Agenda item
17/2643 44 Hardinge Road, London, NW10 3PJ
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: The erection of a single storey ground floor rear extension, conversion of existing garage, a hip to gable roof extension, enlargement of existing dormer and associated internal alterations to accommodate for the conversion of a 4 bedroom single semi-detached dwelling house into 2 self-contained flats (1x3 bed and 1x2 bed).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the report.
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.
That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
David Glover (Area Planning Manager) introduced the report and answered members’ questions. He set out the proposal and added that the proposed conversion of the dwellinghouse into two flats and associated extensions was considered to be in accordance with relevant policy.
Heather Jones (objector) raised the following issues;
i) Lack of consultation with residents
ii) The proposed change of use would set an undesirable precedence for similar developments in the Hardinge Road area.
iii) The proposal, with its excessive footprint, would constitute an overdevelopment of the site.
iv) Inadequate parking provision which would exacerbate the current parking situation.
v) Inadequate amenity space provision.
Denny Fitzpatrick in objecting to the application referenced a petition signed by 59 residents opposing the proposed development and added that residents were not properly consulted and that no site notices were put up. She continued that the proposal which would be the only sub-divided property in Hardinge Road would alter the character of the streetscene. In addition, it would worsen the existing parking situation as well as give rise to waste management problems.
In commenting on the claim about lack of consultation, David Glover stated that
in accordance with Article 15 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the application was publicised by serving the notice on the adjoining owners or occupiers and other neighbours on 30/06/2017. He thus referenced the significant responses from consultees as set out in the consultation paragraph of the report. He added that site notices and consultation meetings were not necessary for the application which was considered to be a small scale development.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Warren (ward member) stated that he had been approached by some of the local residents. Councillor Warren circulated some photographs to the Committee. He then referenced several aspects of the policy paragraphs of the officer’s report to support his contention that the application contained several breaches of the guidelines and policies. He clarified that the proposed alterations and extensions to the original residential property did not appear subordinate or respect the character of the original dwellinghouse and would therefore not be in harmony with its surroundings. He continued that the proposed conversion with its garden space deficiency, would be an uncharacteristic addition, adversely impacting the character of the streetscene and would also increase on-street parking pressures in Hardinge Road. Councillor Warren urged members to be minded to refuse the application or to defer it to enable residents’ concerns to be addressed.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shaw (ward member) stated that she had been approached by some of the local residents. Councillor Shaw stated that the purpose of the proposal was to enable the applicant to accommodate his elderly mother within the family home rather than in a care home. She continued that the he proposal would not alter the character of the area, would not set a precedence nor give rise to parking problems as the area was already within a controlled parking zone. She added that claims for loss of amenities and loss of light were unfounded as the proposal complied with the criteria set out within policy DMP17.
Guy Parsons (applicant) informed members that the scheme had been revised to comply with guidelines and policies and urged members to endorse the recommendation.
In responding to the issues raised above, David Glover informed members that the application exceeded the requirements of policy DMP17 on minimum sizes and satisfied SPG5 in that it would improve the appearance of the property. He added that there already existed properties in the area with large dormer windows and that outlook and privacy would not be an issue. Members heard that the scheme accorded with parking standards and that the provision of 1.95 car parking spaces were acceptable. He added that the hip to gable roof would not substantially increase the size of the property and that the roof form of the gable would be an improvement.
Prior to voting members agreed an informative requiring the applicant to ensure that any damage to public realm is repaired and that the maximum standards were applied to fire safety issues.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended subject to an additional informative that any damage to public realm is repaired and that the maximum standards were applied to fire safety issues.
(Voting was as follows: For 5; Against 1; Abstention 2)
Supporting documents: