Agenda item
SPECIAL ITEM
19 Brook Avenue
Decision:
Update on planning and enforcement history of the extensions to 19 Brook Avenue, Wembley HA9 8PH and the current enforcement position
(i) To note that the part single-storey, part two-storey extension to side and rearof dwellinghouse is considered to have been re-built in accordance with planning permission 99/2269.
(ii) To note that the dormer window has been built under permitted development and does not require planning permission
(iii) Agreed that no further planning enforcement action be taken in respect of the above extensions
Minutes:
Members considered this report which dealt with the extensive planning and enforcement history of the extensions to 19 Brook Avenue, Wembley HA9 8PH together with and an update on the current enforcement position. The report was deferred from consideration at the meeting on 16th March, 2010 for a site visit to enable members to assess the development and objections raised to it and again on 14th April, 2010 following the site visit pending the outcome of an Inspection by the Council’s Building Control department.
Mr Mohammad Al-Thiri an objector circulated copies of an independent surveyor’s report which he had commissioned to support his claims that despite the works carried out by the applicant, water penetration to the adjoining resident at No. 18 continued and that overhanging was still a major issue. In addition to the detrimental impact on residential amenities, the development was likely to set a precedent for similar undesirable developments.
Ms Paula Saunders in objection expressed similar sentiments adding that the overhang left insufficient width for maintenance resulting in dampness and raising issues of health and safety. She continued that in her view, the officers’ report had failed to address the pertinent issues to which the development had given rise.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor HB Patel, ward member stated that he had been approached by the objectors to the development. Councillor HB Patel stated that the applicant had not properly followed the planning regulations and in urging members to seriously consider the independent surveyor’s report, he requested either a deferral or refusal of the application.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Harrison, ward member stated that she had been approached by the objectors to the development. Councillor Harrison echoed sentiments similar to those expressed by Councillor HB Patel.
In responding to the issues raised, the Area Planning Manager submitted the following;
· Minor variations in distance between the properties were not considered a significant variation from the approved plans.
· It was impossible to tell whether the gutter as currently installed was overhanging the boundary or not.
· The Building Control Officer’s conclusion was that the gutter and its relationship with the tiles were no longer grounds to suggest contraventions of the building regulations.
· The residents had been advised that the Council’s policies normally permitted the conversion of garages provided the front garden area was sufficiently landscaped and designed to accommodate parking for two vehicles.
· The majority of the front garden had been paved over with the exception of a small area of grass under permitted development.
· Planning Enforcement Officers had confirmed that the property was not in use as a House in Multiple Occupation.
In conclusion the Area Planning Manager submitted that the extension and dormer had been built in accordance with the planning permission and were not in breach of planning control. He continued that the gutter was satisfactory and similar to that found on other properties within the street and that the property was being used for their lawful purpose as a single family dwelling. He therefore recommended members to endorse this report and agree that no further planning enforcement action should be taken at the premises in respect of these particular extensions or its use.
RESOLVED:-
(i) To note that the part single-storey, part two-storey extension to side and rearof dwellinghouse is considered to have been re-built in accordance with planning permission 99/2269.
(ii) To note that the dormer window has been built under permitted development and does not require planning permission
(iii) Agreed that no further planning enforcement action be taken in respect of the above extensions
Supporting documents: