Agenda item

Enlargement of the 4 existing flats by creating a third floor extension [deferred from 11 January Committee].

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement

[Cllr Doron stood down from the Committee for the determination of this application].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the enlargement of the 4 existing flats by creating a third floor extension. 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. Officers corrected an error within the report which set out incorrectly that approval would be 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 with the Chair’s permission, circulated to the Committee a number of photographs to support their points which were as follows:

·         The existing building was ugly and had little architectural merit as outlined within the Conservation Area character appraisal for the area. The new design would not resolve this issue or serve to enhance the Conservation Area.

·         The current application reflected only a minor reconfiguration of the original application which had been refused on May 2015.

·         The photographs and plans presented in the agenda pack were disputed in terms that the level of the neighbouring Victorian terrace roofline appeared to have been misrepresented as being higher than it actually was in order to make the additional storey to the building appear less prominent and dominating in the skyline. Issues with the accuracy of drawings had also been raised for the first application.

·         The revised plans did not address the privacy issues to the front of the building

Cllr Doron addressed the Committee as a local ward councillor and raised the following points:

·         A number of objectors had stated that they had not been notified of the Committee meeting.

·         The scheme exacerbated existing issues with privacy through the provision of an additional storey and the potential existed for planned obscured glazing to the rear windows to be replaced with plain glass in the future.

·         Plans and photographs provided by the applicant were inaccurate as highlighted by the objectors.

·         The scheme constituted a box on top of a monstrosity and did not enhance the Conservation Area

Representatives for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         Significant work had been undertaken on the design in conjunction with the planning service to address the reasons for refusal of the first planning application.

·         Providing an additional storey would allow for the improvement of the front façade of an acknowledged unattractive building and reduce the current horizontal emphasis which was at odds with the neighbouring Victorian terrace.

·         The heritage statement completed identified that the design plans would constitute an improvement to the Conservation Area over the current building.

·         The daylight and sunlight surveys undertaken demonstrated that no overshadowing would be caused to neighbouring properties.

·         Confirmation was provided that the buildings had been measured and assurances provided that the plans provided were more or less accurate. The inaccuracies claimed by the objectors could be accounted to differences in perspective, particularly the misleading comparison of a flat elevation drawing with a perspective photograph and as such was not a like for like comparison.

·         The existing roof build up was very thick at 750mm and the new storey would be sunken in to reduce the ceiling height and thereby the impact.

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

·         In response to a question regarding the aesthetic issues raised over the building, it was advised that the application had not been considered by the Quality Review Panel as it was not a major application and was only before the Committee for determination at the request of a councillor. Officers acknowledged the difficulties in making the plans more sympathetic taking into consideration the aesthetic limitations of the current building.

·         Officers were asked to feedback on claims that a number of objectors had not received notification of the meeting. It was advised that a previous error with the sending of notification letters had resulted in the application being deferred but that officers had doubled checked that email notifications and letters advising of the current meeting had been sent out to objectors.

·         Concern was raised that the plans would further embed the unattractive building within the Conservation Area. In response, it was reiterated that planning officers and the conservation officer both considered the application to be a viable proposal that would enhance the Conservation Area based on improvements to the front elevation.

·         Further details were sought on planned improvement works to the front elevation. The applicant outlined plans for cladding and louvres to break up the appearance of the windows and washing and repointing of brickwork. 

·         A viewpoint was sought from officers on the discrepancies between the images provided by the applicant and the objectors. Officers advised that it was difficult to tell due to the different perspectives used and the change in floor levels to where the building currently sat.

·         Further details were sought from the objectors on the issues raised regarding privacy. They advised that primary concerns were overlooking to the front to the residential buildings opposite and overlooking to properties on Bryanstone Road to the rear.

·         Clarification was sought from the applicant as to whether the proposed terrace to the front of the building overlooking the main road would be useable. It was advised that it would be set back from the edge of the building to avoid being visible from the street and that privacy would be provided by the high parapet to the front of the building.

·         Confirmation was sought that all flats would have dual aspect natural lighting in spite of obscured glazing to the rear windows. It was advised that the rear windows would be non-openable with permanent frosted glazing up to 1.8m and a clear glazed top panel to allow in light. In response to a question, it was confirmed that existing windows to the rear elevation of the second floor flats were clear glazed.

·         Assurances were sought that flats would meet lifetime homes standards. The applicant confirmed that the existing flats did not comply but that the majority would following completion of the works although it was difficult to achieve wheelchair accessibility due to the design of the existing building. 

·         Plans for the rear yard were questioned. The applicant set out intentions for improved landscaping, with repaved allocated parking spaces and installation of a security gate.

·         Assurances were sought from officers on the accuracy of the applicant’s plans. In response, officers confirmed their view that they were accurate. The measurements on the plans would have formed the basis of the assessment of the application.

·         Clarification was sought from the applicant on plans to lower the ceiling height of the second floor units and whether this would have a negative impact on their liveability. The applicant advised that although a thinner roof would be provided, this would not impinge on the flats below. 

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2015/2132 be approved subject to 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 accordance with the following approved plans and specifications:

168.15/001; 168.15/002; 168.15/005; 168.15/006; 168.15/010; 168.15/011; 168.15/012; 168.15/013; 168.15/014A; 168.15/015A; 168.15/016; 168.15/017A; 168.15/020A; 168.15/021A; 168.15/022A; 168.15/023A; 168.15/030; 168.15/031A; 168.15/040A; 168.15/041A; 168.15/042A; 168.15/043A; 168.15/045; 168.15/046; Heritage Statement (July 2015);Daylight/Sunlight Assessment (20/07/2015).

Reason: In order to avoid doubt and in the interests of good planning.

3.   Notwithstanding the information submitted with this application, no development shall take place until precise details of the external materials to be used in connection with the development hereby permitted be submitted to, approved in writing by and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority and retained as such in perpetuity.

Reason: In order to retain control over the external appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenity of the area and consistent with Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan 2013 and Saved Policy UD3 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006.

4.   Before the first occupation of the extension hereby permitted, the windows in the rear (southern) elevation shall be fitted with obscured glazing and any part of the windows that are less than 1.8 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be non-opening and fixed shut. The windows shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

Reason: To avoid overlooking into the adjoining properties and to comply with Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan 2013 and Saved Policy UD3 General Principles of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006. 

Informatives:

INFORMATIVE: In dealing with this application, Haringey Council has implemented the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012 to foster the delivery of sustainable development in a positive and proactive manner.

INFORMATIVE: CIL

Based on the information given on the plans, the Mayoral CIL charge will be £5,775 (165sqm x £35) and the Haringey CIL charge will be £43,725 (165sqm x £265). This will be collected by Haringey after/should the scheme is/be implemented and could be subject to surcharges for failure to assume liability, for failure to submit a commencement notice and/or for late payment, and subject to indexation in line with the construction costs index. 

INFORMATIVE: Hours of Construction Work:

The applicant is advised that under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, construction work which will be audible at the site boundary will be restricted to the following hours:-

- 8.00am - 6.00pm          Monday to Friday

- 8.00am - 1.00pm          Saturday

- and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

INFORMATIVE: Party Wall Act:

The applicant's attention is drawn to the Party Wall Act 1996 which sets out requirements for notice to be given to relevant adjoining owners of intended works on a shared wall, on a boundary or if excavations are to be carried out near a neighbouring building.