Agenda item

Refuse planning permission.

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing single-storey building and erection of part 3 storey

building with basement and roof space accommodation, comprising 7x1 bed

and 2x2 bed flats with refuse and cycle storage facilities

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission.

Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager submitted the following responses to statements made by the applicant’s agent at the site visit in relation to the access road, the relationship with neighbouring properties and other buildings with front dormers in the local area.  The access way was outside of the red-line boundary for the site but would be required to provide access to the cycle and bin stores for the proposed development. He added that the Council could not condition the provision of storage facilities on land which was outside of the development site, despite the applicant Counsel’s opinion. He continued that the proposal failed to comply with the Council's Guidelines set out in SPG17, adding that the existence of similar relationship did not justify the form of development proposed here.  Andy Bates advised members that the predominant building type along this section of Harrow Road was three storey terraced perimeter block with either flat roofs or pitched roofs and that front dormer windows were not a predominant characteristic of the buildings. Members heard that the proposal to include front dormer windows as part of the development would mean that the building would not be in keeping with the predominant character of the surrounding street scene. Furthermore the proposed front dormers were of a size and scale which would dominate the roof plan, adding bulk to the roof plane and thus would detract from the character of the area.  In reference to the tabled supplementary report, Andy Bates drew members’ attention to the responses to matters referred to in the applicant’s briefing note for Councillors on the following; Loss of Employment, Design, Impact on Neighbouring Occupiers, Residential Quality, Transport, Parking and Servicing and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Mr George Vadeskys, the applicant’s agent stated that the removal of the MoT test station and associated environmental problems would improve highway safety and residential amenity.  He continued that the offer for a basement office space within the proposal would compensate for any loss of employment in the area and improve the streetscene. Mr Vadeskys added that as only one resident expressed concern about the development the impact on residents would be negligible particularly as there would be no loss of light and outlook. He added that the proposal would blend with and improve the streetscene. He stated that the design and the residential quality of the proposal accorded with the London Plan and reflected demand for first time buyers.  Members heard from Mr Vadeskys that as it would be “permit free” and would not present parking problems the Council’s Head of Transportation had not expressed objection to the proposal.

In response to members’ enquiries, Mr Vadeskys stated that the proposal would comply with policy EMP9 and by providing alternative uses, would provide benefit to a building which was currently in a poor state of repair.  He added that the proposal would not constitute an over-development of the site and in his view struck the right balance.

The Area Planning Manager advised members that the applicant’s offer for provision of employment uses on the ground floor was received too late to enable officers to undertake consultation and assessment. However, the provision of basement office accommodation in this location would not normally overcome the EMP9 policy concern. In commenting on the applicant’s claim that the scheme accorded with the London Plan, Andy Bates stated that the application failed to comply with SPG17 in terms of outlook, overbearing, deficient residential quality and impact on residents.

DECISION: Refused planning permission as recommended.