Agenda item
71A Fairfield Road, London (PA/10/00742)
Decision:
Councillor Carli Harper – Penman vacated the chair and left the room for the consideration of this item. The time being 7:50pm.
Councillor Ann Jackson in the Chair
Update report tabled.
The Chair pointed out that Councillors Shelina Aktar and Peter Golds were ineligible to vote as they had not been in attendance when the application had been previously considered by the Committee.
On a vote of 3 for and 0 against the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the consideration of the planning permission at 71A Fairfield Road, London for retention and alteration of existing part 3 part 5 storey building which contains 8 residential units be REFUSED for the following reasons.
2) The proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site and this is identified by the following:
a) The proposed development, by virtue of its increased height and excess bulk and mass at third and fourth floor level, would appear out of character with the surrounding area and the host building. The proposed building fails to relate to the scale of the adjacent building to the east at 71 and 73 Fairfield Road. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998), SP10 of the Core Strategy Submission Version December 2009 and policy DEV2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007). These policies seek to ensure appropriate design of buildings within the Borough that respect local context.
b) The proposed development, by virtue of it’s proximity to the adjacent properties to the east at 71 and 73 Fairfield Road, would result in an unacceptable outlook, increased sense of enclosure and loss of privacy for existing residents. This is compounded by the height of the proposed development and its higher gradient which looks down on to and into these properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy DEV2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy DEV1 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) and policy SP10 of the Core Strategy Submission Version December 2009. These policies seek to protect the amenity of residents of the Borough.
c) The proposal would result in a poor standard of accommodation for future occupants, by virtue of it's small internal floor areas (Flat 1, 6, 7 & 8), poor outlook (Flat 4, 6 & 8) and lack of external amenity space (Flats 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies DEV2, HSG13 and HSG16 of the adopted UDP (1998) and Policy HSG7 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007). These policies seek to ensure developments provide sufficient amenity, internal space standards, and high quality useable amenity space for future residential occupiers.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Carli Harper – Penman vacated the chair and left the room for the consideration of this item. The time being 7:50pm.
Councillor Ann Jackson in the Chair
The Chair pointed out that Councillors Shelina Aktar and Peter Golds were ineligible to vote as they had not been in attendance when the application had been previously considered by the Committee.
Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the application regarding 71a Fairfield Road and advised that there was an update report on the site. It was reported that at its last meeting, the Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse this application due to concerns over bulk height and the amenity impact in respect of privacy and resolved that the matter be deferred so that the applicant could consider whether it was possible to address the concerns. Since that time the applicant had advised that it would not be possible to amend the scheme to address these issues without removing the entire building. As a result the application was being presented to Committee with a recommendation for refusal.
In response to the presentation, Members questioned whether, if refused, the existing occupiers of the flats would be made homeless, whether there was anything the Council could do to support the new owners, the timescale for any appeals process.
In reply, Officers explained the enforcement and the appeals process. Officers confirmed that they would robustly defend any appeal lodged by the Applicant.
On a vote of 3 for and 0 against the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the consideration of the planning permission at 71A Fairfield Road, London for retention and alteration of existing part 3 part 5 storey building which contains 8 residential units be REFUSED for the following reasons.
a) The proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site and this is identified by the following: The proposed development, by virtue of its increased height and excess bulk and mass at third and fourth floor level, would appear out of character with the surrounding area and the host building. The proposed building fails to relate to the scale of the adjacent building to the east at 71 and 73 Fairfield Road. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998), SP10 of the Core Strategy Submission Version December 2009 and policy DEV2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007). These policies seek to ensure appropriate design of buildings within the Borough that respect local context.
b) The proposed development, by virtue of it’s proximity to the adjacent properties to the east at 71 and 73 Fairfield Road, would result in an unacceptable outlook, increased sense of enclosure and loss of privacy for existing residents. This is compounded by the height of the proposed development and its higher gradient which looks down on to and into these properties. The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policy DEV2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998), policy DEV1 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) and policy SP10 of the Core Strategy Submission Version December 2009. These policies seek to protect the amenity of residents of the Borough.
c) The proposal would result in a poor standard of accommodation for future occupants, by virtue of it's small internal floor areas (Flat 1, 6, 7 & 8), poor outlook (Flat 4, 6 & 8) and lack of external amenity space (Flats 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8). The proposal is therefore contrary to saved policies DEV2, HSG13 and HSG16 of the adopted UDP (1998) and Policy HSG7 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007). These policies seek to ensure developments provide sufficient amenity, internal space standards, and high quality useable amenity space for future residential occupiers.
Supporting documents:
-
PA_10_742 71a Fairfield Road Defferal Report, item 6.2
PDF 61 KB
-
PA_10_00742 Appendix 1, item 6.2
PDF 378 KB