Agenda item

HGY/2020/2762 10-12 Bidwell Gardens

Proposal: Erection of detached dwellinghouse with associated hard and soft landscaping.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a detached dwellinghouse with associated hard and soft landscaping.

 

Tim Loo spoke in objection to the application. It was noted that Policy DM7 of the Haringey Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD) covered development on infill, backland, and garden land sites and stated that there was a presumption against loss of garden land unless it represented comprehensive redevelopment of a number of whole land plots. The objector felt that paragraphs 6.17 and 6.19 of the report were misleading or incorrect. It was explained that paragraph 6.17 stated that the site was located in part of the rear gardens of 10 and 12 Bidwell Gardens but the site was situated in the garden of 10 Bidwell Gardens only. It was suggested that this failed to meet the requirements of Policy DM7.

 

The objector noted that paragraph 6.27 of the report found that there would be no unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The objector believed that the proposal would result in an unacceptable harm and loss of privacy to neighbours. It was stated that, in the proposed design, the upper window would have a view of the neighbour’s primary living space, rear bedrooms on the first floor, and garden. It was commented that the proposal was a large, black building which relied on soft landscaping to limit the visual impact, but it was stated that this could be removed. It was added that the proposal would not provide any affordable housing.

 

Shirley Hopper spoke in objection to the application. It was stated that the proposal would impact use of the neighbouring garden. It was explained that the neighbouring garden was narrow and north-facing which meant that optimal use was enjoyed at the end of the garden, adjacent to the proposed building; it was also noted that there were a number of mature plants and trees in this area that would be affected. The objector commented that the existing gardens along Bidwell Gardens formed a green corridor which housed many birds, and that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on wildlife. It was understood that Policy DM7 was designed to prevent the building of houses in back gardens, and it was difficult to accept that the application had been recommended for approval.

 

Councillor Rossetti spoke in objection to the application. She noted that there had been three applications with objections and one lost appeal in relation to this proposal. It was stated that, on each occasion, the application had been rejected due to the overbearing character, loss of privacy, and detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. It was noted that the presumption in favour of sustainable development was not new and, in 2012, the appeal in relation to this proposal was still refused. Councillor Rossetti queried why the current proposal was recommended for approval as she did not consider the proposal to be sustainable development and she stated that it would not have a significant impact on solving the housing crisis. It was commented that the proposal would only provide housing for three people but would have a significant impact on local residents. It was stated that, under Policy DM1, developments should contribute to the distinctive character of an area and make a positive contribution. It was stated that the proposal would impact the local habitat and that no soft or hard landscaping could replace what was being lost. It was added that there was currently a climate emergency, that the Council had environmental and biodiversity policies, and that the local environment should be protected under Policy DM19.

 

The applicant team, Theo Theodosiou (architect) and Elena Christos, addressed the Committee. It was considered that there were three main objections to the proposal: overlooking, loss of outlook from other houses, and loss of wildlife. In relation to overlooking, it was stated that the building would be a single storey with the lower floor and windows sunk into the ground. There would be one window on the first floor which would face southeast; this would be located 13 metres from the boundary with 8 Bidwell Gardens, 24 metres from the rear of 10 Bidwell Gardens, and 22 metres from the rear of 12 Bidwell Gardens. It was added that the landscaping would use mature trees which would provide screening. Regarding loss of outlook, the proposal had been significantly reduced from previous schemes in terms of scale, mass, and bulk and the applicant team believed that the building would recede into the background. In relation to loss of wildlife, the applicant team believed that the proposal would improve wildlife as there would be landscaping upgrades, high quality planting, and a green roof with numerous ecological benefits.

 

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to Policy DM7, which stated that there was a presumption against the loss of garden land unless it represented a comprehensive redevelopment of a number of whole land plots, it was explained that the site had originally been two back gardens. It was added that the site was not wholly ‘backland’ as there was a road frontage.

·         It was noted that the previous appeal decision was set out in the report; the planning application had been rejected on the basis of character and appearance, but this did not specifically prohibit the development of the site in principle. It was acknowledged that this decision had been taken before Policy DM7 was introduced but it was believed that previous backland policies had been in place at the time. It was noted that officers considered the proposal to be acceptable in terms of the infill position.

·         It was clarified that garden land was considered to be any land around a house, which was a wider definition, whereas backland tended to consist of a plot within a back garden with no road frontage. It was confirmed that the site was former garden land and would be most accurately described as an infill site.

·         It was added that Policy DM7 tried to avoid situations where a number of houses were accessed separately by roads. It was noted that this site was not a purely backland site, that there was a road frontage, and that there had originally been two gardens.

 

Councillor Mitchell proposed that the application be rejected by reason that it was contrary to Policy DM7 in relation to infill and garden land sites, it was contrary to DM12 in relation to the impact of the proposal on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring uses, and DM1 in terms of failing to contribute to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area. This was seconded by Councillor Cawley-Harrison. 

 

Officers drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 6.12 of the report. It was explained that Haringey was subject to a presumption in favour of sustainable development as it had not delivered sufficient housing which meant that its housing policies were considered to be out of date by the government. In this situation, paragraph 11D of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits based on policies in the NPPF. Officers explained that, if the Committee was minded to reject this application, it would need to be of the view that the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the development. Relevant paragraphs of the NPPF were considered to be paragraph 127 in relation to developments being sympathetic to local character, paragraph 130 in relation to poor design that failed to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area, and paragraph 70 in relation to resisting inappropriate development of residential gardens such as where development would cause harm to the local area.

 

Councillor Mitchell, who had proposed that the application be rejected, noted that he considered that the adverse impacts of granting this planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. He added that the proposal was only for one property and would not make a significant contribution which would outweigh the adverse impacts.

 

With seven in favour and three against, it was 

 

RESOLVED 

 

To REJECT the application for planning permission by reason that it was contrary to Policy DM7 in relation to infill and garden land sites, DM12 in relation to the impact of the proposal on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring uses, and DM1 in terms of failing to contribute to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area.

 

It was considered that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development and that the application was contrary to paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in relation to developments being sympathetic to local character, paragraph 130 of the NPPF in relation to poor design that failed to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area, and paragraph 70 of the NPPF in relation to resisting inappropriate development of residential gardens such as where development would cause harm to the local area.

Supporting documents: