Issue - decisions
169 Melrose Avenue London NW2 4NA (Ref. 09/1708)
16/09/2009 - 169 Melrose Avenue London NW2 4NA (Ref. 09/1708)
|
09/1708 |
Erection of a single storey side extension, timber fence and gates and formation of new vehicular access to rear garden of dwellinghouse (as accompanied by 3 pages of site photographs).
|
|
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions. |
|
The Planning Manager Geoff Hewlett reported that since the main report was written, the applicant had amended the application. This had resulted in the removal of the proposed vehicle gates onto Gay Close and the provision of pedestrian access onto the highway. He then referred to the objections raised and the officer’s responses to them, as set out in the main and the supplementary information tabled at the meeting. He added that the Council’s Highways and Transportation Unit had confirmed that they had no objections to the amendments to the scheme including the removal of the proposed vehicle access. In view of the changes to the scheme, he recommended an amendment to condition 5 and the deletion of conditions 2 and 4 as set out in the tabled supplementary information.
Mr Richard Lacey stated his objections to the pedestrian access from Melrose Avenue to Gay Close adding that the access would materially affect the character of Gay Close. He added that by allowing pedestrian access via the gates to Gay Close, the proposal would set a precedent for similar undesirable developments in the area. Mr Lacey also objected on grounds of possible increase in car parking in the area. He urged members to refuse the application for the above reasons.
Ms Tamala Anderson the applicant, confirmed that there would be no right of way from her property and/or Melrose Avenue to Gay Close and therefore residents’ objections about adverse impact on the character of the area were not valid. She added that the gates and fence would match those of No. 167 Melrose Avenue, thus maintaining consistency of character. In response to a member’s question, Ms Anderson confirmed that the property would remain a single family dwelling.
In responding to some of the issues raised, the Head of Area Planning clarified that planning permission for a vehicular access would not be required as it did not lead into a principal road and that the report considered the implications of controlling access points to limit the impact on parking and servicing.