Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing and construction of a new dwellinghouse.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing and construction of a new dwellinghouse.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. 

David Godden addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He considered that the proposed design was not good enough, with an odd mix of architectural styles and too few traditional features.  Over 270 objections had been made to the application, along with a petition of 180 signatures.  At the appeal, the point had been made that any new houses should remain in-keeping with the Edwardian features of the road.  The demolishment of one half of a semi detached house was not the right thing to do.  Mr Godden had suggested six changes to the proposal, and these had been rejected by the applicant.

Farrol Goldblatt addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  He lived in the adjoining property.  Whilst he supported the principle of development, recycling and regeneration of buildings, he supported Mr Godden’s comments in relation to this application.  The rear elevation would have a significant impact on the amenity of immediate neighbours, and the significant amount of glazing was incompatible with the architectural styles in the area.  The new application was contrary to the conclusions made by the Planning Inspector, and therefore should be deferred for changes to be made or refused.

Councillor Ogiehor addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  It had been a year since the application had been rejected by the Planning Committee on the ground that the proposal was contrary to design policy, as agreed by the Planning Inspector on appeal.  Since the decision made by the Planning Inspector, Cllr Ogiehor had met with the applicant, architect and residents to speak a proposal which would be amenable to all.  Whilst there had been some changes made, Cllr Ogiehor disagreed with officers that the new design addressed the concerns raised at appeal.  Cllr Ogiehor agreed with residents that the new decision would only meet the points raised by the Inspector if additional changes were made: 1^st floor hallway to be reduced in size to match no.78 and redesigned to ensure that it was in-keeping with other windows, and adding a sill detail; glazing bars to be added to be added to all upper sash timber windows in the front elevation; brick arch details to be added to 1^st floor hallway, 1^st floor master bedroom and ground floor windows; and the front door should be widened and placed in a more central position.  Cllr Ogiehor requested that the Committee reject the application and ask the applicant to resubmit with the suggestions made.

Isabelle Evans, applicant, addressed the Committee.  She had met with seven neighbours to discuss the plans, and despite a constructive discussion, residents have refused to acknowledge the meeting.  A pre-application meeting had been held with Council officers to ensure that each of the Planning Inspector’s comments had been addressed.  Ms Evans considered that she had done everything she could to work with local residents and the Council on this application.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-           There was no proposal to change the clinker wall.  The Committee could choose to impose a condition although this would not be recommended, as any homeowner in the street could choose to remove their own clinker walls without planning permission.

-           The Design Officer considered the application to be a contemporary interpretation of the original property, and it was their view that the application had achieved a design that was in harmony with existing houses in the street.

-           Paragraphs 6.12, 6.13 and 6.14 outlined the Inspectors argument for refusal, and Officers comments on this.  It was considered by Officers that the application had been altered enough to demonstrate compliance with the Council’s design policy.

-           The issues relating to bulk and massing had been addressed, and the bulk of the house was akin to the original house, with a rear extension added.

The applicant and architect responded to questions from the Committee:

-           The design of the glazing at the rear of the property had been simplified, and most of the glazing was now on the ground floor, opening on to the garden.

-           The windows at the front of the house were designed to give views of Alexandra Palace.  There had been no issues raised in relation to the gable windows at previous applications, and so no changes had been made.

-           The applicant had met with the Planning Service and attended pre-application meetings to discuss each comment made by the Inspector to ensure that each one was addressed.  The design of the front door had been amended, the window sizes at the front were identical to existing windows.  The fine detail was missing, however it was the applicant’s choice to not replicate the façade, and they disagreed that this was the only approach for the road.

The Chair moved that the application be granted.  Councillor Williams moved that the application be rejected on the grounds of design, in that the glazing to the front of the house paid little regard to the rest of the road and consideration needed to be given to the effect of this glazing.  There was a lack of detail in the design, and the overall effect was of a flat fronted property which did not provide interest, unlike neighbouring properties.  The Chair seconded the motion to reject the application.

Following a vote with ten in favour and one against it was

RESOLVED that the application be refused.