Agenda item

Refused planning permission on the basis that the Committee felt the application was in breach of Policies DMP1 and BHC1 of Brent’s Local Plan and the guidance set out within the Sudbury Court Conservation Area Design Guide.

PROPOSAL

Proposed first-floor side extension, rear dormer, ground-floor rear canopy and replacement of ground-floor rear window with door to dwellinghouse.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to REFUSE consent.

Jasmin Tailor, Planning Officer, North Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application sought planning permission to construct a first-floor side extension, rear dormer, ground-floor rear canopy and replacement of ground-floor rear window with door to dwellinghouse on to the existing two storey semidetached dwellinghouse. The site was located within the Sudbury Court Conservation Area (a designated heritage asset).

The Committee was advised that the application had been refused on three previous occasions due to the excessive width of the side extension. Each refusal of the application had been appealed and dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

It was noted that the application had been referred for consideration by the Planning Committee as a result of three councillors who supported the application requesting that the application was determined by the Committee.

The Officer recommendation remained to refuse planning consent due to the excessive width of the side extension, as this would be considered to have a harmful impact on the character of the host property and wider Sudbury Court Conservation Area.

The Chair thanked Jasmin Tailor for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited Barbara Carredo (applicant) and Edward Seaman (architect) both of whom attended in person to share the allocated time slot to address the Committee. Edward Seaman highlighted the following key points:

·                The application before the Committee was presented after significant consideration and collaboration with Brent Council, dating back to 2017.

·                The proposed small side extension had been designed to be sensitive to the architectural fabric of the ground floor extension and local context.

·                The key issue of the width of the side extension was not being challenged arbitrarily; it was felt that the guidance in relation to the width of side extensions was a standard guideline that was generally applicable to semi-detached homes, however the property in question was large in size and occupied a spacious corner plot.

·                It was felt that on this occasion the guidance standards should be looked at in line with the unique features of the property.

Barbara Carredo the continued, to sharing the following key points:

·                It had taken many years and failed attempts to negotiate an acceptable proposal in order to obtain planning approval for the required modest side extension.

·                The negotiations and previous refusals had seen the application reduce the width of the side extension repeatedly, coming down from an initial 6m width to the current proposal of 4.5m.

·                It was felt at this point that no further reductions could be made by the applicant as anything smaller in width would look out of character.

·                It was felt that the proposed application was not dissimilar to one that had been approved locally.

·                The application was supported locally, evidenced by the large number of signatures obtained by Ms Carredo who reported that residents recognised the improvement this would make to the Sudbury Court Estate.

The Chair thanked Ms Carredo for addressing the Committee and offered the Committee the opportunity to ask any questions they had in relation to the application. The Committee queried the applicants’ interpretation of the policies that had prevented the application from being approved historically. In response Ms Carredo advised that her intention was not to unduly challenge the process, however she wanted to have a complete roof on her property that remained in keeping with the local context. It was re-iterated to the Committee that attempts to compromise had been made by reducing the width of the extension with each application, however it would not be appropriate to reduce further than 4.5m as the roof would look out of place on the host building and within the character of the area. It was felt that the application should be considered in context of its unique position on the Sudbury Court Estate, with flexibility applied to the planning guidance.

As there were no further questions for the applicant, the Chair invited Councillor Maurice (in support of the applicant) to address the Committee (in person). The following key points were highlighted:

·                It was felt that the proposed extension would complement the property and the surrounding area.

·                It was queried whether there was bias towards bigger developers, as it was felt that larger schemes that were not policy compliant were often approved, whereas this small residential scheme had not been afforded the same policy flexibility.

·                Upon summarising his points, Councillor Maurice urged the Committee to vote against the officer recommendation and approve the modest extension.

The Chair thanked Councillor Maurice for his comments and with no question raised on his representations then proceeded to invite the Committee to ask officers any remaining questions or points of clarity they had in relation to the application. Members raised queries in relation to the pre application process and if there was any further scope for considering an increased width. The following responses were provided:

·                Officers advised that they had met the applicant in pre application meetings and informed them that the Council would consider an application of a 4m wide extension to be acceptable, this was also confirmed in writing. Despite this the applicant remained adamant that they could not reduce the application width to 4m.

·                In relation to the flexible application of the policy the Committee was advised that where other larger schemes had been approved with minor departures from policy, there would have been wider benefits to Brent residents to outweigh this.

·                Officers felt that the application had been considered in its unique context, this had resulted in the departure from policy to offer a compromise of a 4m width.

As there were no further questions from members and having established that all members had followed the discussions, the Chair asked members to vote on the recommendations.

DECISION: Refused planning permission on the basis that the Committee felt the application was in breach of Policies DMP1 and BHC1 of Brent’s Local Plan and the guidance set out within the Sudbury Court Conservation Area Design Guide.

(Voting on the recommendation was For 4, Against 2 and Abstentions 1)