Issue - meetings

Refused planning permission on the basis that the Committee felt the application was in breach of Policies DMP1 and BHC1 of Brent’s Local Plan and the guidance set out within the Sudbury Court Conservation Area Design Guide.

PROPOSAL

Proposed first-floor side extension, rear dormer, ground-floor rear canopy and replacement of ground-floor rear window with door to dwellinghouse.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to REFUSE consent.

Jasmin Tailor, Planning Officer, North Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application sought planning permission to construct a first-floor side extension, rear dormer, ground-floor rear canopy and replacement of ground-floor rear window with door to dwellinghouse on to the existing two storey semidetached dwellinghouse. The site was located within the Sudbury Court Conservation Area (a designated heritage asset).

The Committee was advised that the application had been refused on three previous occasions due to the excessive width of the side extension. Each refusal of the application had been appealed and dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

It was noted that the application had been referred for consideration by the Planning Committee as a result of three councillors who supported the application requesting that the application was determined by the Committee.

The Officer recommendation remained to refuse planning consent due to the excessive width of the side extension, as this would be considered to have a harmful impact on the character of the host property and wider Sudbury Court Conservation Area.

The Chair thanked Jasmin Tailor for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited Barbara Carredo (applicant) and Edward Seaman (architect) both of whom attended in person to share the allocated time slot to address the Committee. Edward Seaman highlighted the following key points:

·                The application before the Committee was presented after significant consideration and collaboration with Brent Council, dating back to 2017.

·                The proposed small side extension had been designed to be sensitive to the architectural fabric of the ground floor extension and local context.

·                The key issue of the width of the side extension was not being challenged arbitrarily; it was felt that the guidance in relation to the width of side extensions was a standard guideline that was generally applicable to semi-detached homes, however the property in question was large in size and occupied a spacious corner plot.

·                It was felt that on this occasion the guidance standards should be looked at in line with the unique features of the property.

Barbara Carredo the continued, to sharing the following key points:

·                It had taken many years and failed attempts to negotiate an acceptable proposal in order to obtain planning approval for the required modest side extension.

·                The negotiations and previous refusals had seen the application reduce the width of the side extension repeatedly, coming down from an initial 6m width to the current proposal of 4.5m.

·                It was felt at this point that no further reductions could be made by the applicant as anything smaller in width would look out of character.

·                It was felt that the proposed application was not dissimilar to one that had been approved locally.

·                The application was supported locally, evidenced by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5