Agenda item
4 Tracey Avenue, London NW2 4AT (Ref. 09/2177)
Minutes:
09/2177 |
Erection of first-floor rear extensions, increase in height of existing roof, installation of two rear dormer windows and two front rooflights, two flank rooflights facing No. 3 Tracey Avenue and one flank rooflight facing No. 5 Tracey Avenue to dwellinghouse.
|
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
|
In reference to the tabled supplementary, the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks clarified the separation distances of the application site and 8 Henson Avenue and added that as the distances exceeded the minimum guidance outlined in SPG17, adequate levels of privacy would be maintained. He continued that the applicant had agreed to landscape the rear of the boundary with No. 5 Tracey Avenue and in order to ensure that the appearance and setting for the proposed development enhanced the visual amenity of the locality he recommended an additional condition 6 as set out in the tabled supplementary report. The Head of Area Planning then referred to additional letters of objection and stated that although the proposal would continue its projection out towards the rear garden thus resulting in some loss of light, it was not considered to be significant enough to warrant refusal. He addressed the concerns on the garage and its relationship with the proposed extension and also drew members’ attention to the reasons as to why it was not considered appropriate to refuse the proposal on design grounds.
Mr Derek Murrell an objector stated that the proposed development was likely to give rise to loss of light and outlook as well as overlooking to adjacent properties and their gardens. He therefore requested members to ask the applicant to ensure a sufficient set back in the interest of privacy.
Mr Derek Wax objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would overlook adjoining properties leading to loss of privacy and residential amenities. He added that the proposal, with its unacceptable increase in size and bulk, would constitute an overdevelopment of the site with dominant features. Mr Wax added that the development would put pressure on parking, cause access problems and create a precedent for similar undesirable developments in the area.
Mr Brill, the applicant’s agent stated that the proposal which would remain in use as a single family dwelling would maintain distances far in excess of the SPG requirements as explained by the Head of Area Planning. He submitted that with reduced overlooking from the site, the proposal would not impact on the residential amenities of the area.
At the start of members’ discussion Councillor R Moher expressed a view that the proposal which would be overwhelming in size would constitute an over development of the site. The Chair added that the application complied with planning guidelines and as far as 8 Henson Road was concerned it would have noimpact however it would have some adverse impact on 5 Tracey Avenue. Members were minded to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation for approval for the following reasons; size of the building; its impact on No. 5 Tracey Avenue and the scale of the development.
Voting on the substantive recommendation for approval was recorded as follows;
FOR: Councillor Hirani (1)
AGAINST: Councillors Anwar, Cummins, Jackson, R Moher
and HM Patel (5)
ABSTENTION: Councillors Kansagra, Baker, Hashmi and Long (4)
DECISION: Planning permission refused. |
Supporting documents: