Agenda item

Demolition of existing workshop/store and shed, construction of one detached, three bedroom, single storey dwelling with basement served by light wells, and 2no. semi-detached, two storey, three bedroom houses with basements served by light wells, and construction of two sets of entrance gates

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

[Cllr Mallett stood down from the Committee for the determination of this item in order to make a representation as a local ward councillor].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing workshop/store and shed, construction of one detached, three bedroom, single storey dwelling with basement served by light wells, and 2 no. semi-detached, two storey, three bedroom houses with basements served by light wells, and construction of two sets of entrance gates. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement. 

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         Owing to proposals for each bedroom to be supplied by an ensuite bathroom, there was concern that the dwellings would be run as HMOs (House of Multiple Occupation).

·         The site was not previously developed garden land and as such should be protected. No planning permission was in place for the shed onsite used for commercial purposes.

·         Local people had discovered a restrictive covenant in place on the land and would be pursuing enforcement with the beneficiary.

·         The scheme failed to meet emerging Council policy requirements for backland development in failing to relate appropriately and sensitively to its surroundings.

·         The detached house would be sited only 2m from the garden fences to the closest Sirdar Road properties.

·         The scheme would result in overlooking to 208 and 210 Sirdar Road, with tree planting not suitable all year screening.

·         Increased noise levels in the area arising from the new dwellings was not covered within the report.

·         Plans did not include the retention of mature trees onsite thereby exacerbating noise and overlooking concerns.

·         The report identified that there would be no impact on parking but did not explain why.

·         The scheme was inappropriate for the site and to the surrounding community.

Cllr Mallett addressed the Committee and reiterated the concern raised by the objectors over the provision of ensuite bathrooms to each bedroom in the proposed new units. This would be unusual for family accommodation leading to concerns over HMO conversion and associated increased noise and parking pressures.

A representative for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The site was not considered garden land as it did not relate to a specific dwelling.

·         The owner of the land had used the shed onsite for commercial purposes.

·         The scheme would provide 3 new family houses.

·         Ensuite bathrooms to each bedroom was a contemporary feature and affirmed that there was no expectation the scheme would be a HMO development.

·         Revisions had been made to the scheme design following objections received. The last application had been rejected on a single grounds and which had now been addressed under the current application.

·         The presence of any restrictive covenant was not a planning issue.

·         The scheme had been designed to reduce overlooking including set back to the first floor element.

·         The scheme would bring an unoccupied urban plot back into use in an established residential area.

·         Spare parking capacity existed in the immediate area.

The Committee raised the following points in discussion of the application:

·         Clarification was sought on whether a condition could be imposed to restrict future permitted development rights covering any future conversion of the dwellings to HMOs. In response, officers confirmed that an Article 4 Direction was in place in the area which removed permitted development rights and there was therefore no additional benefit in imposing a condition which would do the same thing, even if the applicant consented to its imposition. Planning permission would be required for any future conversion to HMOs. The legal officer advised that should the Committee wish to go beyond this in terms of restrictions on future development, exceptional circumstances would need to be identified.

·         Concerns were raised over access for emergency vehicles. Confirmation was provided that although the site would have no vehicular access, the London Fire Brigade had no objection subject to an onsite fire hydrant or sprinkler system. Access from the road was considered acceptable for other emergency service access and was not unusual in similar developments.

·         In response to a question regarding the mooted restrictive covenant in place for the site, the legal officer advised that this was not a material planning consideration in the determination of the application.

[9.55 - the Chair agreed to the suspension of standing orders to allow the meeting to go on beyond 10pm for the conclusion of determination of the item at hand].

·         Clarification was sought as to whether restrictions were in place on the number of units permissible in backland developments especially those with no vehicle access. Officers advised that there was no set rule and that each application needed to be determined on its own merits.

Cllr Carroll put forward a motion, seconded by Cllrs Beacham, Carter and Weston to reject the application on the grounds of overdevelopment, being out of keeping with the area, poor access and a reduction in the amount of open space. At a vote, the motion was carried and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/ 2015/0522 be rejected on the grounds of overdevelopment, being out of keeping with the area, poor access and a reduction in the amount of open space.