Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Turkey Street

NOTED

1.  The deputation of Mr Chris Frangoudes, the applicant, including the following points:

a.  He had bought the property in 1986, and he had received planning permission for an extension similar to that now being sought, but that permission had expired.

b.  In the past two years, planning applications had been approved at no. 17A, Turkey Street. He considered his proposal to be similar in nature and detail. Officers’ objections in this report could have equally applied in that case.

c.  The proposal would provide a needed improvement to the external appearance.

d.  The borough needed more housing.

e.  He disputed officers’ references to historical importance in the reasons for refusal. The property was not listed and there was no evidence in support.

f.  The second reason for refusal was not unique to this application and would also have applied to no. 17.

g.  With regard to the third reason for refusal, in size this proposal was very similar to the extension previously approved, and similar to the application granted at no. 17, which was also closer to neighbouring property.

h.  He also disagreed with the fourth reason for refusal and would argue that this development would be in keeping and sympathetic to the street scene and would restore balance.

i.  He would willingly work with the Council towards meeting the objections.

2.  The response of the Planning Decisions Manager, including the following:

a.  Attention was drawn in particular to the objections raised by the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) and that the site was in the Turkey Street Conservation Area.

b.  He acknowledged the previous approval, but that was for a first floor extension and the circumstances were very different.

c.  Officers shared the concerns of CAG and did not consider the development would preserve or enhance the conservation area.

d.  The compromising of the 45-degree line from the rear window would affect the neighbour’s dwelling, and the kitchen would receive little natural light, giving poor living conditions for the occupants.

3.  In response to Councillor Savva’s queries it was advised that the conservation area had been designated in the 1980s, but the character appraisal which defined the historical significance of the area was developed in the last two to three years and that was the benchmark against which the proposal was now being judged.

4.  The advice of the Head of Development Management in response to points raised by Members, including the following points:

a.  The previous approval was to extend upwards on the first storey. This proposal was for an additional two-bed two-storey dwelling on the site.

b.  The resulting amenity space provision for the new dwelling and for the original dwelling would be sub-standard.

c.  The development at no. 17 did not set a precedent; each application was dealt with on its own merits, and there had been a material change in circumstances, with regard to the character appraisal.

d.  The applicant’s offer to negotiate with officers was noted, but there were a number of reasons for refusal of the application and it would be very difficult to overcome the issue of amenity space provision on the small site.

5.  Member discussion resulted in additional reason for refusal on amenity space being agreed.

6.  Members’ unanimous support for the officers’ recommendation.

AGREED that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report and the additional reason set out below.

Additional reason for refusal:

The proposed dwelling by virtue of its restricted curtilage and overall footprint

would provide an inadequate level of private amenity space detrimental to the living conditions of future occupiers and the quality of the resultant dwelling house. This is contrary to Policy CP30 of the adopted Core Strategy and Policy H9 of the saved Unitary Development Plan as well as Policy 3A.6 of the London Plan.