Decision details
10 Grenfell Gardens, Harrow HA3 0QZ (Ref. 09/1615)
Decision Maker: Planning Committee
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Decisions:
09/1615 |
Demolition of side chimney next to No. 12 Grenfell Gardens, conversion of garage into a habitable room, erection of single and two storey side to rear extension, rear dormer window, two flank and one rear roof light to dwellinghoue together with an outbuilding in the rear garden of the dwellinghouse (as per revised plans received on 02.10.2009).
|
|
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions. |
|
|
With reference to the tabled supplementary, the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks informed members about two additional letters which raised objections to the demolition of the chimney located towards the rear of the property and the depth of the ground-floor rear extension. He submitted the following in response;
Given the generally sympathetic design of the proposed alterations to the building, the loss of the chimney, on balance, could be supported. He continued that the retention of this feature would rather result in the chimney breast rising through habitable rooms.
The loss of the chimney and the introduction of a sympathetic side extension would, on balance, preserve the character and appearance of the Mount Stewart Conservation Area, and as such would comply with policies BE25 and BE26.
Whilst the additional 0.5m would exceed permitted development for a semi-detached house and the guidance as outlined in SPG5 and the Design Guide, its height and set-in from the boundary was considered sufficient to allow No. 8 Grenfell Gardens to maintain adequate levels of light and outlook.
Mr Sharif Hasnain an objector stated that the proposed development would lead to loss of light, outlook and detrimental impact on residential amenities.
In response, the Head of Area Planning stated that as the roof would be marginally above average (0.1m) with an insignificant impact on natural light and outlook, the proposal was on balance, considered acceptable subject to conditions as set out in the main report.
|
Wards Affected: Kenton;
Publication date: 13/10/2009
Date of decision: 13/10/2009
Decided at meeting: 13/10/2009 - Planning Committee
Accompanying Documents: