Agenda item
11 Havannah Street, London E14 8NA (PA/14/01807)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 15th October, 2014 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.4)
- View the background to item 6.4
Proposal:
Conservatory extension at ground floor level and first floor extension.
Recommendation:
To REFUSE planning permission on the grounds of the reason set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader , Development and Renewal) introduced the application.The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mr Balvinder (Applicant’s agent) Councillors Andrew Wood and Shahed Ali spoke in support of the scheme. Councillor Wood declared a personal interest in the item as he knew the applicant and was also a Ward Councillor. The speakers representations are summarised below:
- Explained the amendments to the scheme to address Officers concerns.
- It was not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the area given the modest nature of the proposal. Especially when compared to the much larger schemes in the surrounding area that would have a far greater impact on the street scene.
- That the materials and appearance would be in keeping with the area and the wider Estate that was of varying architectural style. A condition could be added to ensure this
- That the scheme was very similar to the host building.
- That the proposal would deliver family accommodation and support families in the Borough. There was a lack of family housing in the Borough that could be extended in this way.
- No objections had been received from the neighbours. The extension at the first floor would be set back from the highway so hardly noticeable by passers by.
- There would be no impact on amenity as noted in the report.
- There were errors in the previous Committee report (15th September 2014 report) that was withdrawn from the agenda due to issues with the consultation.
Angelina Eke (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report explaining the site and character of the surrounding area. The building was not listed or in the Conservation Area. Members were advised of the outcome of the consultation including representations in support from local Councillors and Jim Fitzpatrick MP who considered that the plans would help keep families in the area.
Officers had no concerns in principle to the proposed ground floor extension. However, it was considered that the proposed first floor addition would be by reason of its bulk, mass and scale including design would result in an inappropriate form of development that would detract from the appearance of the original dwelling. Furthermore the continuous frontage created by the main house with the extended element would be visually overbearing and harmful to the street scene.
It was noted that the applicant had taken steps to address the issues. However, on balance, it was considered that would be an incongruous addition that failed to comply with policy and should be refused.
In response to Councillors questions, Officers noted the need for family housing. However, in view of the concerns, the scheme could not be supported. There were inaccuracies in the September 2014 Committee report, but theses were nothing more than errors. Officers had engaged with the applicant to secure a more appropriate scheme in line with policy. However, it was felt that any further amendments could make the scheme unfeasible. Officers agreed that a condition could be added to the consent to ensure the materials and appearance of the scheme was in keeping with the area if permission was granted.
On a vote of 3 in favour of the Officer recommendation and 4 against the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission at 11 Havannah Street, London E14 8NA (PA/14/01807) be NOT ACCEPTED for the conservatory extension at ground floor level and first floor extension.
The Committee were minded to approve the application due to the following reasons:
· The application would not cause material harm to the setting of the area
· That the scale and bulk of the application was appropriate
· That the application would provide family housing.
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 approval and conditions on the application.
Supporting documents: