Agenda and minutes

The report before members detailed an application for planning permission for the construction of a 2-storey, three bedroom detached dwellinghouse on the southern part of the garden of Hare Lodge.

The dwelling would be two storeys measuring approximately 8.3m in width and 10.2m in depth at its deepest point. It would have a flat roof which measured 6.75m in height. The dwelling would be centrally located on the site and will be set 4.65m off the closest boundary.

On ground floor level would be a cloak room, kitchen, dining room, living room and a conservatory. On the first floor would be 3 bedrooms, a bathroom and an en-suite bathroom.

A new vehicular / pedestrian access would be taken off the existing access drive to Hare Lodge. Two parking spaces would be provided on the south side of the proposed dwelling.

The dwelling would have an east-west orientation with garden spaces towards the rear (west), measuring approximately 112m².

Members were advised that condition seven in the report asked that the first floor windows located in the southern elevation were to be non opening and glazed with obscure glass.

Members noted that 6 letters of representation had been received but there had also been a further 239 representations received via the Gidea Park & District Civic Society.

It was noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Lynden Thorpe on the grounds of the potential impact to neighbouring properties, over-development of the site and garden grabbing.

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

With its agreement, Councillors Lynden Thorpe and Eric Munday addressed the Committee.

Councillor Thorpe commented that the proposed building was out of character with neighbouring properties and was overbearing which would lead to a loss of amenity space for hare Lodge. Councillor Thorpe confirmed that there had been over 200 objections raised against the proposal. Councillor Thorpe also mentioned the Fire brigade’s concern over access arrangements should one of their appliances need to get to the building in an emergency.

Councillor Munday commented that the proposed flat roof was not in keeping with other properties in the area with the exception of Brent Court which had been built in the 1960s. Councillor Munday also commented that the proposed dwelling would lead to a loss of privacy to residents living in Cranbrook Drive.

During the discussion, members sought clarification of the exact siting of the proposed dwelling and discussed the impact that the dwelling would have on amenity space particularly relating to 487 Upper Brentwood Road. There was debate between members on the subject of flat roofed developments that were not preferable on new applications. Mention was also made of the fact that permitted developments rights had already been removed from the application.

The report recommended that planning permission be granted, however following a motion to refuse, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused on the grounds of material harm caused by:

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

The Committee considered the application for the demolition of a garage and the construction of a two storey side and rear extension.

It was noted that 3 letters of representation had been received.

It was also noted that the application had been called in by Councillor Michael Armstrong on the grounds that the proposal was overbearing on the premises at the back of the property.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector without a response from the applicant.

With its agreement, Councillor Michael Armstrong addressed the Committee. Councillor Armstrong commented that the proposal was overbearing and overlooked neighbouring properties.

During the discussion members debated the possibility of removing permitted development rights to stop possible future installation of a dormer window.

Following a site visit by a member of the Committee, members noted that the proposal gave little consideration to overlooking to the property at 177 Parkside Avenue.

Members also debated the potential damage to the existing laurel hedge and mature tree in the garden of 179 Parkside Avenue and whether adequate controls could be put into place to protect them.

Following a motion to defer the granting of planning permission it was RESOLVED that planning permission be deferred to allow officers to provide the Committee with the following:

• Report to cover the issue of whether the existing laurel hedge and mature tree in garden of 179 Parkside Avenue would be adversely affected by the proposal and whether any adequate controls can be applied in order to prevent damage to these.
• Report to cover the issue of the mature tree in 179 Parkside Avenue ; its continued growth and potential for causing damage to the new extensions
• Report to cover impact of the new extension, including its affect on outlook and overlooking, in respect of 177 Parkside Avenue.
• Information on height of fence between Nos. 30 and 32 Pettits Close
• Photographs of application site from 177 Parkside Avenue to be available for consideration when the item was brought back to the Committee.
• Presentation when the item was brought back to the Committee to be more specific as to position of extension when viewed from 179 Parkside Avenue

The vote for the resolution was passed by 10 votes to 0 with 1 abstention. Councillor Durrant abstained from voting.

The application related to a Council owned garage court. The application proposed the demolition of 18 garages and the erection of one 3 bed house and two 2 bed houses with associated parking and garden area.

Members noted that there were 2 late letters of representation.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector, without a response by the applicant.

During a brief discussion members debated the possible inclusion of a condition to restrict the hours of construction.

Members noted that a Mayoral CIL contribution of £1,657.00 was liable for the proposed development and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

• A financial contribution of £18,000 to be used towards infrastructure costs.

• All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 Legal Agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

• To pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a Legal Agreement prior to completion of the Agreement irrespective of whether the Agreement was completed.

• Payment of the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to the completion of the Agreement.  .

That staff be authorised to enter into a Legal Agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to include the following:

·         additional condition requiring front first floor windows to be obscurely glazed and fixed shut except for top fanlight

·         authority be delegated to Head of Development and Building Control to change condition 8 (hours of construction) to limit those hours to 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and not at any time on Saturday and Sunday if sufficient evidence was advanced of there being a need for such additional restrictions to aid the son of the occupier of 4 Cooks Close (such as a letter from a doctor/consultant). If such cannot be provided, to report back to committee. Justification based on particular personal circumstances in this case.

The Committee noted the report and without debate RESOLVED that both the following be agreed:

A.   That the S106 agreement dated 3^rd November 2009 be varied to remove the requirement contained at para 4 (m) that Police Office be provided to shell finish within the Community Hub prior to its first occupation.

·         That the owner/developer pay the legal costs associated with the preparation of the Section 106 Deed of Variation irrespective of whether that Deed is completed.

·         That all other clauses heading and recitals of the S106 agreement dated 3^rd November 2009 remain unchanged save for any consequential changes pursuant to the removal of the requirement contained at para 4 (m) that Police Office be provided to shell finish within the Community Hub prior to its first occupation

B.   That the reserved matters permission be granted subject to the following conditions: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A - G, no extension, addition or alteration to the roof, porch, additional structures or enclosures, provision of a hard standing or installation of a chimney, flue or other extract shall take place unless permission under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has first been sought and obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority.

The Committee noted the report, and also noted that 6 additional letters of representation representing 5 households had been received and that the development was liable for a Mayoral CIL of £1,976, and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

• A financial contribution of £12,000 to be used towards infrastructure costs.

• All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 Legal Agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

• To pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs in association with the preparation of a Legal Agreement prior to completion of the Agreement irrespective of whether the Agreement is completed.

• Payment of the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to the completion of the Agreement.

That staff be authorised to enter into a Legal Agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that Agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The Committee noted the report and without debate RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

• A financial contribution of £6,000 to be used towards infrastructure costs in accordance with the Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

• All contribution sums should include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Legal Agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

• The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the Agreement, prior to completion of the Agreement, irrespective of whether the Agreement is completed.

• The Developer/Owner to pay the appropriate planning obligation/s monitoring fee prior to completion of the Agreement.

That Staff be authorised to enter into such a Legal Agreement to secure the above and that upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to include an additional condition that specified that frontage parking area be reserved for ground floor flat, with the rear area reserved for the first floor flat.