Agenda item
71A Fairfield Road, London (PA/10/00742)
Decision:
On a vote of nil for and one against, with three abstentions, it was –
RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for retention and alteration of existing part 3 part 5 storey building at 71A Fairfield Road, London, be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee was minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:
- The inappropriate bulk and scale of the development.
- The unacceptable impact on other residential properties arising from sense of enclosure, outlook, privacy and overlooking.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
The Chair referred to the declarations of prejudicial interest that she had made at the start of the meeting and indicated that she would leave the room and take no further part in the proceedings. She proposed a motion, seconded by Councillor Mukit, which was declared carried 4 four and nil against, and it was RESOLVED
That Councillor Ann Jackson be elected Chair for the remainder of the current meeting of the Development Committee.
Councillor Harper-Penman then left the meeting.
COUNCILLOR ANN JACKSON IN THE CHAIR
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, introduced the report regarding the retention and alteration of existing part 3, part 5 storey building at 71A Fairfield Road, London.
The Chair then invited persons who had registered to speak on this item to address the Committee.
Ms Jose Franks, speaking in objection to the application, stated that her home abutted 71A Fairfield Road and the latter had effectively doubled in size as a result of the development. The increase to five floors had not been previously envisaged and was much closer to her property than first proposed. This was not a negligible impact, as stated in the report. No-one had visited her home to undertake a sunlight/daylight assessment and the building now dominated the sky line from her kitchen and garden. There was now also an issue regarding lack of privacy, which she did not feel was suitably addressed by the proposals for cedar louvres and up to eight cars were parked on the site. She felt that the substantial divergences from the original planning permission should have been noted, but no action had been taken despite having made phone calls to Officers.
Councillor Marc Francis, speaking in objection to the application, commented that this was the second agenda item relating to a request for retrospective planning permission. Planning permission had been given for a development but something different had been built and this had only come to light following Ms Franks’ actions. He felt that the enforcement process had been very poor in this instance. The section of the report relating to public consultation did not properly represent local concerns and sought to generalise the position. The assertion that the actual scheme was a similar building to that originally proposed stretched credulity as there were significant differences, especially internally, and it was much closer to neighbouring properties than intended. Neighbours’ windows were now below sunlight requirements and there had been no meaningful attempt to bring back the development to its previous approved form. Detailed plans must be agreed to that effect.
Mr Kieran O’Brien indicated that he was speaking on behalf of his wife, Hannah O’Brien, who was unwell and the Architect was also unable to be present. He was one of a group of leaseholders who had bought the property for investment purposes before the current problems were known about and they understood the concerns and anger that had arisen. He was unable to answer technical questions and was speaking on behalf of the leaseholders who were now horrified at the position. They were considering legal action against Copeland Properties, the developers, which could cost thousands of pounds and would do anything in their power to alleviate the position. He regretted that there had been no daylight assessment at 71 Fairfield Road and did not know why it had not been undertaken. The leaseholders were concerned about overlooking of other properties and would seek to avoid this. They were also happy to agree there would be no car parking on the site and the four cars currently parked there would be removed. Rubbish strewn around the site would be removed within two weeks. Mr O’Brien sought to reassure Members and residents that any proposals would be accepted and reiterated that the leaseholders had effectively been hoodwinked but wanted to improve the position.
Mr Jerry Bell, Strategic Applications Manager, confirmed that the current development at 71A Fairfield Road was unauthorised and gave a detailed presentation including the history of the development since the original planning permission was granted on 18 January 2006 to the serving of an enforcement notice on 30 July 2008, through to the submission of the present application. He summarised the differences between the “2006 scheme”, the “as built scheme” and the “proposed scheme” as contained in the circulated report. Mr Bell explained how the current building included two additional storeys at third and fourth floor levels and was taller towards the front, with an increase in bulk and mass. He confirmed that concerns had been raised by occupants of 71 and 73 Fairfield Road, with a further petition and also concerns raised by a Ward Councillor. He recognised that the development had not been built in accordance with agreed plans and summarised Government guidance advising that Court action following an enforcement notice should be regarded as a last resort, with remedial action being a preferred solution.
Mr Bell continued that 71 and 73 Fairfield Road had now been tested for sunlight/daylight levels by the applicant’s consultant. This had been reviewed by Environmental Health Officers who had reached the conclusion that the position was acceptable in so far as it was no worse than the consented scheme. With regard to proximity and overlooking, all windows on appropriate elevations had opaque glazing facing 71 and 73 Fairfield Road and timber louvres prevented overlooking of the block adjacent to those properties. He further accepted that there had been an increase in mass that might lead to the perception of enclosure and it would be a subjective matter as to whether or not this seemed oppressive. It was felt, however, that there was sufficient distance between 71A Fairfield Road and neighbouring properties. Mr Bell noted the leaseholders’ agreement to remove the parking spaces and indicated that this would be enforced. Secured bin enclosures were provided to the front of the development and their use would be enforced.
Mr Bell commented that it was necessary to consider the current application on its merits, rather than any lack of enforcement action. The proposal was finely balanced and sought to address all the issues and problems that had arisen.
Members then put questions, which were answered by Mr Bell, relating to the establishment of people’s concerns regarding feelings of enclosure; the legal status of the current building; supervision of development sites and Officer visits; the last resort position regarding an illegal building and illegal activity; and concerns about the position of the current leaseholders.
On a vote of nil for and one against, with three abstentions, it was –
RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for retention and alteration of existing part 3 part 5 storey building at 71A Fairfield Road, London, be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee was minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:
- The inappropriate bulk and scale of the development.
- The unacceptable impact on other residential properties arising from sense of enclosure, outlook, privacy and overlooking.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Supporting documents: