Application Number:  21/P3950

Ward:  Abbey

Recommendation:  GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement

The Development Control Team Leader (North) presented the report, noting that an additional condition had been added to the application.

The Committee received presentations from two objectors, who made points including:

·         The proposal was inappropriate

·         There were concerns regarding the impact of the building on nearby properties

·         The proposal would increase density in an already crowded area

·         The proposal would breach Policy D5 of the London Plan

·         The steps are insufficiently able to accommodate a stairlift

·         Access to the public footpath would cease during construction works and this footpath forms a main route to local schools

·         An Equality Impact Assessment should be undertaken

·         Greening works within the alleyway which had been undertaken by residents would be damaged by the proposed works and a condition should be imposed to repair any damage caused

·         The proposal would have an adverse effect on the local community

·         There were concerns relating to the removal of green spaces and noise pollution

·         The proposal would have an effect on local wildlife and remove charm and character in a conservation area

The Applicant spoke in response and raised points including:

·         The application sought to provide an additional home and met the needs of the relevant plan policies

·         The design was contemporary and low impact to the surroundings

·         The property would not overlook any neighbours

·         The site was within a Conservation area however would not be detrimental to the street frontage or the area as a whole and would not be seen from Pelham Road

·         The development would be sustainable, designed in accordance with passivhaus standards. The property would be car-free.

·         The application was supported by a construction and logistics plan

Councillor Brunt, Ward Councillor spoke to raise concern about the proximity of the proposed building to neighbouring properties, ambient noise, loss of privacy and vehicular access. Councillor Brunt queried where refuse containers would be collected from as there is no clear curtilage for collection and questioned whether the green roof would be used as an extension of the garden and therefore cause issues of overlooking. Councillor Brunt felt the proposal was not adding to the area and proposed a number of possible conditions.

The Development Control Team Leader (North) responded to the points raised noting that the covenants were not a material Planning consideration and that in terms of precedent, each application is assessed on its’ own merits. Highways officers had been consulted in relation to the footpath and had advised that a licence to close the highway would be required if permission were granted. The green roof would not be used as an outdoor space and the application contained a condition which restricted that.

In response to questions from the Committee, Planning Officers advised that:

·         As part of the landscaping scheme, mitigation with tree planting could be put in place

·         Not every scheme could provided the outdoor space provision detailed within policy DMD2 and it would be a judgement for the Committee whether this was deemed sufficient for this proposal

·         Environmental Health condition a standard noise limit for construction works

·         As is standard for basement applications, there is a condition within the application seeking further detail on the drainage scheme

·         If any damage were caused to the highway as part of the development this would be required to be returned to the prior standard, however it might be unreasonable to add planting in the alleyway as wider public realm improvements as part of this development

Members commented on the application raising concern around diminution of amenitiy, welcoming the use of cross-laminated timber and noting that the loss of a private garden would not be a reason for refusal particularly as the area is well served by parks and public spaces.

In regards to conditions, members requested that a condition be added to retain access to the public footpath and replacement of lost trees.

Planning Officers advised that in regards to the public footpath, the condition would be pursued as far as possible if achievable and that the landscaping condition would be made more robust.

With the two additional conditions, the recommendation was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED:

That the Committee GRANTED planning permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement