Application Number: 16/P2451                 Ward: Hillside

Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Proposal: Demolition of a semi-detached dwellinghouse (one half of a pair) and replacement with a new semi-detached dwellinghouse with basement

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary agenda. The Committee received verbal presentations from three objectors to the application and the applicant, and Ward Councillor Daniel Holden.

The Objectors raised residents’ concerns including:

·         Proposed basement will extend beyond the footprint of the house

·         Proposed basement will  lead to flooding of neighbouring homes and gardens

·         Settlement of the basement construction will put stress on to number 5

·         Risks to number 5 of demolition and excavation

·         New house much bigger than others on street – out of keeping

·         New House will have no access from front to rear garden

·         The existing house does not need to be demolished and it would be more sustainable to refurbish this building

·         Other London Councils have basement policies that would require more ground investigations to be done

·         The Party Wall agreement is too weak to properly protect Number 5

The Applicant’s Agent raised points including:

·         The current house in need of large scale works to bring up to modern standards

·         There is no policy to retain such a house in this area, and the proposal satisfies planning policies

·         The excavation will be done by hand to minimise disruption

·         All the proposed works have been approved by the LBM Structural engineer

·         The soil conditions and hydrology have been thoroughly assessed and approved by LBM Flood Risk Engineer.

The Development Control Manager replied to Members questions:

·         It is not necessary to discuss the party wall as this is covered by the Party Wall Agreement

·         LBM do not have a policy that limits basement size (unless extending over 50% of the rear garden)

·         Other properties in the road have similar roof designs and this roof could be built under permitted development rights – the house opposite looks very similar

Members made comments including:

·         This is overdevelopment of the basement

·         The Basement Games room is 81 m² – this exceeds London space standards for a 2 bedroomed dwelling

·         Other properties may have roof and side extensions but don’t also  have the overly large basement

·         The proposed property would be wider than existing properties and this combined with the roof design would have a negative effect on the rhythm of the streetscene.

·         The development is very un-neighbourly

A recommendation to refuse was proposed and seconded and voted on.

RESOLVED

The Committee agreed to:

1.               REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

                    i.             The proposed Roof and Side extension will lack the rhythm of the streetscene, contrary to policy DM D2

                  ii.             The proposed house and basement is too large and does not respect the scale and proportions of the original house and surroundings contrary to policy DM D3

2.               DELEGATE to the Director of Environment & Regeneration the authority to make any appropriate amendments in the context of the above to the wording of the grounds of refusal including references to appropriate policies