Agenda item
66A Springfield Mount, London, NW9 0SB (Ref. 11/0488)
Decision:
Refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Conversion of a garage (currently in use as living accommodation under a personal consent) to provide separate dwellinghouse to 66 Springfield Mount with associated works to divide curtilage. |
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission.
|
This application was called in accordance with Part 5 of the Constitution by Councillors J Moher, R Moher and Crane for further consideration of the merits of the scheme in light of changes planning regulations, the impact upon the amenities of the residents and surrounding properties.
Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning with reference to the tabled supplementary informed members about the revised plans with proposals for the garden area and went on to clarify the external space for the proposed and existing dwellings following the sub-division of the site in comparison to the Council’s normal minimum requirement of 50m2. He advised that the usual external amenity space for the existing dwelling would be reduced to approximately 64sqm through the subdivision of the site whilst the external amenity space for the proposed dwelling would be approximately 35sq m. He continued that whilst the plans showed the dwelling as a one-bedroom unit, there were no restrictions preventing an additional bedroom from being provided within the roof space. In reiterating the recommendation for refusal the Head of Area Planning submitted that the main concern with the proposalwas the impact on amenity space and the relationship between the proposed properties in terms of significant overlooking.
Mr Suresh Mamtora Chair of Springfield Area Residents’ Association stated that the proposed sub-division and conversion would not result in intensification of use, harmful and out of character with the area. He added that there were potential problems in not approving the application in view of threats of use for multiple occupancy or for use for car repairs. He urged members to be minded to approve the sub-division.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice Councillor J Moher, ward member stated that he had been approached by residents in connection with the application. Councillor Moher stated that the proposal which would be used by the applicant’s extended family would not cause harm to the area but rather would be in keeping with the character of the area. He added that the relaxation of the planning laws was enough a reason to remove planning condition 4 for personal consent. In response to members’ questions, Councillor J Moher stated that he had visited the property and observed that the proposal would not give rise to issues of overlooking and overshadowing.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice Councillor Crane, ward member stated that he had been approached by the applicant. Councillor Crane spoke in support of the views expressed by Mr Mamtora and added that the proposal would be in keeping with the streetscene. He urged members to approve the application.
In response to the points raised by the speakers and members’ enquiries, the Head of Area Planning submitted that planning condition 4 was imposed to support the extended family as well as to be able to bring the garage back into use. He confirmed that the key issue now was the relationship between the properties rather than a need to restore the garage. He continued that privacy and outlook could not be addressed by the applicant as the site was too narrow to accommodate 2 separate dwellings and this would be aggravated by the proposal for a 2-3m fence. With reference to the tabled supplementary and questions from Cllr. Cummins, the Head of Area Planning advised that other layout options for the garden did not seem to overcome the problems of adequate space and poor relationship.. He however indicated that Planning Services would support an application which would be ancillary and incidental to the main dwelling.
DECISION: Planning permission refused. |
Supporting documents: