Agenda item
22/0626 - 69 Hardinge Road, London, NW10 3PN
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and additional conditions that were verbally updated within the meeting, to ensure the demolition of the existing outbuilding and to prevent the properties from being converted into small HMOs without planning permission..
Minutes:
PROPOSAL
Proposed conversion of single dwelling house into two self contained flats, associated internal alterations, subdivision of rear garden, removal of rear outbuilding, partial removal of side extension, installation of refuse storage and cycle storage in front garden, front boundary treatment, associated hard and soft landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION~:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:
(1) That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.
(2) That the Head of Planning is delegated 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.
Lena Summers, Planning Officer, South Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application proposed the conversion of a single dwelling house into two self contained flats, 1x 1 bed flat and 1x 3 bed flat. Member’s attention was drawn to the supplementary report that detailed further objections that had been received from residents who had previously objected. The objections related to the impact of the construction work, the principle of the development, parking and bin and cycle storage. These points had been addressed by officers in the Committee Report consultation section. In addition to this a further condition would be discussed with the Committee with regard to the dwelling not being used as an HMO.
As no questions were raised by members, the Chair invited Mr Anthony Modeste (objector) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. Mr Modeste introduced himself as the home owner of the neighbouring property to 69 Hardinge Road then shared his concerns as follows:
· Historically the residents of 69 Hardinge Road had not adhered to the planning laws or building regulations in relation to previous work carried out on the property.
· The quality of work completed had reportedly been to a poor standard Mr Modeste drew member’s attention to the photos he had provided to the Committee that demonstrated the quality of work previously undertaken.
· Concerns was shared that the poor quality of work impacted upon neighbouring properties and potentially their value.
· Due to the poor work that had been previously undertaken, Mr Modeste felt there was encroachment on to the party wall of his property.
· Due to concerns that the applicant was not being transparent with his intentions for the adaptations to the property, Mr Modeste was concerned that the property could become an HMO.
· Mr Modeste felt that the proposed changes to the property would not encourage families to the area as families would not want to live in flats. Mr Modeste raised concerns that this could have a knock on effect on house prices in the area.
· In summarising the concerns raised, Mr Modeste urged the Committee to refuse the approval of planning permission.
The Chair thanked Mr Modeste for his contribution to the Committee before assuring Mr Modeste that if planning permission were approved and building regulations were subsequently not adhered to, enforcement action could be taken by the local authority. In addition to this the Committee were reminded that any effect on housing value was not a material planning consideration.
The Chair then invited Mr Jordan Raoul (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Mr Raoul introduced himself as the nephew of the previous speaker Mr Modeste, he also resided at the neighbouring property to 69 Hardigne Road. Mr Raoul shared his concerns as follows:
- If planning permission were approved it would uncharacteristically change the suburban family orientated character of the area.
- Additionally the architectural character of the area would change, setting a precedent for more family sized homes to be converted in to smaller dwellings. Concerns were shared that this would be in conflict with Brent’s Local Plan to build more family sized homes.
- The existing party wall had been obstructed by the poor quality work previously undertaken by the applicant at 69 Hardinge Road.
- Mr Raoul queried how the PTAL 3 rating would be affected if there were an influx of people due to more developments such as the one applied for being constructed, encouraging overcrowding to the area and putting more pressure on local transport.
The Chair thanked Mr Raoul for his contributions to the meeting before inviting the final speaker on the item, Mr Mark Pender, PPM Planning (applicant’s agent) to address the Committee ( online) in relation to the application. Mr Pender raised the following key points:
- The applicant had addressed the reasons for refusal of the previous application that was refused on the grounds that it did not provide adequate external amenity space.
- A communal garden had been part of the original plans, however this had been dismissed due to issues of privacy and overlooking from the ground floor flat.
- The revised scheme presented to Planning Committee remedied both issues. Each flat now had a private garden in excess of required standards. The 1 bed ground floor flat garden measured 22m2 (20m2 was the requirement) and the garden for the family unit measured 59m2 (50m2 was the requirement).
- As a result of providing private gardens for each flat, the privacy issue had been removed.
- In conclusion, taking account of the appeal decision and Policy BH11 of the Brent Local Plan 2022, the principle was acceptable. The inspector’s concerns related to private amenity space and privacy concerns had been successfully addressed and on this basis the Committee were encouraged to approve Planning permission.
As there were no Committee questions for the agent, the Chair invited Committee members to ask officers any clarifying questions they may have. Officers had one query regarding how the council would stop either of the flats becoming HMO’s. In response officers confirmed that a condition would be imposed limiting both dwellings from becoming HMO’s. If the applicant wanted to use either dwelling as an HMO a separate planning application would have to be made. If either dwelling was found to be used as an HMO without going through planning permission procedures, enforcement action would be taken.
As there were no further questions from members and having established that all members had followed the discussions, the Chair asked members to vote on the recommendations.
DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and additional conditions that were verbally updated within the meeting, to ensure the demolition of the existing outbuilding and to prevent the properties from being converted into small HMOs without planning permission.
(Voting on the recommendation was unanimous.)
Supporting documents: