Agenda item
75 Okehampton Road, London, NW10 3EN (Ref. 15/3570)
Decision:
Refused planning permission for the following reasons;
Impact on neighbouring properties including bedrooms; cumulative impact of the basement; impact on residential amenities during construction; over-development of the site and cumulative detrimental impact on the character of the area.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Excavation of a basement level with front and rear lightwells, erection of single storey side infill and rear extension, two storey side extension, addition of hipped roof to existing two storey side extension, rear dormer window with Juliet balcony, insertion of 2x front roof lights, insertion of glazing into front gable and conversion of garage into habitable accommodation (amended plans and description).
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the Draft Decision Notice.
Stephen Weeks (Head of Planning) outlined the scheme and with reference to the supplementary report clarified the issues raised during the site visit. Members heard that whilstsomelossoflightanda changeinoutlook to rooms in adjoining properties would be inevitable,it was not considered to resultin an unacceptable lossoflightor an unacceptable overbearing impact. He added that the extensions complied with normal SPG5 guidance and was considered acceptable. He continued that due to its orientation, there would be no loss of direct sunlight to the property to the south west and that to the north east it did not exceed what could be built as ‘permitted development’.
Gillian Newton objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would constitute an over-development of the site and result in loss of light, outlook and privacy. She continued that the proposal which could also give rise structural risk damage to the other properties, would set an undesirable precedent for similar unacceptable developments in the area.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Nerva, ward member stated that he had been approached by local residents in connection with the application. Councillor Nerva reiterated the comments by the objector and added that the proposal involving a large basement development would take sometime to complete resulting in a significant adverse impact on residential amenities. He added that the proposal would be out of keeping with the character of the area and in the absence of a guarantee bond against subsidence to neighbouring property at No 77 and a revised guidance on such developments, urged members to be minded to refuse the application.
Mathias Hamms (applicant’s agent) informed the Committee that the applicant had addressed all of the concerns raised by the adjoining neighbour and although he was not aware of any potential local subsidence, any such risks would also be addressed in the construction process of the basement. He drew members’ attention to the applicant’s intention to preserve the mature tree for which officers had imposed a condition.
In response to members’ enquiries, the applicant’s agent stated that a structural survey to ensure the structural integrity of the scheme had been undertaken. He continued that there would no loss of sunlight and that improvements to the side extension including the reduction of side facing windows and unchanged parapet level would ensure that there would be no overlooking and no over-shadowing.
In bringing the discussion to a close, the Chair summarised the issues raised by the objector, the local ward member and the agent’s responses. She also referred to concerns raised by members on the site visit in respect of the detrimental impact of the two storey side extension on the neighbouring property, which had a single aspect habitable room, the totality of the development including the basement on neighbouring properties and the cumulative impact on the character of the area. Members then voted on the officer’s recommendation for approval which was declared lost
Voting on the substantive recommendation for approval subject to conditions as set out in the Draft Decision Notice as amended in the supplementary report was recorded as follows:-
FOR: Councillor Mahmood (1)
AGAINST: Councillors Choudhary, Marquis and Maurice (3)
ABSTENTION: Councillors Agha, Colacicco, Ezeajughi and M Patel (4)
DECISION: Refused planning permission for the following reasons;
Impact of the first floor side extension on amenities of the first floor side habitable room window to the neighbouring property; cumulative impact of the extensions and basement on the character of the house and area and the potential impact on the structural integrity of the attached house in view of the scale of the basement works.
Supporting documents: