Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1. The Planning Officer’s verbal introduction and background information to the application.

2. The deputation of Mrs Joseph, the applicant, including the following points:

i. The property had been unoccupied and in poor condition for almost forty years. When the resident purchased the property a remedial notice had been served by Planning Enforcement to refurbish and occupy the property within one year.

ii. The works were completed within five months of the notice being served and to a very high standard.

iii. The works were carried out under advice from their architect that it constituted permitted development. She later discovered that their application for a certificate of lawful development had not been received by the Council. In April 2009 a further application was submitted. This application was refused.

iii. A petition supporting the application had been signed by neighbours and local residents.

3. The statement of Councillor Martin Prescott, Winchmore Hill Ward Councillor including the following points:

i. He sympathised with the personal circumstances of the applicant, who occupies the property with her husband, 3 children and grandchild.

ii. The applicant had no intention of ignoring Planning Policy and agreed to reduce the rear extension.

iii. Neighbouring residents were pleased with the outcome of the development and did not find the conversion offensive or out of character. 

iv. Substantial costs could be awarded against the Council, if permission was granted on appeal.

v. He urged the Committee to overturn the officer recommendation of refusal.

Officers’ advice on the validity of the points raised and clarification that the crossing of the line of hipped tiles was breached by 1.5metres.

4. Discussion of Members’ on merits of the application, weight given to support of neighbouring properties and the impact of the proposed dormer on the street scene and appropriateness and proportionality of the development.  Noted the trees limited the impact of development in the summer and level of harm is a subjective judgement.

5. Councillor Hurer’s proposal, seconded by Councillor Savva that the officers’ recommendation not be accepted, supported by the majority of the Committee.

Recommendation not agreed.

Reasons for granting

1. The proposed development due to its size, siting and design, would not unduly detract from the character and appearance of the existing property, the visual amenities of the surrounding area or unduly affect the amenities of adjoining or nearby residential properties having regard to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)H8 and (I)H12 of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed extension would not give rise to unacceptable on street parking or congestion, having regards to Policy (II)GD6 as well as Policy 3C.23 of the London Plan.

Conditions

1. Within 3 months of the date of this decision, the rear extension shall be reduced in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure the development is complete in a timely manner and in the interest of the amenities of the adjoining neighbour.

2. The external finishing material shall match those used in the construction of the existing building and/or areas of hard surfacing.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory appearance.