Agenda item
22 Wembley Park Drive, Wembley, HA9 8HA (Ref: 10/0054)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 18 August 2010 7.00 pm (Item 3.)
- View the background to item 3.
Decision:
Refused planning permission.
Minutes:
Retrospective application for a single-storey outbuilding and proposed reduction in height to outbuilding in rear garden of dwellinghouse. |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission.
|
This application was reported to Planning Committee under the provisions of Clause 24 of the Planning Code of Practice following the members’ decision at the last meeting of the Planning Committee on 20th July 2010 of 'minded to grant' retrospective consent for the outbuilding located in the rear garden of 22 Wembley Park Drive, contrary to officers’ recommendation that planning permission be refused. This report discussed the implications of the committee's resolution, maintained the original recommendation to refuse, but set out the planning conditions that should be attached if members decided to grant planning permission.
In setting out the context of the recommendation for refusal the Area Planning Manager Neil McClellan compared this outbuilding to similar ones that had been refused adding that of the 24 similar developments refused so far this year, 11 were retrospective. He added that the average size of outbuildings refused was less than 35 square metres which was far less in size to the outbuilding at 22 Wembley Park Drive which had an area of 58 square metres.
Mr John O’Dea (Senior) in objecting to the application contended that as an enforcement for its demolition had been served with demolition order, planning permission could not be granted as in his view the outbuilding had ceased to exist. He continued that the property was still being used as a house in multiple occupation (HMO) and that its use continued to give rise to noise, disruption and excessive rubbish in the street. Mr O’Dea (Junior) echoed similar sentiments.
Mr Dignesh Patel the applicant submitted that the outbuilding had been granted certificate of lawfulness of use and that the subsequent misuse was carried out by a previous tenant at the property whilst he was away in India during his father’s funeral. He continued that since returning, he had taken steps to ensure that the use of the outbuilding was incidental to the main property by removing the kitchen, toilet and shower facilities as well as reduced the height of the outbuilding as required by Planning Services. Mr Patel added that as the outbuilding was about 30 metres away from the nearest property, it did not give rise to noise and harm to the neighbours.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Butt, ward member stated that he had been approached by the applicant. Councillor Butt stated that the unauthorised use of the property was carried out by a previous tenant whilst the applicant was away in India. As the applicant had since taken steps to ensure that the use of the outbuilding was incidental to the main property, it would be inappropriate for officers to pursue the enforcement notice. He added that as the applicant was willing to accept conditions for the grant of retrospective planning permission, it would be unreasonable to require him to reduce the footprint.
In response to the issues raised and questions from members, the Chief Planner stated that the enforcement notice was served on the property for the unauthorised use as an HMO and for the outbuilding. Although a certificate of lawfulness had been issued for an outbuilding at the site, the building constructed was designed for use as a separate dwelling and was clearly unlawful. He added that in order to regularise the situation either the building needed to be demolished, or an application submitted that reduced its overall footprint to approx 35 square metres.
Members voted by a majority to endorse officers’ recommendation for refusal for reasons stated in the main report.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice voting on the recommendation for refusal was recorded as follows:
FOR: Councillors Adeyeye, Cummins, Daly, Long and McLennan (5)
AGAINST: Councillors RS Patel, Seth, Hashmi and CJ Patel (4)
ABSTENTION: Councillor Kataria (1)
DECISION: Planning permission refused. |
Supporting documents: