Agenda item
24 Creighton Road, London, London NW6 6ED (Ref.12/0372)
Decision:
Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Creation of a basement level, erection of single storey side infill extension and rear dormer window, installation of single front and rear rooflights and replacement of all windows and front door to dwellinghouse.
|
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
|
Mr David Wyatt an objector alleged that the creation of a basement would have severe impact on adjoining properties including damage to their foundations, vibration and dust during construction. He added that his family would be particularly affected by the dust as his daughter already suffered from breathing problems. Mr Wyatt informed the Committee that a similar development at 32 Creighton Road (by the same applicant) had caused the movement of door frames and cracks to the adjoining property at 30 Creighton Road.
Mr David Hodge speaking on behalf of Queens Park Area Residents’ Association stated that the applicant had not submitted a basement impact assessment for the application which he considered was necessary for such an application which would have severe damage to adjoining properties. Mr Hodge similarly referred to the development at 32 Creighton Road and the detrimental impact on the adjoining property. In response to an enquiry by the Chair about other harm that could be caused by the formation of the basement, Mr Hodge stated that it was the fear of the unknown impact in future.
Mr Steve McStea, the applicant’s agent stated that the formation of the basement would not result in increased dust, noise and vibration as alleged by the objectors as it would be broadly similar to construction for house extensions. He continued that the applicant would do everything possible to ensure that any inconvenience was kept to the minimum by using dust prevention processes and operating machinery in strict accordance with guidelines. He added that the structural design for the basement was sound and that the Party Wall Act would be available to any neighbour whose property suffered unduly as a result of the development.
During question time, Councillor Daly asked officers as to whether there had been a review of basement development in the borough. Councillor Cummins referred to the basement development at 32 Creighton Road and its impact on adjoining properties adding that the detrimental impact from such a development would not be immediate but surface several years after the development had taken place, an outcome that was not covered by the Party Wall Act. The Head of Area Planning responded that when the issue had been raised previously, the approach of other authorities had been reviewed as well as the views of such bodies as the Environment Agency and the local Building Control authority. The conclusion to date was that, while the potential disturbance and the fear of some structural effects was recognised, there was no basis for an embargo on these types of works. The approach was therefore to limit the design impacts of front lightwells, to seek to restrict the extent of the basement area and associated excavated areas to limit the impact on adjoining rear gardens and landscaping and to impose considerate contractor requirements.. Andy Bates added that condition 6 which required the person carrying out the works to be a member of the Considerate Construction Scheme and its code of practice would address some of the concerns raised by the objectors.
Councillor Daly moved an amended motion for deferral on the grounds of lack of adequate information on the impact of the development. This was put to the vote and declared lost. Members then voted on the substantive recommendation which was declared carried.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions and informatives. |
Supporting documents: