Decision details

The proposal before Members sought consent for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of two new buildings containing seven residential units.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response from the applicant’s agent.

The objector commented that proposal was an overdevelopment of the site and would leading to an overspill of parking in the area. The objector also commented that the proposal would lead to noise nuisance. The objector concluded by commenting that the proposal would not sit well in the streetscene and could set a precedent in flatted development in the area.

In response the applicant’s agent commented that the petition that had been signed by local residents had been slightly misled by the description of the proposal on the petition heading. The agent also commented that the number of flats proposed would not lead to a significant increase in traffic visiting the site. The agent concluded that the proposal had been re-designed following a previous refusal and that the applicant had worked closely with officers to produce a more suitable proposal

With its agreement Councillor Jody Ganly addressed the Committee.

Councillor Ganly commented that existing properties in the area were very spacious and enjoyed good levels of amenity. Councillor Ganly also commented that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site.  Councillor Ganly concluded by commenting that emergency access to the site would be below the norm and that existing properties would suffer from overlooking and a loss of amenity.

During the debate Members sought and clarified the height of the proposal and how it would sit within the existing streetscene.

Members also discussed the fenestration arrangements of the proposed building and how these would impact on neighbouring properties.

Members also discussed the merits of the design, how it would integrate with existing properties and also how it differed from the previously refused proposal.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted however following a motion to refuse the granting of planning permission which was carried by 6 votes to 5 it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The proposal, by reason of the number of units and the proposed design and layout, including an excessive amount of hard standing, would represent an overdevelopment of the site and give rise to a cramped urban form, detrimental to local character and amenity and contrary to Policies DC2 and DC61 of the LDF Development Control Policies Development Plan Document and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    In the absence of a legal agreement to secure contributions towards the demand for school places arising from the development, the proposal fails to satisfactorily mitigate the infrastructure impact of the development, contrary to the provisions of Policies DC29 and DC72 of the Development Control Policies DPD and Policy 8.2 of the London Plan.

Members also wished to place on record the greater emphasis on excessive density.

The vote for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission was carried by 6 votes to 5.

Councillors Hawthorn, Ower, Nunn, Whitney, Martin and Williamson voted for the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.

Councillors Misir, Best, Kelly, Westwood and White voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.