Issue - meetings

168 Southgate Road

 

 

Meeting: 16/10/2008 - Planning Sub-Committee (Item 8)

8 168 Southgate Road, N1 3HX pdf icon PDF 4 MB

Decision:

RESOLVED that:

 

A)  Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to conditions

 

B)  That recommendation A be subject to the applicant, the landowners and their mortgagees entering into a deed of planning obligation by means of a Section 106 Agreement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to secure the following matters to the satisfaction of the Assistant Director of Regeneration and Planning and the Interim Corporate Director of Legal and Democratic Services.

 

 

Minutes:

Demolition of a garage and the erection of a two storey, one bedroom dwelling house.

 

8.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report as set out in the agenda and explained that this had come to committee because of the number of objections received.

 

8.2  Mrs Rigden, spoke in objection to the scheme, her comments are summarised as follows:

 

  • The proposed building would seriously affect the amount of light coming into her property.
  • Increase in the number of cars parked in the area, due to the loss of garage and new house.
  • Planning Officers did not visit her property to assess the potential loss of light.
  • A number of photos were circulated at the meeting, illustrating her point that there was insufficient room for a car to be parked to the front of the property.

 

8.3  Matthew Goldman, Applicant, spoke in support of the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:

 

  • With reference to the daylight issue, the back of the property would have a sloped roof to try and reduce the amount of light lost.
  • The garage was an unsafe structure and he believed the new property would improve the appearance of the site.
  • The architect had liaised with the Planning Officer and the Conservation Officers to produce the design of the property.
  • A method statement was produced to protect the trees.

 

8.4  Following a query regarding the amount of space at the front of the property for a car to park, it was confirmed that there was a total of 4m, which would accommodate a small car.

 

8.5  Kevin Moore asked whether the Kingsland Conservation Advisory Committee had been consulted as the proposed development was located within a conservation area.  The Planning Officer stated that they had been consulted and no response was received.

 

8.6  Councillor Desmond referred to the loss of daylight issue and wished to clarify whether a daylight/sunlight report had been produced.  The Planning Officer stated that a daylight/sunlight report had not been produced for this application due to the size of the extension, and the level of daylight/sunlight loss for the neighbouring property was deemed appropriate.

 

8.7  In response to a query regarding the materials to be used on the frontage of the property, the applicant confirmed that the lower level would be render with brick above.  The Chair asked whether the proposal included the provision of a green roof and the applicant indicated that this had already been discussed and he was happy for this to be provided.  The Chair requested that all endeavours for a green roof to be included be added to the list of conditions.  This was AGREED.

 

8.8  A request was also made for the parking space to be removed from the front of the property, to be replaced with a garden.  This was AGREED.

 

Unanimously RESOLVED that:

 

A) Planning permission be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.  SCB0 – Development in accordance with plans

The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out and completed strictly in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8