Decisions

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing vacant property and construction of 6 no. self-contained residential units with associated cycle storage, communal garden and one car parking space.

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

Two residents addressed the Committee to outline their objections to the application, which are summarised as follows:

-           There had been complaints from a number of local residents who were opposed to the application.

-           The documentation provided was not sufficient, and it was not clear on whether the head height would meet the minimum standards, especially in the roof space.

-           The basement was unprecedented for the area, and could potentially cause subsidence issues and damage to nearby buildings.

-           The style of the building was not in keeping with neighbouring properties, and the balconies along with the reduction in the size of the fencing would lead to neighbouring properties being overlooked.

The Committee raised a number of questions and issues, responses to which are summarised as follows:

-           The London Plan specified that there should be a minimum ceiling height of 2.3 metres for at least 75% of the gross internal area of the dwelling, and it was considered that this proposal met that requirement.  There would be some areas in the roof apartment where the ceiling height was lower than standard, but this would be balanced out by the areas where the ceiling height exceeded the minimum standard.

-           The usual procedure for allocating parking spaces was that it would first be used for a disabled space.  If this was not required, it would then be allocated to the largest apartment within the property.

-           Residents of the new properties would not be entitled to apply for a residential parking permit, but would be eligible to purchase visitors permits.  The s106 agreement included a clause which would prevent any future residents applying for a permit.

-           The building control team were satisfied that there had been a thorough assessment of the impact of the basement.

-           Although there was not private amenity space for each of the apartments, there would be a large communal garden which would provide amenity space for all residents.

The Applicant’s agent made a short statement in response to the objections and the questions asked by the Committee.  He informed the Committee that the architecture on Maidstone Road was a mixture of different styles, and that the development would provide a 3 bedroom apartment to replace the loss of the current property, along with a further 5 apartments.  There would be no overlooking neighbouring properties, as any overlooking windows would be fixed and obscured.  He added that the applicant would be happy to continue working with the Council’s Design Officers with regard to the materials used on the building, however he would not withdraw the application as it had already been amended in line with comments made by the Planning Service.  In response to questions from the Committee, he explained that in order to make the project viable, 6 apartments were required which made the basement essential.

Councillor Bevan suggested a motion that the application be deferred and referred to the Quality Review Panel, and only returned to the Committee once it had received the full approval of the Design Officer.  Emma Williamson, Assistant Director for Planning, advised that this would not be a good course of action to take due to the applicant’s agent indicating that he would not want to engage further in terms of changing the application.

Councillor Bevan then suggested a motion that the application be refused on the grounds of design, overdevelopment and parking.  Councillor Blake seconded the motion.  Dean Hermitage, Head of Development Management, advised that there were not strong enough grounds for refusal on the basis of parking and overdevelopment, but that based on the issues raised by the Committee during the discussion of the application, there could be grounds for refusal on the design of the application.  The following wording was suggested:

“The proposed development by reason of its detailed design and appearance would detract from and result in harm to the character and visual amenities contrary to policies SP11 of the Local Plan, DM1 of the Development Management DPD, and 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan”.

The Chair also added that the quality of the accommodation was also an issue, and wished to add this to the motion to refuse the application.  Councillor Waters seconded this.

The Chair moved that the application be refused on this basis, and following a vote it was:

RESOLVED that the application be refused by reason of

1.          The proposed design, by reason of its detailed design and appearance, would detract from and result in harm to the character and visual amenities of the area, contrary to policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan 2013, policy DM1 of the Development Management DPD 2017, and policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2016; and

2.          The proposed development would include units with no private amenity space, which would not represent a good quality residential environment. This is contrary to policy DM1 of the Development Management DPD and the London Housing SPG 2016.