Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.  Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor Pearce left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote on the application.

2.  The introduction by the Head of Development Management, highlighting the changes to PPS3, the objections received, the views of Planning officers, and that issues were finely balanced and it was for Members to make a judgement.

3.  An additional condition to replace Condition 22, in relation to balustrades and the safeguarding of the privacy of adjoining residents.

4.  Receipt of a letter of objection from the occupiers of 99, Camlet Way, circulated to Members.

5.  The deputation of Mrs Linda Lindsay, neighbouring resident of 99, Camlet Way, including the following points:

a.  This was an example of back garden development intended to be prevented by the recently amended legislation.

b.  This development would establish a precedent which could lead to further fragmentation of the north side of Camlet Way.

c.  These gardens were a valuable buffer zone to the facing green belt.

d.  The siting of the development would be overbearingly close in proximity to the garden of no. 99, and the access drive running alongside the garden boundary line would lead to loss of privacy and severely affect the amenity and enjoyment of her garden.

e.  The water table could be disturbed by work on nearby ponds.

f.  This development would be detrimental to the surrounding area.

g.  She drew attention to the six letters of objection from local residents and references to dangerous traffic conditions. This would add to traffic volume.

h.  The pavements were inadequate and there had already been a number of accidents and fatalities.

i.  In respect of the calculation for contribution to affordable housing, she questioned the quoted market value of this house.

6.  The response of Mr Paul Carter, the agent, including the following points:

a.  There was nothing in the changes to PPS3 which affected the determining issues in this application; there was no automatic presumption against development.

b.  The context was the wide variety of designs in the area, and the impact of this house had been reduced by making good use of the levels of the site.

c.  The access drive was set some distance from the boundary of no. 99 and would be below ground level where it met the dwelling.

d.  The impact on the green belt and surrounding properties had been assessed, and all trees on the boundary would be safeguarded.

e.  He could confirm that fire officers had no objection to this development.

f.  The proposal complied with up-to-date national and local policies.

7.  Mr Dennis Stacey advised that the Conservation Advisory Group had not been consulted on the application as it was not in a conservation area, but he would be concerned about a precedent, and that the development would be against the spirit and style of the area.

8.  Confirmation of the Head of Development Management that a proposal for a two-storey dwelling set high in the landscape would have been considered unacceptable, but in this case the visual impact was reduced considerably and the sustainability criteria was high, and it was not felt there was sufficient justification to warrant refusal.

9.  Concerns expressed by Councillor Prescott in respect of such building on a backland site and increase in density out of keeping in the vicinity.

10.  Councillor Simon’s comments in support of the need for more housing in the borough and for the innovative, imaginative and sustainable design.

11.  The advice of the Head of Development Management in response to Members’ queries, on the effects and implications of amendments to PPS3 and potential reasons for refusal of planning permission.

12.  The confirmation of the Head of Development Management that Traffic and Transportation officers had no objection in terms of traffic generation and did not consider there would be undue noise generated by vehicle movements. It was also considered this proposal would be very unlikely to have any effect on hydrology.

13.  Planning officers’ agreement to the request of Councillor Delman to seek conclusive and clear guidance from the office of the Secretary of State on PPS3.

14.  The Head of Development Management’s clarification on amenity space provision, and on the Council’s adopted S106 policy document.

15.  The confirmation of the Traffic and Transportation officer that in traffic terms there was no objection to one extra dwelling in Camlet Way.

16.  Councillor Hurer’s support for reasons to refuse planning permission in respect of unacceptability of the proposal in terms of overdevelopment and the visual impact.

17.  The support of the majority of the Committee to accept the officers’ recommendation: 7 votes for and 5 against.

AGREED that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report, deletion of Condition 22, and the additional condition below, for the reasons set out in the report.

Additional Condition (to replace Condition 22)

No approval is granted to the glass balustrade on the roof serving the eastern, western and southern elevations of the development and full details of the balustrades along these elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the building and shall thereafter be erected in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:  To safeguard the privacy of adjoining residents.