Issue - decisions
61 Beverley Gardens, Wembley, HA9 9RB (Ref. 09/1888)
13/10/2009 - 61 Beverley Gardens, Wembley, HA9 9RB (Ref. 09/1888)
09/1888 |
Erection of two-storey, end-of-terrace dwellinghouse with single storey rear extension and front porch, installation of vehicle access, provision of car-parking, refuse storage to front and landscaping to site subject to a Deed of Agreement dated xxx under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.
|
|
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant consent in principle subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement and request that Members delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture, or duly authorised person, to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor; but if the agreement has not been entered into within a time to be agreed, to refuse permission but delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to grant permission in respect of a further application which is either identical to the current one or, in his opinion, not materially different, provided that a section 106 agreement containing the above terms has been entered into.
|
|
|
With reference to the tabled supplementary, Steve Weeks clarified the relationship between the application site and No. 59 Beverley Gardens adding that the proposal was considered to provide sufficient levels of outlook from the kitchen window of No. 59 Beverley Gardens. He informed the Committee that enforcement notices (2) had been served on 63 Beverley Gardens and the adjoining land for breaches of planning conditions as set out in the tabled supplementary. He updated the Committee that the Borough Solicitor had confirmed that a signed copy of the S106 legal agreement had been received by the Council's legal department and that the agreement was ready to be sealed should Members resolve to grant planning permission. Steve Weeks drew members’ attention to an amendment in condition 8 on bin storage and recommended a further condition in order to ensure that the alterations were carried out satisfactorily, as set out in the tabled supplementary.
Mrs Marcar an objector raised concerns about the application on the following grounds:
Excessive massing and density would be uncharacteristic
Loss of privacy
Loss of sunlight and daylight
Parking problems in the area would ne aggravated
The extended property could be used as a house in multiple occupation.
Mr John Parker an objector speaking on behalf of Barnhill Residents Association circulated some photographs of the property and raised concerns that the proposed development in terms of its massing and density would constitute an overdevelopment of the site. He continued that as the applicant was also the owner of No. 63 Beverley Gardens which was currently the subject of enforcement notices for various breaches, it was likely that those breaches would be repeated at No. 61 Beverley Gardens, the application site. The breaches which included unauthorised extensions would uncharacteristically encourage multiple occupation.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Van Colle one of the ward members stated that he had not been approached by the applicant or the objectors. Councillor Van Colle submitted that as the applicant had a history for flouting planning laws, the Committee might feel appropriate to impose an additional condition restricting the use of the property to a single family dwelling only.
During the discussion that followed some members expressed a view that the proposal, which they considered to be an overdevelopment, would be out of character with the area. However it was generally felt that the imposition of the additional condition for use as a single family dwelling could address some of the concerns expressed. In recommending the additional condition Steve Weeks added that the development would be monitored closely in conjunction with the Council’s Building Control unit. In respect of the concerns expressed about parking, he stated that the 2 car parking spaces provided to the front of the property complied with the Council’s parking standards. The legal representative, Tony Vincett advised the Committee that the material change at No.63 and ownership were not valid planning reasons for refusal adding that members needed to base their decisions on planning policies only.
In summing up the discussion, the Chair referred to the concerns and suspicions expressed by the local residents including the concern that the proposal would be out of character. He added that for those reasons he would not be supporting the application.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions as amended in condition 8, an additional condition on the use of the property as a single family dwelling, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement and request that Members delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture, or duly authorised person, to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor; but if the agreement has not been entered into within a time to be agreed, to refuse permission but delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to grant permission in respect of a further application which is either identical to the current one or, in his opinion, not materially different, provided that a section 106 agreement containing the above terms has been entered into. |