67 Medway Gardens HA0 2RJ (Ref. 18/1597)
PROPOSAL: Erection of a first floor side extension and part two storey rear extension, loft conversion with hip to gable conversion, rear dormer, subdivision of the rear garden, 1No. front rooflight and new window to front elevation to facilitate the conversion of a single family dwelling into two self-contained flats (1 x 2 bed and 1x 3 bed) (Amended description 30.07.18)
RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report.
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.
Ms June Taylor (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions. She referenced the supplementary report which set out neighbours’ objections and added that the issues raised had already been included in the summary of objections and taken into account in the preparation of the committee report.
Ms Imelda Smith (objector) objected to the proposed development on grounds of increased pressure on on-street parking in an area with low PTAL rating of 2 and inadequate consultation process. She added that due to its bulk, the proposal failed to comply with Council policy. In response to members’ questions, Ms Smith explained that as Medway Gardens was not within the CPZ, it was always difficult for residents to find parking places for their vehicles.
Councillor Daly (ward member) addressed the committee to speak against the proposal. In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Daly stated that she had been approached by residents in connection with the application. Councillor Daly raised concerns about the consultation process and parking pressure on Medway Gardens. She added that as the proposal which was for a 6metre deep extension, it breached Council policy and urged members to consider granting permission for a 3metre extension instead.
Mr Oliver Block (Senior Planning Lawyer) advised that Members could only consider the application before them without revision to it.
Ms Liz Alexander (applicant’s agent) stated that the principle of development was accepted by Council policy as the proposal would re-provide family housing unit with direct access to the rear garden of the property. She continued that the design would comply with National Space Standards as well as complement the character of the streetscene without detrimental impact on residential amenities. Members heard that as the proposal would not give rise to parking issues, the Council’s Highways officers did not raise any pertinent objections.
Mr John Fletcher (Team Manager, Development Control Transportation) clarified that the provision of 2 car parking spaces was sufficient and complied with parking standards. In response to issues raised about consultation process, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that 22 neighbours were consulted. She continued that officers considered that further minor revisions to the scheme made by the applicant on 20 August 2018 were not material as to warrant a re-consultation.
The application was welcomed by majority of members. Members who dissented cited the following reasons; parking issues and overdevelopment of the property with consequent adverse impact on visual amenity from neighbouring rear gardens.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended.
(Voting was recorded as follows: For 5, Against 2, Abstention 1)