Agenda item
22 Fournier Street
Decision:
On a vote of 3 for and 0 against, with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission at 22 Fournier Street be GRANTED for the refurbishment, alteration and extension of the building to form a single residential unit, including the construction of an additional storey at 3rd floor level and a new roof terrace at 1st floor level to the rear, subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the circulated report.
(2) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose planning conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the circulated report.
Minutes:
The Chair referred to the declaration of interest he had made previously and, at 7.46 pm, withdrew from the meeting room, taking no part in discussion or vote on the application.
At 7.48 pm, Councillor Helal Uddin also left the meeting.
COUNCILLOR SHIRIA KHATUN (VICE-CHAIR) IN THE CHAIR
At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control manager, introduced the report and Tabled update concerning the application for planning permission at 22 Fournier Street.
The Chair then invited persons who had registered for speaking rights to address the meeting.
Ms Charlie De Wet, a Fournier Street resident, stated that the proposed roof terrace would cause noise and disturbances and impact her amenity. Officers felt there would be a neutral impact but residents knew that the impact would be negative. The terrace was 5m. from her home, so noise would directly affect her as it was likely to continue to the early hours. She felt it would be more appropriate to build into the roof or demolish the outbuilding and restore the former garden. She felt the proposed development was inconsistent with other buildings in the conservation area. It was likely to set a planning precedent and give rise to more extensions that would represent overdevelopment of the area. The applicant appeared to contravene Council policies which had been in place for 30 years and should be refused.
Mr Rupert Wheeler, the applicant’s agent, indicated that there had been a very thorough public consultation process and a thorough report had been made by Officers. Objections received had been in response to a document circulated by the owner of an adjoining neighbour, which were exaggerated in nature. However, the applicant had taken account of the matters raised and produced a revised proposal, to which only seven objections had been raised.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Ila Robertson, Applications Manager, gave a detailed presentation based on the circulated report, Tabledupdate and a powerpoint map display. She pointed out that a number of alterations had been made to the original proposal to reduce the scale of the roof terracing, which was now considered acceptable. The terrace was inset 3.5m from the windows with a 1.9m screen inset 1.5m from the site boundary. There was no direct overlooking to neighbouring properties from the terrace, given the screening proposed. The terrace had been reduced in size from 23 sqm to 12 sqm, consequently the size of the terrace would be modest and could not cater for large groups and any noise would be typical of a family dwelling. The screen was to be secured in perpetuity, which would safeguard residents’ privacy. Roof extensions had previously been approved and the same development plan policies applied. As such the principle of a roof extension was essentially agreed.
Members then put questions relating to: the reasons why the roof extension was considered acceptable in a conservation area; the removal of the outbuilding and reversion to a garden space; the introduction of a zinc roof in a conservation area; the difference between the proposed front railings of the dwelling compared with those in the rest of the area.
Ms Robertson responded that:
· Roof extension policies had not changed since 1998 but specific risks to conservation areas were addressed in some parts of the Borough through specific conservation area appraisals.. The roof extension had been agreed by the Conservation Area Officer and would not be very visible in appearance as it was set back.
· The previous conservation position to encourage the demolition of outbuildings was in respect of listed buildings but was not reflected in current conservation area appraisal and there was no actual policy requirement to install a garden area. In any event, the quality of a garden space in this instance would be very limited given it was surrounded by one-two storey high extensions.
· The zinc roof would be used on the extension and was subject to conditions to ensure high quality materials. It was considered acceptable for use on a former industrial 1950s building.
· The proposed railings also looked more in keeping for a 1950s building and it was not necessarily appropriate to replicate the railings from other buildings in the row on a building from a later period.
The Chair then indicated that the vote would be put and, on a vote of 3 for and 0 against, with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission at 22 Fournier Street be GRANTED for the refurbishment, alteration and extension of the building to form a single residential unit, including the construction of an additional storey at 3rd floor level and a new roof terrace at 1st floor level to the rear, subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the circulated report.
(2) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose planning conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the circulated report.
Supporting documents: