Agenda item
179 Anson Road, London, NW2 4AS (Ref. 13/2269)
Decision:
Refused planning permission as recommended.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a detached ground and subterranean storey single bedroom
dwelling house with fully accessible accommodation and associated hard and
soft landscaping
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission.
Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager, with reference to the tabled supplementary clarified the amendments made by the applicant since the previously refused scheme including to the siting, design and further details of wheelchair turning space. She continued that the proposed basement would be served by a lightwell to the front of the property providing approximately 4 sqm of usable patio space. In terms of outlook, the lightwell would be 2m deep when viewed from the physio room and 3m deep from bedroom (not taking into account of steps). She advised that, as set out in the Committee Report, the proposal isnot considered to provide a good quality of accommodation. Members heard that the proposed house would be 1.9m higher than the proposed front boundary treatment and thus the proposal would be readily visible from the street scene. Rachel McConnell then referred to the examples at 54 Wrottesley Road/Furness Road NW10 and 40-42 Okehampton Road/Dundonald Road NW10 submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that precedents existed. In response, the Area Planning Manager, outlined the response as set out in the Supplementary Report, concluding thatthe examples provided did not alter the recommendation for refusal.
Mr Chris Lipka, objected to the application stated for the following reasons;
· The subterranean part of the proposal would be too close to the building line and would cause subsidence which would give rise to repairs to damaged buildings.
· The proposal was considered to offer a cramped form of development with inappropriate design.
· The proposal would set an precedent for other undesirable developments in the area in future.
· Barratt Homes were offering wheelchair accessible flats for sale which could satisfy the needs and preferences of the applicant.
In response to a Member’s questions, Mr Lipka reiterated his concerns on subsidence which he added could over time cause a material change to the character of the area. He reconfirmed that his concerns also related to the design of the proposal which he considered to be out of character.
Ms Lara Masters, the applicant, stated that due to her medical condition which may result in paralysis, she required an accessible property to meet her needs. She advised that the supply of such accommodation was inadequate. She referred to the conversion of a property on the opposite side of Anson Road which had taken approximately six years to be appropriately converted for a wheelchair. She added that her proposal would be an appropriate development, offering quality accommodation for her needs with ample lighting and acceptable outlook without adverse impact on neighbouring properties. Ms Masters added that under the Equality Act 2010, Brent Council was required to take reasonable steps to avoid any disadvantage to her through severe lack of inclusive housing in the borough. She said that granting consent for the proposed dwelling would facilitate the needs of current and future disabled residents as well as helping to meet the targets of accessible, sustainable, affordable and varied housing. In urging members for approval, Ms Masters added that if Members endorsed the recommendation for refusal, she would be forced to live in inappropriate accommodation or be ostracised from the area.
In response to Members’ questions, Ms Masters stated that the Council was obliged under the Equality Act 2010 to show greater flexibility and allow her to carry out the development which would satisfy her needs. She confirmed that she had had the use of wheelchair accessible lift for several years in her home but this is no longer operational. Ms Masters continued that the proposed development would not constitute a cramped form of accommodation, was fully compliant with policy and its outlook would be similar to the example she provided in Okehampton Road. In her view officers had mis-calculated the amenity space of her proposal.
In response to Members’ questions, officers clarified that a personal permission would generally only be considered in cases where it related to a use rather than physical works given the difficulties in requiring a development to be reverted back to its original state when it was no longer required. The Area Planning Manager continued that whilst the personal needs of the disabled applicant were understood, they were not considered to outweigh the harm which would be caused to the character of the area through the development of this back garden for a new dwelling that would fail to comply with planning policy.
In response to Ms Masters comments that the Council had failed to consider the Equality Act 2010, the legal representative advised that the application should be considered against the provisions of the statutory development plan, associated guidance and other material considerations. He advised that whilst consideration must be given to the personal needs of the applicant, the Equality Act 2010 did not state that these personal need would override all other considerations.
DECISION: Refused planning permission as recommended.
Supporting documents: