Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

PROPOSAL

Retrospective application for retention of single storey rear extension with patio and hip to gable roof extension with rear dormer and three front rooflights to the existing dwellinghouse including proposed construction of new two storey dwellinghouse adjacent to 1 Hillside with rear dormer and juliet balcony roof extensions, new front rooflights, subdivision of rear garden, front boundary treatment, relocation and extension to vehicle crossover for off-street car parking spaces, associated landscaping, cycle and refuse storage.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      That the Head of Planning being delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions an informatives as detailed in the report.

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 site related to a two storey semi-detached dwellinghouse, located on the western side of Hillside, Kingsbury. The existing dwellinghouse was located in a residential area and was currently undergoing building works to include a single storey rear extension and other roof extensions and alterations. The application site also included land to the north which was within the ownership of the applicant but outside the curtilage of the existing dwellinghouse.

The Chair thanked Jasmin Tailor for introducing the report, as there were no questions from the Committee at this stage, the Chair proceeded to invite the first speaker on the item Christine Kingham (objector) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application.

The following key points were highlighted:

·                Local residents strongly objected to the proposed new build.

·                The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) for this location did not align with the appropriate standards for new builds. As an area with a PTAL rating of 2, it was not a priority area for targeting new housing.

·                As outlined in UK planning laws, adherence to PTAL requirements was crucial to ensuring sustainable and accessible developments. The proposed project, falling short in this regard, raised concerns about the potential strain on transportation, infrastructure and accessibility with housing developments in Hillside previously refused on this basis.

·                Existing car parking issues would be exacerbated by the addition of a further household.

·                The proposal to create a terrace row of houses contradicted the existing neighbourhood structure, which primarily consists of semi-detached houses. This terracing effect would disrupt the harmonious architectural layout and character of the community.

·                Queries were raised in relation to the boundary lines of the proposed development.

·                Urban Greening had not been considered in the report, nor had the applicant submitted information to comply with policy D12A for fire safety, therefore posing a risk.

·                On the basis of the concerns raised, Ms Kingham urged the Committee to reject the application.

The Chair thanked Christine Kingham for addressing the Committee and asked the Committee if they had any questions or clarifying points to raise, the Committee raised queries in relation to the perceived strain on local transport, the style of housing and the boundary issues raised with the following responses provided:

·                Following the Committee querying the impact that one additional household would have in terms of adding pressure to local transportation, the Committee was advised that this had been recognised as a concern in previous applications which had resulted in another development of this type in Hillside being refused planning permission.

·                It was clarified that the proposed development would impact on the character of the area, as it would create a terrace, which was not in context with the current street scene.

·                In response to a Committee query in relation to the boundary issue raised, the Committee was advised that despite planning officers having assessed the concern raised residents were not satisfied that the matter had been resolved.

As there were no further questions at this stage, the Chair invited the final speaker on the item, Ray Reilly (agent) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.

The following key points were highlighted:

·                The application would provide a good quality four bedroom family home in a residential area, it had been designed to fit in within the general character and appearance of the houses on the street including the existing house immediately adjacent.

·                It would provide a very good standard of living accommodation with one car space max at the front as requested by highways, two sections of garden to the rear and the side totalling 80sqm, compliant with Council policy.

·                There would be no direct impacts on neighbours including future occupants of the original house itself.

·                The scheme complied with the 35% reduction in emissions required by building regulations.

·                An Urban Greening Factor (UGF) of 0.4 could be achieved with a combination of permeable paving, planting, grassed areas and green roofs.

·                Concerns in relation to the boundary had been addressed by the applicant who had legally checked the position and arranged for topographers to plot the correct boundary line on the site to show the correct location of the boundary fence. This was corrected as demonstrated by the red line boundary on the site plan.

·                On the basis of the benefits the development would provide, Mr Reilly urged the Committee to approve the application.

The Chair thanked Mr Reilly for addressing the Committee and advised that the details of how the UGF would be achieved would need to be submitted in line with conditions.

In response to a Committee queried as to why an application of this size and nature was being considered at Planning Committee, it was clarified that the application had needed to be referred as it met the threshold in terms of the number of objections received.

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

DECISION:

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

(Voting on the decision was unanimous).