Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  That a positive Certificate be issued under section 17(1)(a) of Part III of the Land Compensation Act 1961, as amended by Part 9 of the Localism Act 2011, indicating that in the Local Planning Authority’s opinion there is development, for the purposes of section 14 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 that is appropriate in relation to the acquisition and that planning permission would have been granted, subject to the conditions detailed below in this report, for development comprising of:

• 2x 1bed self-contained units (1 unit within each roof space) and erection of dormer

windows and skylights.

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Joseph McKee, Senior Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals.

2.  Two applications made under Section 17 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 and seek a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) to establish what planning permissions, if any, would have been granted had the Site not been acquired compulsorily by the Council in 2017.

3.  The first proposal (referred to as Application A) is for the conversion of the roof space of each block to create 4 x 1-bedroom units (2x1 bedroom units in each roof space). To facilitate the conversion, associated works are proposed in the form of hip to gable roof extensions, the construction of front and rear dormers at roof level, plus the reconfiguration of the external staircase, to facilitate access to the upper floor flats.

4.  The second proposal (referred to as Application B)  seeks to establish if planning permission would have been granted for the alteration of the roof space of each block to create 2 x 2-bedroom units (1 unit in each roof space). To facilitate the conversion, the proposal includes the constructions of dormers, reconfiguration of the access stairs internally and inclusion of rooflights.

5.  Both Applications A and B would have resulted in poor quality accommodation for future occupiers. In addition, the alterations and extension to the roof of the blocks in Application A would have resulted in a dominant an incongruous form of development, detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, in overall terms, the proposals would not have met the social and environmental objectives of sustainable development, having regard to the NPPF. The proposals, would therefore, have been considered to be unacceptable.

6.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

7.    Officers’ noted the committee’s concerns and comments.

8.     During the debate, it was AGREED that the rules of procedure within the Council’s Constitution relating to the time meetings should end (10pm) be suspended for a period of 15 minutes to enable the business of the agenda to be completed.

9.     Members first vote was for the committee to confirm whether they agreed with Officers’ that planning permission would not have been granted for the development comprising 4 x 1 bedroom self-contained flats in the roof space or 2 x 2 bedroom self-contained flats in the roof space.

10.  The unanimous support of the committee for the officers’ recommendation regarding applications A & B, that planning permission would not have been granted.

11.  Members second vote regarding the third recommendation; would the committee have granted planning permission for a 1bedroom flat in each block and if planning permission was granted then the committee are agreeing with the overall recommendation to grant a positive Certificate.

If the committee would not have granted planning permission for 2 x 1 bedroom flats then the committee are voting against the officers’ recommendation.

12.  The majority of the committee did not support the 3^rd option and overall officer recommendation: 11 votes for and 1 abstention.

13.  Members third vote was for the reasons for refusal which were for the appearance and design of the development, car parking affecting the surrounding area and concern around the 2 x 1 -bedroom units not meeting housing needs at that time.

14. The unanimous support of the committee for refusal and for the reasons given.

AGREED that planning permission would have been refused for the proposals A and B in accordance with the recommendations in the report. Members resolved that planning permission would also have been refused for a proposal for 2x1 bed units in the roof space based on design/appearance, lack of adequate parking on site and potential of overspill, and inappropriate mix of smaller units.