Decision details

The proposal before Members was for the erection of a single storey side extension.

The subject property was a 1934 Exhibition House which was designed in an Art Deco style. Its distinct appearance formed an important, integral part of the Gidea Park Conservation Area within which it was located.

Members noted that the application had been called-in by Councillor Osman Dervish as he believed the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the street scene or amenity. Councillor Dervish had also called the application in on the grounds of precedent as well as adding to the conservation area.

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

The objector commented that the property was part of the Gidea Park Conservation Area and that design was of importance in keeping the original heritage of the property. The objector concluded by commenting that she was in agreement with officer’s recommendation in the report supporting refusal.

The applicant commented that he had purchased the property ten years ago and that he had subsequently been advised that the existing garage had been constructed in the 1960s. The applicant also commented that the garage was now in a dilapidated state and needed repairing or replacing.

With its agreement Councillor Osman Dervish addressed the Committee.

Councillor Dervish commented that he supported the application and that the applicant had made amendments to the front line of the proposal so as not to impact on neighbouring properties. Councillor Dervish concluded by commenting that no neighbouring residents had objected to the proposal and that other properties in the area had undergone planning changes with permission given by delegated powers.

During the debate Members discussed the impact the proposal would have on the conservation area and the marginal difference the application proposed against what was already in situ.

Following a motion to approve the granting of planning permission which was lost by 3 votes to 8, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the reasons given in the report.

The vote for the refusal to grant planning permission was carried by 10 votes to 1.

Councillor Misir voted against the resolution to refuse the granting of planning permission.