Agenda item
Garages rear of 55 Mount Pleasant Road, Henley Road, London NW10 (Ref. 10/0932)
Decision:
Planning permission granted subject to conditions including an additional condition requiring details of mechanical ventilation, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor.
Minutes:
Demolition of an existing single-storey, double-garage building to rear of 55 Mount Pleasant Road, NW10; and erection of a new single-storey, flat-roofed, two-bedroom dwellinghouse with basement storage accommodation, removal of the existing vehicular access onto Henley Road with associated landscaping of the garden amenity area. |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions including an additional condition requiring details of mechanical ventilation, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor.
|
With reference to the supplementary information Andy Bates, the Area Planning Manager stated that the principle that this site was acceptable for the erection of a dwellinghouse had been established by earlier appeals on the site, first in 2000, but more recently in 2008. In reference to the Planning Inspector’s decision for 08/1976 he added that the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, in terms of outlook, privacy as well as noise and disturbance, would be acceptable. He informed the Committee that the issue of precedence was not usually a planning consideration, as each case was assessed on its own individual merits. The Planning Manager continued that the proposed basement would be used for utility/storage and that the quantity and quality of external amenity space in the current application with the useable outside space would now just exceed the Council’s guidance.
The Planning Manager continued that in order to address concerns raised by some neighbours about the implications for extraction from bathroom and kitchen areas on adjoining residents an additional condition requiring details of mechanical ventilation as set out in the supplementary information tabled at the meeting was recommended. This condition would allow the Local Planning Authority to exercise proper control over the development and to safeguard the amenities of the adjoining occupiers.
Mr Martin West an objector considered that the proposal would constitute a cramped form of development and an over-development of the site which would be out of character with the surrounding area. He added that the detrimental impact of the proposal would be significant and was likely to set a precedent for similar undesirable developments in the area. Mr West urged members to refuse the application and that a decision on any future application for the re-development of the site should involve the local community.
Mr Sillis an objector stated that since the appeal decision for this application, there had been a fundamental change to national Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) which would directly affect the way the current application should be assessed. He expressed a view that the policy change had given Local Planning Authorities new powers to stop the re-development of land in built up areas such as private residential gardens.
Mr Mike Mills the applicant’s agent stated that the principle of development and its suitability had been firmly established. He continued that the impact of the proposed development in terms of outlook and privacy was acceptable as it would make a positive contribution to the character of the locality. Mr Mills added that the design of the scheme had incorporated views expressed by the local residents during consultations, adding that the objection raised on grounds of precedence was not a valid one.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shaw a ward member stated that she had been approached by objectors to the application. Councillor Shaw objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would constitute an intrusion into neighbours’ gardens to the detriment of their amenities. She added that the excavations proposed within the application would destroy the mature trees in the area and that the proposal would set a precedent for future undesirable developments in the area.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Cheese a ward member stated that he had been approached by objectors to the application. Councillor Cheese reiterated that the policy change to the development of back garden and brownfield sites to which the objector had referred meant that the site could no longer be re-developed.
The Head of Area Planning confirmed that copies of the recent policy change had been circulated to all Local Planning Authorities. However, the removal of residential gardens from the definition of ‘brownfield’ did not in itself indicate that officers’ conclusions and recommendations were flawed. The change did not require the refusal of all applications but provided a basis for Local Planning Authorities to resist unacceptable developments. In this case, the specific design and impact issues had been considered in some detail by two Inspectors and, unless the Committee could indentify how these issues could be considered differently, the previous assessments had some weight. He added that the issue of precedent was not absolute as each application was decided on its own merit
During discussion Councillor Kataria moved an amendment for deferral in light of the recent policy change pending a further report with input from the Borough Solicitor. This was put to the vote and declared lost. Members then voted on the substantive recommendation which was declared carried by a majority.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions including an additional condition requiring details of mechanical ventilation, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor. |
.
Supporting documents:
- 3, Garages rear of 55 Mount Pleasant Road NW10, item 3. PDF 287 KB
- 3 - Supplementary Info - gagrages rear 55 Mount Pleasant Road, item 3. PDF 55 KB