TP/09/1238 - LAND REAR OF, 483/499, GREEN LANES, LONDON, N13
Minutes:
NOTED
1. Receipt of two additional letters of objection, including concerns regarding overlooking, loss of privacy and impact on Caversham Avenue, and the scale and mass of development, and that revisions had not addressed concerns.
2. The deputation of Mr Andy Barker, on behalf of Fox Lane and District Residents’ Association, including the following points:
(i) He was speaking on behalf of local residents and members of the Association.
(ii) Changes had been made from the previous application, which had been refused for seven major reasons, but there were still many concerns.
(iii) The development proposed was still too big with too high a density and out of keeping with the appearance of the area.
(iv) Amenity space was limited and insufficient.
(v) Vehicle access would be adjacent to the public footpath thus unsafe, and the right turn on Green Lanes would be dangerous.
(vi) The development would lead to increases in noise and pollution.
(vii) The nearby major junction on Green Lanes was very dangerous to cross for pedestrians.
(viii) There was little available parking locally and it was likely that visitors would park in Caversham Avenue, which was already busy and under pressure from a number of developments.
(ix) There would be a loss of mature trees and wildlife habitat; the green space in the area was being gradually eroded by development.
(x) The proposal represented major over-development in the locality and current residents would suffer unnecessarily.
(xi) Concerns regarding ‘statutory extinguishment of the part of the adjacent footpath required to provide the access’.
3. The statement of Councillor Ertan Hurer, ward councillor, including the following points:
(i) The Council’s ‘green’ credentials would be damaged if this development was allowed; it would not be possible to satisfactorily replace the TPO trees.
(ii) Concerns at the comments of Emergency Services regarding internal travel distance excesses, and that there was no proposed condition in relation to dry riser mains or sprinklers.
(iii) There would be increased pressure for local school places and the S106 contribution would not be enough.
(iv) There would be inadequate parking space for residents and visitors, leading to on-street parking in already congested roads.
(v) Concerns regarding the access to Green Lanes and the nearby busy road junction, which was already an accident black-spot. Additionally, opposite the entrance was a bus stop which was not shown on the applicant’s plans. Economic Development officers had also highlighted the likelihood of traffic queues and pinch point.
4. The response of Mr Andrew West of Studio:08 Architecture and Planning Ltd, the agent, including the following points:
(i) The application was the culmination of over 18 months’ worth of discussions with Planning officers and pre-application work.
(ii) The current scheme had addressed all the previous reasons for refusal, and there had been significant reductions in scale and size.
(iii) The site had been identified as a housing opportunity site.
(iv) 120 consultees had been canvassed, with only nine replies received, ... view the full minutes text for item 408
TP/09/0669 - 4, RADCLIFFE ROAD, LONDON, N21 2SE
Minutes:
NOTED
1. Receipt of two additional letters of objection, circulated to Members, and summarised verbally by the Planning officer.
2. The Planning officer's clarification that the OS map with the report was indicative only: the plans showed clearly that the proposed development did abut the common boundary with other Radcliffe Road properties.
3. The deputation of Mr Jonathan Ward, neighbouring resident, including the following points:
(i) He lived in the semi-detached house next door and had concerns regarding the effect of the car lift on his 200 year old physically connected property.
(ii) He did not have double glazing and noise passed through from next door.
(iii) Noise limit safeguards should also apply to adjoining houses to ensure protection, and there was a need for a post construction survey.
(iv) He had found 12 case examples in other boroughs where these types of conditions were set, and therefore requested additional safeguards be made.
4. The deputation of Mr Geoff Rubenstein, neighbouring resident, including the following points:
(i) He lived at no. 8, Radcliffe Road and faced the existing flank wall of no. 4.
(ii) The proposed development would be contrary to UDP policies.
(iii) He had concerns about the scale of the development and the effect on visual outlook and amenities of neighbouring home owners.
(iv) The report referred to a distance of 18m from the rear of nos. 6, 8 and 10 Radcliffe Road, but it would be only 14m from no. 10.
(v) The development would encroach on the boundary with three properties, ruling out maintenance from within the curtilage and leading to tension with other property owners.
(vi) The development would prejudice future adjoining site development.
(vii) There would be a loss of mature boundary trees.
(viii) His written representation listed relevant UDP policies, and suggested additional conditions to any planning permission.
5. The response of Mr Michael Wallis, PMSS, the Agent and architect, including the following points:
(i) The building would not be right up against the boundaries due to the foundations and to allow guttering to overhang.
(ii) Mutual access would have to be arranged with neighbours for maintenance.
(iii) The car lift would be a small domestic version, and would be contained within a concrete basement.
(iv) He had offered neighbours the opportunity to inspect a lift.
(v) He had responded to all questions from Planning officers and had to comply with building regulations and relevant legislation.
(vi) The extension would be two storey at the front, but towards the rear near no. 10 would be single storey and would not affect rights of light.
6. The statement of Councillor Martin Prescott, ward councillor, including:
(i) He had been contacted by a number of residents concerned by the scale of the proposed extension. It would be a substantial extension on a dwelling that was currently in keeping with other houses in the area.
(ii) The boundary issues could cause problems in building the extension and there was no certainty that agreement would be reached ... view the full minutes text for item 334