Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of application - Demolition of 89 and 91 Oak Tree Gardens and erection of 7 two storey four bedroom dwellings with accommodation in roof space on land to the rear comprising of 3 terraced dwellings and 2 pairs of semi-detached dwellings, single garage for No. 87, associated access, parking, landscaping, cycle and refuse storage.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Michael Turner, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  It was reported that further objections to the application had been received and that the Tree Officer had no objection to the application.

In Councillor Turner’s opinion the proposed design was an overdevelopment, out of character with the area with insufficient parking provision.  He referred to the National Planning Policy Framework’s Backland Development Policy that resisted backland development in residential gardens and reported that the Residents’ Association objected to the application.  Concerns were raised that some residents were unable to arrange flood insurance as the area was prone to flooding due to the Quaggy River Culvert nearby and sewerage had be known to back up.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1.  The proposal by reason of its layout, bulk and siting in relation to neighbouring residential dwellings constitutes an unsatisfactory and cramped form of development, seriously detrimental to the residential amenities which the occupiers of neighbouring properties might reasonable expect to continue to enjoy, thereby contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policies 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.  The proposal, by reason of its bulk, layout and siting, would constitute an unsatisfactory form of development, out of character with the pattern of development, quality and distinctiveness of the surrounding area, thereby detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policies 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.