Decision details

The application before Members sought planning permission for the part demolition of an existing flat roofed rear extension and to construct single and two storey rear extensions.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Osman Dervish if minded to refuse planning permission, as he did not believe that the proposal caused harm to the character of the Gidea Park Conservation Area as it would not impact on the street scene.

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

The objector commented that property was within the Gidea Park Conservation Area and the proposal by virtue of its height and scale would harm the characterful rear elevation of the property. The objector concluded by commenting that the excessive depth of the proposal would have an unneighbourly effect on adjacent properties.

In response the applicant commented that the report confirmed that the ground floor extension was acceptable and that all that was being added at first floor level was a dormer window. The applicant concluded by commenting that the proposal overall would cause no visual harm to the character of the property.

With its agreement Councillor Osman Dervish addressed the Committee.

Councillor Dervish commented that the proposed extensions would allow the occupiers to lead a more comfortable life by providing extra bathroom facilities to the property. Councillor Dervish concluded by commenting that the application was a reasonable one that would not affect the conservation area in a negative way.

During the debate Members sought and received clarification of the dimensions of the proposal and how it would sit within neighbouring properties within the conservation area.

Officers advised the Committee that under s72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 they had to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. In this context, they were further advised that it was not sufficient to balance harm against benefits in the normal way; more weight had to be given to any harm to the heritage assets than to other material planning considerations because to the legal duty under s72. The committee concluded that the proposed extension did not cause harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area because of the location of the extension to the rear of the property and its good standard of detailing.

The report recommended that planning permission be refused however following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission which was carried by 10 votes to 1 it was RESOLVED that it be delegated to the Director of Neighbourhoods to grant planning permission subject to conditions as the Committee considered that the development would not cause harm to the conservation area.

The vote for the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission was carried by 10 votes to 1.

Councillor Hawthorn voted against the resolution to delegate the granting of planning permission.