Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Southgate Green

NOTED

1.         The verbal introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, including the following points:

a.  The application sought to change the elevations and external appearance of the scheme approved by the 2007 planning permission.

b.  Since the publication of the report, an additional 10 letters of objection had been received. These raised all or some of the following points:

Impact on Conservation Area

- outrageous plans that should be rejected because of the damage they would inflict on the amenity and enjoyment of adjoining house and garden;

- development should never have been approved when designation of Conservation Area was imminent;

- the developers existing consent should be rescinded and new plans submitted which are more appropriate to 1 Derwent Road and the wider Conservation Area;

- original building contained “all original features in tact”;

- the design of the building is like a pastiche of Edwardian style;

- the replacement building must look exactly like the original building;

- there is inadequate detail on the elevations including projecting brick panels around windows, inappropriate rendering, the absence of original oriole windows;

- design involves an oversized caricature of original turrets, the eaves of which do not respect eaves of original building and absence of sloping roof to dormer windows which remain of poor design;

- there should be greater use of leaded lights and stained glass windows;

- front door detail should reflect original and the proposed ground floor units should have their own front doors off the street in the original positions rather than via a communal hallway;

- strong objections to unacceptable parking and refuse storage arrangements are unacceptable as both elements could have been moved well away from the boundary;

- the proposals fall significantly short of replicating the original design of the facades of the houses that stood on this important site within the Conservation Area;

- Planning Committee must halt this outrageous degradation of the Conservation Area;

- the development will harm the Conservation Area;

- object to any development on the site which does not include restoration of a front elevation facsimile of the original;

- replacement proposals should bring characteristics to the Conservation Area to at least match the quality of the original especially those elements that were strong identifiable features of the original building;

- it is important that the block between Ulleswater Road and Derwent Road has a complete row of large houses with consistent scale and detailing which make a coherent period composition and a distinctive view from Broomfield Park;

- replacement development should not go ahead without strict criteria being applied;

Process

- how can it be a minor amendment when the proposals involve a new elevation with a completely different façade and on a completely different footprint;

- Council officers have shown bias in favour of the developer against the Conservation Area and have not followed proper procedures in dealing with these changes;

- no design and access statement has been submitted;

- plans do not show sufficient detail;

- a fresh new planning application should be sought;

- the use of the minor material amendment process in this instance is inappropriate.

c.  Receipt of a petition of 128 signatures objecting to the demolition and the fact that the architectural design of the 2007 scheme is out of keeping with and detrimental to the appearance of the Conservation Area.

d.  Receipt of a letter from The Enfield Society. The Society comments that the design which replicates to a considerable extent the appearance of the demolished pair of houses is a welcome improvement. Subject to the colour of the pebbledash at first floor matching that of neighbouring houses, the Society raises no objection.

e.  Receipt of a letter from Southgate and District Civic Trust. The Trust comments that it considers the alterations to the external appearance now to be in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. Timber windows and doors, roof tiles and brickwork to be as the original and surrounding properties are what the Group would expect.

f.  Amendments to the report: Paragraph 2.1 should read “Planning permission is sought in respect of proposed alterations to the design and external elevations of the approved 2007 scheme“ and at Paragraph 2.2 (second line) it should refer to “Conservation Area Consent” rather than “minor material amendment”.

g.  In response to CAG’s comments and a number of concerns raised by residents, a number of additional details in a revised plan was received on Friday from the applicant. The revised plan shows:

- brick surrounds to first floor;

- amendment to proportions of all windows;

- oriels have been amended to reflect those of the original building;

- sloping roof introduced to front dormers.

The architects for the scheme had also confirmed that:

- the brickwork will be Flemish bond;

- use of pebbledash at first floor.

h.  A number of additional conditions were proposed, to require large scale drawings; confirmation of first floor elevations and brickwork finish; and detail for the design of the front door.

2.         Councillor Hurer’s concerns that with revisions received at this late stage, it was difficult to assess whether they addressed all the concerns of local residents. However, he welcomed the conditions put in place.

3.         In response to Councillor Hurer’s re-iteration of residents’ request to prevent graffiti and signage defacing the hoardings, officers confirmed that the Council had adequate powers to remove this in a short period of time, and that a condition would be inappropriate, but a directive would be imposed to remind the developer of the desire to keep a clean site.

4.         In response to Councillor E. Savva’s queries regarding the car parking provision for the development, the Planning Decisions Manager advised that parking was considered at the time of the original 2007 planning application and that this application was limited to the external appearance of the development. As the extant planning permission did approve parking at the rear, that remained.

5.         Members voted in support of the officers’ recommendation 7 for and 2 against with 3 abstentions.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and additional conditions below for the reason set out in the report.

Additional Conditions

?          All new fenestration and joinery shall be constructed of timber in accordance with large-scale joinery details scale 1:20 including cross section details of the window opening to show brick surround detailing to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to installation.

Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

?          The first floor of all elevations of the development hereby approved shall be finished in pebbledash in accordance with details shown on Drg No 794a/PL07A to be agreed by the local planning authority prior to application of finish.

Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

?          The brickwork for the development hereby approved shall be constructed using Flemish bond.

Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

?          Detail for the design of the front door shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to installation.

Reason:  To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to preserve the special character and appearance of the Conservation Area.