Agenda item

CONTEST APPEAL

Description of application – Conversion of the existing dwelling into 2 dwellings.

Oral representations in support of the appeal being contested were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Ian Dunn, in support of the appeal being contested were received at the meeting.  A late submission with photographs in objection to the application had been received and circulated to Members.

The Chief Planner’s representative submitted the following late Addendum and circulated it to Members.

‘Addendum to Item 4.3 – 13 Blakeney Avenue

The proposed plans for this application include extensions and alterations to the property which were considered and refused planning permission under ref. 17/05492/RECON.  As they are included on the plans for this application they are considered to be an integral and necessary part of the proposed conversion of the property to form flats which is now under consideration.  Accordingly, the previous reasons for refusal remain pertinent to this scheme and should Members decide to refuse the application, it is recommended that the following additional reason for refusal is added:

The proposed rear roof extensions would cause significant harm to the character of the area, appearance of the host dwelling and the visual amenities of the street scene given its overall size, scale, massing and projection above the roof slope contrary to Policy BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policies 6, 37 and 41 of the Emerging Local Plan.

Please also note that the property does not benefit from permitted development rights as stated in the report.’

Councillor Dunn had visited the site and referred it its history and in his view the division of the dwelling would have an adverse impact on the area and be unacceptable as there were no other conversions to flats in Blakeney Avenue.

Councillor William Huntington-Thresher accepted the principle of the proposed conversion to two flats.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED to CONTEST THE APPEAL as recommended, on the ground set out in the report of the Chief Planner and with two further grounds to read:-

“2. The proposed rear roof extensions shown in the application as an integral part of the scheme would cause significant harm to the character of the area, appearance of the host dwelling and the visual amenities of the street scene given its overall size, scale, massing and projection above the roof slope contrary to Policy BE1 and H8 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policies 6, 37 and 41 of the Emerging Local Plan.

3. The conversion of the host dwelling into 2 dwellings would be unacceptable in principle, out of character with the prevailing pattern, character and distinctive residential qualities of the locality, thereby contrary to Policies BE1 and H11 of the Unitary Development Plan, Policies 9 and 37 of the draft Local Plan and Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan.”