Issue - meetings

Erection of three-storey plus basement, three bedroom house with sunken garden together with erection of 1.8 metre high front boundary fence and wall and provision of refuse store.

12.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the report.  This application was supported by the Hackney Society.

12.2  Gary Beelders spoke in objection of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

§  Inappropriate location, tiny London garden.

§  Modern building, located adjacent to traditional Victorian buildings.

§  A lot of coming and going, if rented out.  Noise issue.

§  New proposal was slightly smaller but it still dominated the neighbouring buildings.

§  Affect wildlife – loss of garden.

§  Mature trees will also be affected, which was not mentioned in the proposals.

§  Loss of light for neighbouring properties.

§  Issue of overlooking.

§  Out of keeping with surrounding area.

§  Boundary issues – right of access to boundary walls for maintenance.

§  Health and safety issue – height of boundary walls.

12.3  The agent was in attendance to answer any questions that arose.

12.4  In response to a question from the Chair regarding the loss of trees, it was explained that there were no tree preservation orders (TPOs) on any of the trees in the area and that one of the trees would be lost.

12.5  Councillor Smith raised concern over the high drop into the light well, over the boundary wall, and whether this was secured.  The agent explained that the design had been modified to ensure that this was not possible.  It was established that there would be a one floor drop over the boundary wall.

Councillors Buitekant, Desmond, Hanson and Smith voted against the recommendation. It was therefore:

RESOLVED that:

(appropriate wording)………………………………

Design not in keeping and out of character with the surrounding area.

Not enough information on the safety of the boundary walls.