Agenda item
Building rear of 48 Haycroft Gardens, London (Ref.14/2761)
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to conditions listed after paragraph 14, amended description and an additional condition on details of fencing.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing garage to the front and gym block to the rear and erection of a 3 bedroom bungalow on land to the rear of 48 Haycroft Gardens, NW10, with associated access, provision for car and cycle parking, bin stores and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions listed after paragraph 14 of the report.
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) with reference to the supplementary report informed members that the scale of the proposed dwelling had been reduced and he therefore corrected the description from 3 bedroom to 2 bedroom bungalow. In order to secure information relating to boundary treatment, he added an additional condition on details of fencing as set out in the supplementary report.
David Chambers, an objector, stated that the proposed development within a back garden would be contrary to the suburban character of the area and local urban grain (Policy H15). He added that the proposal would lead to increased noise and disturbance associated with occupancy of the site as a dwelling, resulting in adverse impact on local parking conditions. David Chambers informed members that the reasons for refusing the application in 1994 were still valid. In response to members’ questions, David Chambers stated that due to potential over-intensive use rather than personal use of the “Dojo”, the proposal would give rise to security issues an additionally, would not improve the character of the area.
Luke Allen an objector reiterated the concerns expressed by the previous objector and objected to the principle of development on the site on the grounds that the proposed development would result in light pollution from the “Dojo”.
In response to the concerns raised by the objectors, Andy Bates stated that the proposal would increase natural surveillance of the area and would have a boundary treatment as an additional condition. He added that there were additional restrictions on the use of the ‘Dojo’ building to reduce its impact on neighbours. In relation to concerns raised about general noise and disturbance from the proposal, he drew members’ attention to the reduction in the number of bedrooms and the restriction on vehicular parking to the front of the site to prevent vehicles from entering the rear part of the site. He added that given the separation distances between neighbouring properties, it was not considered that the development would have a materially harmful impact on noise and disturbance to neighbours given the general pattern of development elsewhere. He continued that the removal of permitted development rights would allow future control to be exercised over building extensions and outbuildings in the interests of residential amenity.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Kelcher stated that he had been approached by the residents in connection with the proposed development. Councillor Kelcher objected to the proposal on the grounds that it would constitute a backland development which would result in loss of trees, privacy and noise nuisance for neighbouring residents.
Harman Sond (applicant’s agent) stated that the scale of the development had been reduced from 3 bedroom to 2 bedroom with acceptable Design and Access Statement submitted. He referred to the additional condition on details of fencing and boundary treatment which would minimise any potential impact on neighbouring residential amenity. The agent confirmed that the proposal would have a lesser footprint but the height would remain the same as the existing house. In response to a member’s enquiry, the applicant’s agent stated that he had worked with officers and the Fire Service to ensure that access for emergency vehicles would not be impeded. He added that a considerable distance had been maintained to minimise potential light pollution to the occupants of No 46, although the applicant would welcome an additional condition to control lighting, if members were so minded.
Steve Weeks (Head of Planning) clarified the separation distances and reiterated the additional condition on external lighting to control amenity space and the restriction to control access to vehicles erring the site.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended subject to amended description to 2 bed bungalow and additional conditions requiring details of fencing as set out in the supplementary, limit to external lighting and access to vehicles to the site..
Supporting documents: