Agenda item

Erection of single storey front extension (householder application) (amended plans).

 

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

 

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the erection of a single storey front 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.

 

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:

·         Priscilla Close had been a failed development since it opened in 2000, in breach of planning conditions for the original permission. There were ongoing issues relating to inadequate rubbish collection arrangements, problems with rats and fly tipping, no street cleaning or maintenance of the infrastructure including broken perimeter walls and non operational electric gates. Various efforts by the Council to address these issues over the years had not been successful.

·         The Close’s Joint Management Company had folded in 2009 and had not been resurrected. The land was now officially designated as abandoned, with no accountability therefore assigned for maintenance. The application should not be granted until the ongoing maintenance issues were addressed and a new management company set up for the Close. 

·         Planning breaches continued to blight the area and enforcement action was no longer being progressed despite issues not being resolved.

·         A modern square extension would be an incongruous addition to a Victorian cottage as well as ruining the integrity and historic nature of the Close through its claustrophobic wedged shaped design. It would also set a precedent for further development harming the existing character of the Close.

 

Cllrs Blake and Morton addressed the Committee in their role as local ward councillors and raised the following points:

·         The local community were leading on a campaign to award Priscilla Close Locally Listed status due to its heritage and architectural significance, and which would be undermined by the application.

·         Consideration should have been given to extending the building upwards to avoid the loss of the front garden to the property. The London Plan contained a presumption against development on back gardens or other private residential gardens.

·         Approval of the application would set a precedent for future development in the Close.

·         The extension would be out of keeping with the Victorian frontage and impact on the coherence of the Close as a whole and detract from its historic nature. 

·         The applicant was seeking to profit from the land whilst neglecting to ensure sufficient management arrangements were in place for the Close. Although it was acknowledged the issues arising from the failure of the JMC were not material planning considerations, they should be considered as a context to the determination of the application including the character and appearance of the Close itself. 

·         The property would be left with limited garden space due to the extension as it had no rear garden.

 

The legal officer to the Committee advised that the issues raised by the objectors and ward councillors regarding the failed management of the land such as fly tipping etc could not be taken into account in the determination of the application as set out within the officer report as they were not material planning considerations.

 

The Committee raised the following points in response to the representations made:

·         Clarification was sought on a reference within the report that assurances had been given to residents of the Close under the original planning permission that no new building would be permitted less than 22m from the existing houses. Officers advised that this related to any new buildings and not the current application for an extension of an existing property.

·         It was questioned whether the Council’s Conservation Officer had considered the application. Officers advised in response that this had not been required as there were no Listed buildings in the vicinity of the site. The nearby former Coombes Croft fire station building was Locally Listed but wasn’t attached to the application. The objectors countered that 8 Priscilla Close was attached to and part of the former fire station as the supervisor’s cottage.

·         Further information was sought on the garden to the property. The objectors advised that over half of the small front garden to no 8 would be built over by the extension leaving a very small, north facing, dark garden.

·         Clarification was sought as to whether any restrictions could be imposed on any further extension to the building in future should the application be granted. Officers advised that applications had to be determined on their merits, although a further extension to the building would not be encouraged in the future as the current application addressed a number of specific issues including improving the quality of the accommodation to a north facing dwelling.

 

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

·         The applicant had worked closely with planning officers in the development of the plans.

·         The majority of objections received were not planning issues.

·         The extension would provide a safer, more visible entrance to 8 Priscilla Close, which had previously experienced burglaries and antisocial behaviour.

·         The provision of an additional bedroom would not generate a significant amount of additional refuse for the Close although it was recognised the number of bins provided needed to be reviewed as a management issue. 

·         Measures would be put in place to manage any drainage issues arising from the extension such as a soak away and survey of the existing drainage pipes to identify any problems.  

·         The property would remain a family dwelling benefiting from private parking and enclosed garden space.

·         The applicant was unaware of the management arrangements for the Close.

 

The Committee sought assurances from the applicant regarding compliance with conditions imposed, particularly due to concerns over the condition of the current boundary treatment. The applicant’s representative confirmed that conditions imposed to any permission would be complied with.

 

 

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

 

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2015/3373 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:

1558.01 Existing Site Plan Rev A

1558.02 Existing Ground Floor Plan Rev A

1558.03 Existing First Floor Plan Rev A

1558.04 Existing Roof Plan Rev A

1558.05 Existing Front Elevation Rev A

1558.06 Existing Sections AA & BB Rev A

1558.07 Proposed Ground Floor Plan Rev A2

1558.08 Proposed First Floor Plan Rev A2

1558.09 Proposed Roof Plan Rev A2

1558.10 Proposed Front Elevation Rev A3

1558.11 Proposed Sections AA & BB Rev A3

1558.12 Proposed East Elevation Rev A2

1558.13 Proposed Site Plan Rev A2

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

 

     3.    Prior to the commencement of the approved development, details of the proposed boundary treatment shall be submitted in writing to the LPA for approval, and thereafter implemented as approved and retained in perpetuity unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenity of the area and residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

 

4.     No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include detailed drawings of the planting. The landscaping scheme, once implemented, is to be retained thereafter.

Reason: In order for the Local Planning Authority to assess the acceptability of any landscaping scheme in relation to the site itself, thereby ensuring a satisfactory setting for the proposed development in the interests of the visual amenity of the area consistent with Policy UD3 of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan 2006.

 

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: 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.

 

INFORMATIVE: The London Fire Brigade strongly recommends that sprinklers are considered for new developments and major alterations to existing premises, particularly where the proposals relate to schools and care homes. Sprinkler systems installed in buildings can significantly reduce the damage caused by fire and the consequential cost to businesses and housing providers, and can reduce the risk to life. The Brigade opinion is that there are opportunities for developers and building owners to install sprinkler systems in order to save money, save property and protect the lives of occupier.  . 

 

INFORMATIVE: With regards to surface water drainage, it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water course, or a suitable sewer.  In respect of surface water, it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage.  When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary.  Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater.  Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required.  They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777.

 

INFORMATIVE: Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minum pressure of 10m head (approx. 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes.  The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.