Agenda item

PROPOSAL:

Basement extension with front and rear lightwells to ground floor flat.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the draft Decision Notice.

Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and with reference to the supplementary report circulated prior to the meeting, responded to issues raised at the site visit.  Members were informed that the applicant had submitted a construction method statement (CMS) and plans showing the under pinning sequence ofthe property.  In respect of noise and hours of work, he stated that the decision notice would set out the hours of work and that the applicantwouldneed to join the Considerate ContractorsScheme to ensure neighbouring amenity wasprotected as far aspossible frombuilding works.  Members heard that despite concerns, no research had confirmed thatbasementdevelopments would necessarily cause problemsin the future e.g.to the watertable, treesand soil.

The Area Planning Manager clarified that land within the first 6mof the front garden had not been counted as amenity space in accordance with the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and as such,changesto the layoutof the forecourt were notnecessarilyconsidered to create lossof amenityspace for occupiersof the upstairs flat.A condition recommended requiring the provision of furtherdetailsof planting to the forecourtwould improvethe existing situation andhelp soften the presence ofthe proposed frontlightwell.In termsof shared use ofthe forecourtand implementing the permission,the applicantwould need to seek consentof the joint freeholder.He advised members that the applicant would be required to seek and obtain the consent of utility suppliers including water and electricity prior to commencement.

Al Forsyth (Vice Chair, Brondesbury Residents and Tenants Association) objected to the scheme on the grounds that as it was for a basement development for a flat instead of a whole house, it would result in detrimental impact on the other occupiers of the house.  He added that no consultation had taken place nor steps taken to resolve the resultant problems.

In accordance with the provisions of the planning Code of practice, Councillor Duffy, ward member, stated that he had spoken to both the applicant and the objectors in connection with the application.  Councillor Duffy identified that the key issue was around ownership and urged the Committee to review the policy for basement applications which related to shared ownership of a property which contained flats.

Robert Gott (applicant’s agent) stated that the application which complied with the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and the London Plan, would seek to address the concerns expressed by the objectors including structural issues.  In response to members’ questions, the applicant’s agent explained the method of construction and the parking arrangement for the removal of soil during the seven week construction period.  He also clarified that the stable base of the proposal would be ensured via underpinning and foundation with reinforced concrete, thus minimising subsidence and ensuring the safety of the residents in the upper floor of the house. He added that party wall notices would be served by a party wall Surveyor at the design stage.

In bringing the discussion to an end, the Chair requested officers to consider reviewing the basement policy to include buildings that were in more than one ownership.  Members were mindful of the consultation with those with interest in the land and in granting planning permission as recommended, members added an informative advising the applicant to consult and involve all those who have interest in the land.

DECISION:

Granted planning permission as set out in the draft Decision Notice and an informative encouraging the applicant to consult and involve all those who have interest in the land.