Application no. 21/P1988

Ward: Colliers Wood

Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to conditions, and the completion of a unilateral agreement to secure 4 of the 5 flats to be parking permit free

RESOLVED that the application number 21/P1988 be REFUSED planning permission. The reasons for refusal will be set out in the minutes.

Proposal: Conversion of existing dwelling house into 5 x self-contained flats, including ground and first floor extensions, a rear roof extension, excavation and extension to basement level, associated landscaping (including demolition of exiting garden structures) cycle and refuse storage.

The Committee noted the report and the plans presented by the Development Control Team Leader (South). The Committee also noted the modifications sheet contained in the supplementary agenda.

Two objectors had registered to speak in relation to the proposed scheme, and at the request of the Chair, had raised a number of points, including:

·         the risk of vibrations to the neighbouring property from the railway;

·         the proposed basement was ‘medium risk, of surface water flooding;

·         the proposed scheme was overdevelopment;

·         concerns around the impact the proposed works could have on the stability of the neighbouring property;

·         the proposed plan stated that there was likely to be damage to the adjacent properties at 36 and 40 Lyveden Road;

·         strain on an overcrowded road and locality

The applicant had registered to speak, and at the request of the Chair, addressed the Committee with the following points:

·         the development of the site was logical and considered acceptable in principle and would deliver 5 units, including two family sized units, to enable the Council to meet its housing need. The proposed design was of a high standard and considered appropriate within the site's context;

·          the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, the local highways network, flooding and drainage, sustainability, trees and ecology;

·         as considered by the Council’s Officers, the revised application overcomes the previous reasons for refusal, by reducing the height and the depth of the first floor extension to the rear, which results in the proposed first floor extension being set in and not built on either boundary, reducing the height of the ground floor extension, setting in and reducing the extent of the rear dormer from both sides, removing the rear balcony and repositioning and redesigning the rear external openings;

·         the site also does not have any heritage sensitivities;

·         the proposed basement would not exceed the size criteria.

·         the site was located within close proximity to a number of public parks, which would provide external amenity space for the three other flats;

·         In terms of highways and transport, the site was located in an accessible location that was close to public transport. In addition Cycle parking would be provided in line with the London Plan standards.

·         In terms of flood risk and drainage, a Flood Risk and Surface Water Assessment had been submitted with the application, which details the strategies that could be adopted to mitigate flood and drainage risks.

Councillor Laxmi Attawar had registered to speak, and the request of the Chair, addressed the Committee the site was an overdevelopment, and that no other properties in the area had been developed to this extent. There were a number of parking issues arising from the narrow road, this development would only add to the existing problems.

In response to the issues raised by the objectors, the Development Control Team Leader (South) stressed that in terms of extra pressure on car parking the applicant has acknowledged the need to restrict parking permits for four of the five new units.

In response to a Member’s question, the Development Control Team Leader (South) confirmed that no external doors were proposed to access the basement, and that the principal front door provided the only access to all the flats including the basement.

During a detailed discussion on the issues of the overdevelopment, loss of privacy and overbearing, a motion for refusal was put forward by the Committee for the reason that there were concerns in relation to the bulk and massing of the development. 

RESOLVED that the application number 21/P1988 be REFUSED planning permission. The reasons for refusal were on the grounds of design, height, siting,  massing, loss of privacy and unneighbourly presence.