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 poor siting and design of the development which provided a cramped environment, that was out of character with the prevailing character of the local area and streetscene, The failure of the development to preserve or enhance the Gidea Park Special Character Area contrary to policies CP18, DC61, DC69 and guidance within the Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document.
The cramped layout and rear amenity space resulting in poor living conditions for future occupiers of the host property.