Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

1.    Introduction by the Head of Development Management, confirming the revisions to proposals, the previous concerns raised, that Members had made a site visit, and that the Conservation Advisory Group objected.

2.    The deputation of Mr Neil Paddon-Smith, neighbouring resident, including the following points:

a. He objected to this incremental aggravated scheme, for which this was the fourth application in the last year.

b. The proposal would not be compliant with policies, particularly UDP policy (II) H12. There would be an adverse impact.

c. There had not been special regard to the Conservation Area. The rear of the property was important as well as the frontage.

d. The applicants should be redirected to progress what was previously agreed.

3.    The statement of Councillor Robert Hayward, Southgate Ward Councillor, including the following points:

a. Applications should not be granted unless they enhanced the Conservation Area.

b. Conservation Area restrictions should also apply to the rear of properties.

c. The policies’ wording tended to overly raise neighbours’ expectations.

4.    The response of Mr Ben Morris, agent for the applicant, including the following points:

a. The application was only a slight enlargement of the scheme previously approved, and prior to its submission it had been discussed with officers what could be achieved.

b. The Conservation Area character appraisal did not place limits on first floor rear extension.

c. Officers considered this proposal acceptable and would not adversely impact on the neighbours’ residential amenities.

5.    The comments of Mr Dennis Stacey, Chairman, Conservation Advisory Group (CAG), included the following points:

a. CAG would emphasise the importance of the Arts and Crafts façade, and that the roofs were very handsome.

b. There should be regard to quality and design of existing buildings. Their erosion bit by bit made people question the point of Conservation Area status.

6.    Debate and questions from Members, including the following:

a. Comments that the previous application had been found acceptable on balance, but Members had reservations about these proposals.

b. Members’ concerns regarding loss of the roof line and bay window in particular would have a negative impact on the character and setting of the area, and officers may consider an appropriate condition.

c. The advice of the Legal Services representative on the options available to the Committee.

d. Members considered that there were valid reasons to refuse planning permission.

7.    A proposal that planning permission be refused on grounds that the proposed extensions would result in the loss of original architectural features (primarily the rear bay window and roof detailing) and this, together with the design and scale of the proposed extensions would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the property and therefore the Conservation Area in which it was located.

8.    The vote of the majority of the Committee not to agree the officers’ recommendation of approval of planning permission subject to conditions.

9.    The support of the majority of the Committee for the proposal that planning permission be refused: 10 votes for and 5 abstentions.

AGREED that planning permission be refused for the reason below.

1. The proposed extensions, by reason of their size, siting and design, would result in the loss of architectural features intrinsic to the character and appearance of this property, and would result in a form and resultant scale of development that would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of this property and its contribution to the Meadway Conservation Area in which it is located. In this respect the development would be contrary to Policies (II)C27 and (II)C30 of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Policy 31 of the Core Strategy, DMD 44 of the Submission version Development Management Document and Policy 7.8 of the London Plan.