Agenda item

Minded to approve and therefore deferred to the next meeting for report on conditions.

This application was deferred at the last meeting for a site visit to enable members to assess the outbuilding and its impact.  The Area Planning Manager Neil McClellan informed members that the removal of all internal walls would not alter officers' recommendation as the overall footprint of the building, at 57 square metres, was considered by officers to be too large for it to be ancillary to the main dwelling house. He continued that in addition to its excessive size the outbuilding would result in a negative visual impact and an intensity of use that could result in an unacceptable level of nuisance and disturbance to neighbours.

In response to members’ request for clarification on the status of outbuildings with similar footprints provided by the applicant and referred to in the main report (101 Chaplin Road, 207 Harrow Road and 9 Stewart Close), the Planning Manager submitted that all 3 sites had Certificates of Lawfulness issued for large outbuildings ranging in area from 48 sqm to 56 sqm.  However, the last certificate was issued in 2008 when Brent began to adopt a much more rigorous interpretation of the requirement for outbuildings to be for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. The change in approach followed the national change in householder permitted development rights and was a direct response to problems that were being created by the trend for ever-larger outbuildings in domestic rear gardens and the increasing number of those outbuildings being used as self-contained living accommodation. He added that the outbuilding referred to at 9 Stewart Close was itself the subject of an enforcement action following the discovery that it too was being used as a separate dwelling. He reiterated the recommendation for refusal.

Mr Dignesh Patel the applicant drew members’ attention to properties within the Borough that had been granted certificate of lawfulness of use for similar outbuildings due to the size of the gardens. He added that with a garden size of about 360sq metres, the outbuilding could not be considered to be excessive as it occupied about a third of the garden.  He continued that as the outbuilding was about 30 metres away from the nearest neighbouring property, its use could not give rise to noise nuisance and disturbance. Mr Patel submitted extenuating circumstances that the unauthorised use of the outbuilding was carried out by a tenant whilst he was out of the country.  In response to members’ questions, Mr Patel stated that he had been granted building control certificate and a certificate of lawfulness of use for the outbuilding.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Butt a ward member stated that he had been approached by the applicant and confirmed that he had no prejudicial interest in the application as a friend of the applicant, as alleged.  Councillor Butt stated that a certificate for lawfulness of use was granted to the applicant for the use of the outbuilding which had remained incidental to the use of the main building.  He continued that the applicant was prepared to comply with all requirements made by officers including the reduction of the height and the removal of the internal walls of the outbuilding.  Councillor Butt added that he understood that the unauthorised use of the outbuilding was carried out by a tenant when the applicant was away in India. He therefore urged members to be minded to grant planning consent for the outbuilding.

During debate members expressed differing views on the application. It was expressed that conditions could be imposed to control future use of the outbuilding as its removal would be too costly for the applicant.  It was also expressed that the size was excessive to be considered reasonable and that the appearance and height of the outbuilding was suggestive of a self contained dwelling unit.

The Head of Area Planning, Steve Weeks, in response to some of the issues raised stated that the certificate of lawfulness of use was granted on the condition that the outbuilding would be built and remain incidental to the use of the main dwelling house.  He continued that as the structure had not been built or used in this way, the certificate did not apply.  He added that the size of the outbuilding (57 sq metres) constituted a substantial development contrary to the general approach to encourage smaller outbuildings unless the character of the area had already changed substantially.

Members then voted on the application which was declared carried on the Chair’s casting vote, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for refusal.  In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, the application was deferred to the next meeting for a report from officers for members to consider whether they still remained of this view.  

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, voting on the recommendation for refusal of the application was recorded as follows:

FOR                Councillors Adeyeye, Baker, Long, Kataria and McLennan    (5)

AGAINST:      Councillors RS Patel, Hashmi, Naheerathan, CJ Patel          

                        and Sheth                                                                                         (6)

ABSTENTIONS:       Councillor Cummins                                                          (1)

Note: The Chair exercised his casting vote against the officer’s recommendation for refusal