Agenda item

Retention of 1 x 4 bedrooms flat at basement and ground floor level and 2 x 2 bedroom flats at first and second floor levels.

Removal of unauthorised roof extension and replacement with twin hipped roof with front and rear roof lights.

Removal of studios unit at roof level and use of roof space in conjunction with second floor flat

Removal of unauthorised flat roof above rear addition and replacement with pitched roof

Retention (with alterations) of rear extension at second floor level.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Correction of existing plans to show existing window at second floor level, omission of proposed rear dormer window and replacement with 2 x roof light windows, reduction in height of chimney stack as original and as proposed (amendments received 27/05/2009).

(Councillor Desmond declared a prejudicial interest as he had previously been involved with the application and left the chamber during discussion).

9.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda.  Reference was made to the addendum which included a site plan and existing, proposed and ‘as built’ plans, sections and elevations.

9.2  Nick Edwards (Benthal Road Action Group) spoke in objection to the scheme, his comments are summarised as follows:-

§  Numerous objections had been submitted.

§  Feel that the development was purely for financial gain.

§  A petition had also been submitted in May.

§  There were inaccuracies in the plan, which needed to be resolved.

§  An unnecessary and unsightly box had been erected to the rear of the property, housing the stairwell.

§  Issue of overlooking.

§  No functional necessity to the stairwell box.

§  Ruins the character of the surrounding area.

9.3  Michael Sierens (Architect) and Patrick Donnelly (Agent) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:-

§  The scheme complies with the UDP policies and London Plan.

§  The stairwell is housed by a small box to the rear of the property and feel that this is the only sensible option.

§  Happy to discuss the materials to be used.

9.4  The Committee requested that the materials be conditioned and insisted that brick be used.  This was AGREED.

9.5  Discussion took place regarding the boxed stairwell at the rear of the property, as Members raised concern that it adversely affected the character of the building and the surrounding properties.

9.6  In response to a question regarding the viability of an internal staircase, the Planning Officer stated that an internal staircase was preferred, however Members had to consider the application submitted.  The agent added that it would not be a viable option to provide an internal staircase.

9.7  Councillor Hanson proposed that the application be REFUSED, on the grounds that insufficient effort had been made to retain the existing character of the house and that it would adversely impact upon the surrounding area.  This was seconded by Councillor Webb.

RESOLVED that:-

§  Insufficient effort made to keep the character of the existing property.

§  The development would adversely affect the character of the existing property and surrounding area.