as a type 4 application, Mr Dorfman advised that, since the interim guidance had been agreed by the Committee earlier in the meeting, there would be a transitional period where some applications categorised as type 4 would be coming forward, and which would already been validated prior to the requirement for a BIA at the validation stage. Future applications submitted would be subject to the guidance now in place. Mr Smith confirmed that this application would constitute a type 4 application. Mr Ledden advised that paragraph 8.5.2 of the report addressed the concerns regarding the lack of hydrological survey, and outlined why it was felt that this issue could be addressed by the addition of a conditions in this case. It was noted that the proposed conditions would have the same effect as a BIA and the surveys required would need to be of an equivalent standard to a BIA. The surveys would identify any issues, along with any design or construction measures necessary to mitigate against these.

 

Mr Dorfman advised that the procedures in place would ensure that, during this interim period as well as in future, the concerns raised would be fully and professionally assessed and that, were any issues identified that could not be satisfactorily addressed by mitigation, a development would not be able to proceed. There was not felt to be any risk as a result of following the appropriate procedures. In response to concern raised by the objector that issues of such complexity ought to be fully resolved before the principle of planning permission was granted, Mr Ledden advised that it was usual for issues to be addressed by means of conditions limiting the commencement of construction until such time as those conditions were satisfied, and that this was a fully enforceable approach. The Committee asked Ms Purves if she had any comments on other aspects of the scheme other than the basement, in response to which Ms Purves stated that she did not believe that the Planning Inspector’s findings had been addressed, that the building extended excessively at the front and at the back, that the proposal was overbearing, that there were issues with the design details, the proposed building was too large for the site and would crowd the street-scene; Ms Purves concluded that she did not feel that the proposal could be granted as applied for.

 

The Committee considered the issue of the risk that measures put in place to mitigate against hydrological or hydro-geological issues might not last indefinitely, and asked whether there was any scope for adding a condition that, once the professional report had been obtained, the matter could be referred back to the Committee for determination of whether the scheme should go ahead or not. Mr Ledden advised that officers were experienced in dealing with a range of professional reports and applied an appropriate level of scrutiny, but where a report had been prepared to an acceptable standard by a qualified professional, it would be highly exceptional for the conclusions of that report to be challenged. As a solution, Mr Dorfman suggested that for all such applications in the Highgate area, a cumulative impact condition – as proposed earlier – should be applied.

 

Dr Susan Rose, Chair of the Highgate CAAC, addressed the Committee in objection to the application on the grounds of its impact on the conservation area. Dr Rose advised that Grange Road fell within the Bishops section of the conservation area, which was characterised by large houses on ample plots. Under section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), there was a requirement to consider the preservation and enhancement of the historic environment, including conservation areas, and this report did not appear to take that into consideration. The development had to be considered within the context of its setting, and there was no question that this would affect the setting of the neighbouring properties. Dr Rose concluded that the design itself was unsatisfactory.

 

The Committee asked Dr Rose to comment further on the concern that the proposal was too large for the plot, in response to which Dr Rose advised that the effect created as a result of this development would be that of a terrace between the two houses and would therefore be contrary to the character of the conservation area. In response to a question regarding the variety of the existing buildings in the vicinity, Dr Rose stated that the existing property at 6A was a modest building, but that the proposed building would be dominating and overbearing and would affect the setting of neighbouring properties, contrary to the NPPF. Mr Ledden indicated to the Committee that paragraphs 8.3.1 to 8.3.6 of the report addressed the issues regarding the impact on the conservation area.

 

Cllrs Allison and Hare, Ward Councillors, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Cllr Allison advised of other basement developments in the area which had encountered problems as a result of hydrology and that there were major concerns with regards to cumulative impact. Cllr Allison felt that this scheme did not differ from the previous application in terms of scale and massing and that it felt overbearing. The proposal was felt to be contrary to the policies set out in the UDP and as a combination of contemporary design and pastiche, was seen as a ‘mish-mash’ of styles with little architectural merit and out of keeping with the conservation area. Cllr Hare indicated that the Planning Inspector’s lack of comment on the basement aspect of the previous proposal was not relevant. Cllr Hare noted that the proposed basement would ‘wrap around’ the party wall and affect subterranean groundwater flow as a consequence, the shape of the basement, as an L-shape, was felt to be of particular concern. The basement would divert water flow to neighbouring properties, and would cause potential issues of wetness and flooding for the property at number 8; Cllr Hare felt that the potential risk of damage to the neighbouring property was too great to take a chance on, and that a smaller application might be more appropriate on this site. Cllr Allison concluded by saying that she did not believe that the Committee had sufficient evidence to be able to take a decision and to be confident that the application would not result in harm.

 

The Committee asked how the proposal compared with neighbouring properties, in response to which Cllr Allison reported that it was bigger, and extended further across its plot. The Committee asked for clarification on the projection of the building at ground floor level, and how this compared with the neighbouring property at number 8; Mr Smith advised that this would be examined in closer detail when the Committee went to look at the drawings.

 

Mr Howard Carter, the applicant, addressed the Committee. Mr Carter advised that there was a long planning history at the site, and that they had worked hard to address previous issues. It was reported that there were no objections to the principle of constructing a replacement house on the site, as the existing building was tired and did not currently sit well within the conservation area. Replacing the property could only enhance the area as a consequence. Neighbouring properties had been improved and extended over the years, which was why the existing property appeared smaller by comparison. Any new building on the site would need to be larger, otherwise it would not look right. With regard to the 2010 decision of the Planning Inspectorate, the Planning Inspector had looked at every aspect of the scheme proposed at that time, and had raised very few issues; the application had only been rejected on the grounds that the gap between the neighbouring property was not preserved and on the bulk at the rear of the proposed scheme. Mr Carter reported that the properties in Grange Road were large, and that although the plot of 6A was smaller than some others, the proposal would not feel out of scale with neighbouring properties.

 

While the Planning Inspector had felt that a modern design would be acceptable at this site, on the basis of the eclectic nature of buildings on Grange Road, Mr Carter stated that they had been struck by some of the comments made at the time and had amended this application to a more traditional design as a consequence. It was fair to say that the front of the property was traditional, with a more modern design to the rear, but this was the pattern of many properties on the street; it was reported that the front was modelled on the Victorian villas on the other side of the street in order to maintain some architectural theme in the area. Although the Planning Inspector had been happy with the previous proposed roof and balcony design, it had been felt that a pitched roof and smaller balconies would be more appropriate by the applicant, and the design had been adjusted accordingly.

 

With regard to the basement, no guidance had been available at the time the application was submitted, but the applicant was conscious of the issues, although basement problems were very rare, and as a homeowner had no interest in constructing a building that would fail. The design and access statement proposed similar conditions to those discussed in relation to hydrological and hydro-geological surveys with full testing and leading to engineering solutions for the design of the basement. Mr Carter advised that he would be very happy to accept any such conditions, as these seemed perfectly appropriate, and that he fully understood that all surveys and proposed solutions would have to be to the satisfaction of the local authority; in the event that the local authority did not agree, Mr Carter accepted that the development would not be able to go ahead and would be happy to accept an informative to that effect.

 

The Committee asked Mr Carter about paragraph 15 of the appeal decision and the reference to the ‘set back elements of the ground and first floors of the front elevation’ which would ‘go some way to reduce the perceived bulk of the building’, and why the current proposal was not set back, but projected forwards. Mr Carter felt that the Inspector had been describing that the previous proposal had been set back from the ground floor to first floor level; the current scheme was not as close to the neighbouring property in order to preserve the gap between them, and the third floor was now under a pitched roof in order to reduce massing, compared with the previous scheme. The Committee asked how the current proposed basement compared with the previous scheme, and Mr Carter reported that this was almost identical, although as a result of different construction methods it would be very slightly wider and the length had been adjusted to include the bay windows. The Committee asked about the suggestions made that 6A should be a smaller house, in response to which Mr Carter advised that he did not agree; the property had originally been an infill between two smaller cottages, which had then themselves been extensively extended and rebuilt. 

 

The Committee asked about the concerns raised with regard to the basement, in response to which Mr Carter advised that at least six basements had been granted permission and were being built in the immediate vicinity of this site; all of these were type 4 and most, if not all, were larger than this proposal as the plot sizes were larger. Mr Carter acknowledged that this application had been submitted at a time of change and supported the process suggested; he had no objection to accepting the conditions proposed and had he submitted the application under the new guidance, he would have been happy to comply with those requirements.

 

The Committee asked about the design of the current scheme, when the Planning Inspector had preferred the principle of a modern design on the site; Mr Carter advised that the Inspector had commented on the scheme before him at that time, which had been for a modern house. Comments made by other parties at that time had suggested that a traditional approach would be more suitable for the area, and the present design responded to those comments.

 

The Committee examined the plans and drawings relating to the application.

 

Mr Ledden addressed the Committee in respect of the Planning Inspectorate decision letter, previously referred to in discussion. Mr Ledden clarified that this had been in respect of an appeal for non-determination, so the Inspector had approached the application as though he were determining whether permission should be granted or not, in the same way as the Committee or planning officers would. The Inspector would therefore have considered all elements of the scheme and it could not be said that he did not consider the basement. This was a material consideration for the Committee. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr Ledden advised that the Inspector’s decision would have been based on written representations, but that he would have been aware of all of the issues raised.

 

The Committee asked officers whether it would be possible to include View Road in the condition relating to the cumulative impact, and it was agreed that this would be possible.

 

The Chair moved the recommendations of the report, with the additional conditions in respect of construction monitoring and cumulative impact assessment (to include View Road), and an additional informative in respect of the concerns raised regarding the potential impact of basement developments, and on a vote it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That application HGY/2011/2236 be granted, subject to the conditions set out below, additional conditions in respect of construction monitoring and a cumulative impact assessment, to include View Road, and an informative highlighting the concerns raised in respect of the potential impact of basement developments.

 

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. Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be used in connection with the development hereby permitted have been submitted to, approved in writing by and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In order to retain control over the external appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenity of the area.

 

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2008, no enlargement, improvement or other alteration of any of the dwellings hereby approved in the form of development falling within Classes A to H shall be carried out without the submission of a particular planning application to the Local Planning Authority for its determination.

 

Reason: To avoid overdevelopment of the site.

 

5. That a detailed scheme for the provision of refuse and waste storage within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the works. Such a scheme as approved shall be implemented and permanently retained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the locality.

 

6. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved plan shall include identification of potential impacts of basement developments methods of mitigation of such impacts and details of ongoing monitoring of the actions being taken.  The approved plans should be adhered to throughout the construction period and shall provide details on: 

 

i)          The phasing programming and timing of the works.  

ii)         The steps taken to consider the cumulative impact of existing and additional basement development in the   neighbourhood on hydrology. 

iii)        Site management and access, including the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; 

iv)        Details of the excavation and construction of the basement; 

v)         Measures to ensure the stability of adjoining properties,  

vi)        Vehicle and machinery specifications 

 

Reason:  In order to protect the residential amenity and highways safety of the locality

 

7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted an assessment of the hydrological and hydro-geological impacts of the development and any necessary mitigation measures found to be necessary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved.

 

Reason: To ensure the development provides satisfactory means of drainage on site and to reduce the risk of localised flooding

 

8. The site or contractor company must be registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme. Proof of registration must be sent to the Local Planning Authority prior to any works being carried out on the site.

 

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity

 

9. No work shall be carried out on the site until a detailed report, including Risk Assessment, detailing management by the LPA. (Reference to the London Code of Construction Practice) and that the site or Contractor be registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme.  Proof of registration must be sent to the LPA prior to any works being carried out on the site.

 

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of adjoining properties.

 

10. The development hereby approved shall not commence until such time as a suitably qualified chartered engineer with membership of the appropriate professional body has been appointed to inspect, approve and monitor the critical elements of both permanent and temporary basement construction works throughout their duration to ensure compliance with the design which has been checked and approved by a building control body. Details of the

appointment and the appointee's responsibilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council prior to the commencement of development. Any subsequent change or reappointment shall be confirmed forthwith for the duration of the construction works.

 

Reason: To safeguard the appearance and structural stability of neighbouring buildings and the character of the immediate area.

11. A detailed report by an appropriately qualified person, concerning the effects of the proposed basement on combination with any existing basement structures in the vicinity as outlined in the Council's Draft Guidance on Basements excavation be submitted to and approved by the LPA prior to the commencing of works. The agreed details and mitigations to

be implemented and carried out to the satisfaction of the LPA during the construction process.

 

Reason:  In order to protect the amenities of the adjoining residents in relation to safety of construction and noise, nuisance and disturbance.

 

 

INFORMATIVE: Prior to demolition of existing buildings, an asbestos survey should be carried out to identify the location and type of asbestos containing materials.  Any asbestos containing materials must be removed and disposed of in accordance with the correct procedure prior to any demolition or construction works carried out.

 

 

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

 

The proposal is approved on the grounds that the proposed dwelling has been designed to overcome the previous reasons for refusal and has taken the approach to have a more traditional two-storey pitched roof design on the front elevation and been designed to retain the existing gap and to have little or minimal impact on the adjoining properties and the area.  The proposed dwelling given the context of the area and road would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the Highgate Conservation Area.  The proposed dwelling is less cubic in form and less bulky to the previous proposal and therefore takes on the concerns of the Planning Inspectorate.  On balance it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and in accordance with Policies UD3 'General Principles', UD4 'Quality Design', CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas', HSG1 'New Housing Development' and SPG2 'Conservation & Archaeology' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

Section 106: No

 

 

Please note that the conditions referred to in the minutes are those as originally proposed in the officer's report to the Sub-Committee; any amended wording, additional conditions, deletions or informatives agreed by the Sub-Committee and recorded in the minuted resolution, will, in accordance with the Sub-Committee's decision, be incorporated into the Planning Permission as subsequently issued.