Reference: 16/1447/FUL Received: 7th March 2016 Accepted: 7th March 2016 Ward: East Finchley Expiry 2nd May 2016

Similar documents
18 Birkbeck Road London NW7 4AA. Reference: 15/02994/HSE Received: 14th May 2015 Accepted: 26th May 2015 Ward: Mill Hill Expiry 21st July 2015

6B Bertram Road London NW4 3PN

Reference: 16/1234/HSE Received: 25th February 2016 Accepted: 2nd March 2016 Ward: High Barnet Expiry 27th April 2016

Ground Floor Flat 15 Redbourne Avenue London N3 2BP

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

3 Tretawn Gardens London NW7 4NP

3 Abbey View Mill Hill London NW7 4PB

5 Gratton Terrace London NW2 6QE. Reference: 17/5094/HSE Received: 4th August 2017 Accepted: 7th August 2017 Ward: Childs Hill Expiry 2nd October 2017

49 Broughton Avenue London N3 3EN

REFERENCE: B/03745/12 Received: 02 October 2012 Accepted: 05 October 2012 WARD(S): Totteridge Expiry: 30 November 2012.

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Garages To Rear Of The Willows 1025 High Road London N20 0QE

REFERENCE: B/00601/12 Received: 11 February 2012 Accepted: 21 February 2012 WARD(S): High Barnet Expiry: 17 April 2012

Reference: 15/06961/RCU Received: 13th November 2015 Accepted: 17th November 2015 Ward: Coppetts Expiry 12th January 2016

Tennis Court Rear Of 3-5 Corringway London NW11 7ED

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Final Revisions: Provision of single storey modular classroom and associated works.

LOCATION: 592 Finchley Road, London, NW11 7RX REFERENCE: F/03977/12 Received: 22 October 2012 Accepted: 29 November 2012 WARD(S): Childs Hill Expiry:

Opp The Market Place Falloden Way London NW11 6JJ

Brookside Walk Children's Play Area, London, NW4

St Marys Church Of England High School Downage London NW4 1AB

Stanryck House, 38 Totteridge Village, London, N20 8JN

MEETING CHIPPING BARNET AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE AND TIME TUESDAY 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 AT 7.00 PM VENUE

PLANNING COMMITTEE. 14 October 2014

Case Officer: Sarah Kay File No: CHE/14/00515/REM Tel. No: (01246) Plot No: 2/6132 Ctte Date: 15 th September 2014 ITEM 1

Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions

Report Author/Case Officer: Joanne Horner Contact Details:

Final Revisions: Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Mr & Mrs Connolly per Pump House Designs Pump House Yard The Green SEDLESCOMBE, East Sussex. TN33 0QA

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL. Executive Director (Operational Services) Corporate Manager (Planning and New Communities)

WEST AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE. Elm Park, Elm Terrace, Cricklewood Tree Preservation Order TPO/CA/419

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

REFERENCE: F/05159/13 Received: 05 November 2013 Accepted: 05 November 2013 WARD(S): Garden Suburb Expiry: 31 December 2013.

DESIGN GUIDANCE NOTE NO: 5 EXTENSIONS TO HOUSES

The term 'development' in the conditions below means the development permitted by this consent.

Report Author/Case Officer: Paul Keen Senior Planning Officer (Dev Control) Contact Details:

DELEGATED DECISION on 1st September 2015

CA//16/00504/FUL. Canterbury City Council Military Road Canterbury Kent CT1 1YW. Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey

37 NAGS HEAD LANE BRENTWOOD ESSEX CM14 5NL

Land Adjacent To Trafalgar House Grenville Place Mill Hill London NW7

Land Adj. 63 Sunny Bank Road, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, B73 5RJ

The Lodge, Long Lane, London N3 2PY

2014/0943 Reg Date 06/11/2014 Lightwater

2014/0590 Reg Date 26/06/2014 Chobham

The Compton School, Summers Lane, London, N12 0QG

Ullswater Court 92 Holders Hill Road London NW4 1LN

Application Recommended for Approval Hapton with Park Ward

Ward: West Wittering. Proposal Change of use from public highway pavement to residential garden use.

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL. Director of Development Services

PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT

PARISH / WARD: Peacehaven / Peacehaven East PROPOSAL:

PLANNING COMMITTEE 15 September 2015

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

REFERENCE: 15/01661/FUL Registered: 16 March 2015 Expiry date: 25 October 2016

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUNGALOW AND REPLACEMENT BUNGALOW. Ms Sukhi Dhadwar

Applicant s partner is an employee of the Council COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE

5 Beaumont Close London N2 0GA. Reference: 18/2471/FUL Received: 23rd April 2018 Accepted: 24th April 2018 Ward: Garden Suburb Expiry 19th June 2018

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL. Planning and New Communities Director. Linton. Yes

Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning Committee Report

Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning Committee Report

Ashmole Academy Cecil Road London N14 5RJ

Local Plan. Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance

Final Revisions: 2. This development must be begun within three years from the date of this permission.

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL. Planning and New Communities Director

Planning Area Committee 25 June 2018 Addendum to Officers Report RESTRICTION OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - EXTENSIONS

2015/0291 Reg Date 13/04/2015 Parkside

Outh SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL. Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development S/0179/18/OL. Histon. Approval.

Demolition of existing building (former residential home) and erection of 9 apartments with associated car parking and amenity areas.

Annington Property Limited

Committee Date: 19/03/2015 Application Number: 2014/06414/PA Accepted: 06/01/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 03/03/2015

2015/1020 Mr Edward Cockburn Caravan storage on hardcore base (Retrospective) Ranah Stones, Whams Road, Hazlehead, Sheffield, S36 4HT

Section Three, Appendix 16C Medium Density Housing, Design Assessment Criteria (Residential 8A zone)

Planning and Regulatory Committee 20 May Applicant Local Councillor Purpose of Report

Persimmon Homes Thames Valley Date received: 2 nd April week date(major): 2 nd July 2014 Ward: Nascot

Recommendation: Refuse

Canterbury City Council Military Road Canterbury Kent CT1 1YW. Title: CA/16/02745/ADV. Author: Planning and Regeneration.

ROBINSON ESCOTT PLANNING LLP

CA//17/02777/FUL. Scale 1:1,250. Planning Services Canterbury City Council Military Road Canterbury Kent CT1 1YW

APPLICATION ITEM LW/17/0325 NUMBER: NUMBER: 8 APPLICANTS. PARISH / Peacehaven / P L Projects NAME(S):

Site north of Hattersley Road West (east of Fields Farm Road), Hattersley

26 September 2014 CONSULTATION EXPIRY : APPLICATION EXPIRY : 22 July 2014 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: PERMISSION

LOCATION: Former 261, Hale Lane, Edgware, Middx, HA8 8NX REFERENCE: H/04845/11 Received: 05 December 2011 Accepted: 12 December 2011 WARD(S): Edgware

Rev John Withy, Sion House, 120 Melmount Road, Sion Mills

Site: Essex Police & La Plata House London Road Brentwood Essex CM14 4QJ

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

British Library Newspapers, 130 Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5HE

Schedule of Planning Applications Committee Date: 23 May Reference: 06/17/0726/F Parish: Hemsby Officer: Mr J Beck Expiry Date:

MATURE SUBURBS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES

LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM FOREST

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL. REPORT TO: Planning Committee 1 April 2015 Planning and New Communities Director

Construction of 9 dwellings and associated infrastructure.

St Michaels C of E Junior & Infant School, Nantmel Grove, Bartley Green, Birmingham, B32 3JS

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Department for Place! Peter Geraghty Head of Planning & Transport

Ashford Borough Council - Report of Head of Development, Strategic Sites and Design Planning Committee 20 September 2017

Reserved Matters application for a site that straddles the boundary between CBC and BBC

Cllr Jamieson called the application to committee on grounds of style of houses. DETERMINE RECOMMENDED Full Application - Granted

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

Planning Committee 04/02/2015 Schedule Item 6. Smith Farm Estate, Old Bridge Close, Northolt, UB5 6UA.

VIEW PLANS AT: mmary&keyval=ny3yzlhy0b100

Transcription:

Location 374B Long Lane London N2 8JX Reference: 16/1447/FUL Received: 7th March 2016 Accepted: 7th March 2016 Ward: East Finchley Expiry 2nd May 2016 Applicant: Ms Katrin Hirsig Proposal: Single storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions 1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: site location plan and site plan: A001, A002, A003 and A004. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and so as to ensure that the development is carried out fully in accordance with the plans as assessed in accordance with Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policy DM01 of the Local Plan Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012). 2 This development must be begun within three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 3 The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the building(s) shall match those used in the existing building(s). Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the building and surrounding area in accordance with Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and Policies CS NPPF and CS1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2012). 4 The roof of the extension hereby permitted shall only be used in connection with the repair and maintenance of the building and shall at no time be converted to or used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity or sitting out area. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties are not prejudiced by overlooking in accordance with policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012). 5 Before the building hereby permitted is first occupied the proposed doors and window(s) in the side elevation facing No.370 and No.376 Long Lane shall be glazed with obscure glass only and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter and shall be permanently fixed shut with only a fanlight opening.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties in accordance with Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013). Informative(s): 1 In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals, focused on solutions. The LPA has produced planning policies and written guidance to assist applicants when submitting applications. These are all available on the Council's website. A pre-application advice service is also offered. The LPA has negotiated with the applicant/agent where necessary during the application process to ensure that the proposed development is in accordance with the Development Plan.

Officer s Assessment 1. Site Description The site property is a two storey end of terrace building containing five self-contained units located on Long Lane. The application concerns the rear ground floor flat. It is not listed and does not lie within a Conservation Area. 2. Site History Reference: 15/06472/FUL Address: 374B Long Lane, London, N2 8JX Decision: Refused Decision Date: 6 January 2016 Description: Single storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory Reference: F/03665/08 Address: 374B Long Lane, London, N2 8JX Decision: Approved subject to conditions Decision Date: 23 December 2008 Description: Retention of rear conservatory on former patio area. Reference: C09822 Address: 372-374 Long Lane, London, N2 8JX Decision: Approved subject to conditions Decision Date: 20 April 1988 Description: Single storey rear extension, conversion into five self-contained flats, four parking spaces and vehicular access 3. Proposal The application seeks permission for a single storey rear extension following the demolition of the existing conservatory. The proposed extension would be 3.3 metres deep and extend across the full width of the property. The extension would have a maximum height of 3.35 metres and includes a flat roof. 4. Public Consultation Consultation letters were sent to 6 neighbouring properties. 5 responses has been received, comprising 5 letters of objection Neighbours Wishing To Speak 1 The objections received can be summarised as follows: - Notice to the wrong freeholder - Encroachment onto the communal areas - Change of use From conservatory to kitchen - Overlooking to and from the garden - Out of scale / over-dominant - Noise in garden due to bi-fold windows - Out of keeping with the proportions of the existing house

- Impact on access and parking - Drainage issues - Neighbours not consulted - Affect the view from the garden - Block of the light into the flat living area Further to objectors' comments, additional consultation letters were sent on 25.04.2016 to all residents at No.372 and No.374 Long Lane and all adjoining properties on the basis of a corrected site plan. 5. Planning Considerations 5.1 Policy Context National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance The determination of planning applications is made mindful of Central Government advice and the Local Plan for the area. It is recognised that Local Planning Authorities must determine applications in accordance with the statutory Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and that the planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against another. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012. This is a key part of the Governments reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, and to promote sustainable growth. The NPPF states that 'good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people'. The NPPF retains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This applies unless any adverse impacts of a development would 'significantly and demonstrably' outweigh the benefits. The Mayor's London Plan 2015 The London Development Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital to 2050. It forms part of the development plan for Greater London and is recognised in the NPPF as part of the development plan. The London Plan provides a unified framework for strategies that are designed to ensure that all Londoners benefit from sustainable improvements to their quality of life. Barnet's Local Plan (2012) Barnet's Local Plan is made up of a suite of documents including the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Documents. Both were adopted in September 2012. - Relevant Core Strategy Policies: CS NPPF, CS1, CS5. - Relevant Development Management Policies: DM01, DM02. The Council's approach to extensions as set out in Policy DM01 is to minimise their impact on the local environment and to ensure that occupiers of new developments as well as neighbouring occupiers enjoy a high standard of amenity. Policy DM01 states that all

development should represent high quality design and should be designed to allow for adequate daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook for adjoining occupiers. Policy DM02 states that where appropriate, development will be expected to demonstrate compliance to minimum amenity standards and make a positive contribution to the Borough. The development standards set out in Policy DM02 are regarded as key for Barnet to deliver the highest standards of urban design. Supplementary Planning Documents Residential Design Guidance SPD (adopted April 2013) - Sets out information for applicants to help them design an extension to their property which would receive favourable consideration by the Local Planning Authority and was the subject of separate public consultation. The SPD states that large areas of Barnet are characterised by relatively low density suburban housing with an attractive mixture of terrace, semi detached and detached houses. The Council is committed to protecting, and where possible enhancing the character of the borough's residential areas and retaining an attractive street scene. - States that extensions should normally be subordinate to the original house, respect the original building and should not be overly dominant. Extensions should normally be consistent in regard to the form, scale and architectural style of the original building which can be achieved through respecting the proportions of the existing house and using an appropriate roof form. - In respect of amenity, states that extensions should not be overbearing or unduly obtrusive and care should be taken to ensure that they do not result in harmful loss of outlook, appear overbearing, or cause an increased sense of enclosure to adjoining properties. They should not reduce light to neighbouring windows to habitable rooms or cause significant overshadowing, and should not look out of place, overbearing or intrusive when viewed from surrounding areas. Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (adopted April 2013) - Provides detailed guidance that supplements policies in the adopted Local Plan, and sets out how sustainable development will be delivered in Barnet. 5.2 Main issues for consideration The main issues for consideration in this case are: - Whether the alterations would be a visually obtrusive form of development which would detract from the character and appearance of the street scene - Whether harm would be caused to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. 5.3 Assessment of proposals The Council's approach to extensions as set out in Policy DM01 is to minimise their impact on the local environment and to ensure that occupiers of new developments as well as neighbouring occupiers enjoy a high standard of amenity. Policy DM01 of the Development Management Policies (Adopted) 2012 states that all development should represent high quality design and should be designed to allow for adequate daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook for adjoining occupiers. Policy DM02 states that where appropriate, development will be expected to demonstrate compliance to minimum amenity standards and that development makes a positive contribution to the borough. The development standards set out in Policy DM02:

Development Standards are regarded as key for Barnet to deliver the highest standards of urban design. Policy CS5 states that the Council 'will ensure that development in Barnet respects local context and distinctive local character creating places and buildings of high quality design'. The Council's adopted SPD 'Residential Design Guidance' (2013) states that extensions should normally be subordinate to the original house, respect the original building and should not be overly dominant; extensions should normally be consistent in regard to the form, scale and architectural style of the original building which can be achieved through respecting the proportions of the existing house and using an appropriate roof form. Para 14.13 of the SPD states that where there is a consistent and coherent architectural character, the extension should not detract from it. Any extension should sit comfortably with the main building and with neighbouring houses. A similar proposal was refused planning permission (15/06472/FUL) for the reason that: the applicant has provided insufficient information to enable the Local Planning authority to determine whether the proposed extension would have an acceptable impact on the character of the area and neighbouring amenity. The submitted plans only show 374B Long Lane and do not allow a clear assessment of the proposal especially with regards to the existing building and surrounding area. The submitted information and plans regarding this present application are considered satisfactory to assess the proposal in terms of impact on the character of the area and neighbouring amenity. Whether harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the existing building, the street scene and the wider locality The property benefits from an existing rear extension and conservatory 6.8 metres deep. The proposal would replace the conservatory and retained a similar footprint; it would be higher than the existing but would remain in keeping with the footprint of the existing rear extension and include a similar flat roof. Furthermore, this part of Long Lane has a varied character where a number of properties have had alterations, including numerous rear extensions with a different size and design. The proposed extension is considered to be a proportionate addition to the dwelling and would not be harmful to the host property and character of the area. Whether harm would be caused to the living conditions of neighbouring residents The proposal would be higher than the existing conservatory; however its depth would remain unchanged. The property benefits from a two storey rear projection which visibly dominates the outlook of the adjoining properties. The rear windows of the ground floor flats at No.372 and 374A long Lane are located approximately 10 metres from the line between the existing rear addition and proposed extension and the outlook from these windows is already dominated by the two storey rear projection. As a result, it is not considered that the proposal would impact upon the amenities of these neighbouring occupiers over and above what is currently experienced on site. To the west side, the proposal would be set back approximately 1.5 metres from the side boundary with No.370, which benefit from a rear element with a similar depth, and a dense

vegetation including high hedges and one mature tree are present between the two properties. The proposed extension is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers with regards to loss of outlook, loss of light or appearing overbearing. To the east side, there is a distance of approximately 10 metres between the rear and side windows at No.376 Long Lane and the host property. It is not anticipated that the proposal would harm the amenities of these occupiers. On the contrary, the replacement of the conservatory with the proposed extension would increase the level of privacy between No.374B and No.376. As mentioned above, the extension's footprint would remain unchanged, therefore, the proposed extension is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the amenities of these neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of light or overbearing. It noted that concerns were raised regarding the boundaries between communal and private areas within the application site. Although this is not a planning matter, the applicant confirmed that notices were served to the current freeholder of the site (No.372 and No.374) and to all leaseholders. The Council also sent consultation letters to all residents at No.372 and No.374 Long Lane and all adjoining properties. The proposal would replace an existing conservatory which was given retrospective planning permission (F/03665/08) and, as mentioned above, the proposed extension would have a similar footprint as existing. 5.4 Response to Public Consultation - Notice to the wrong freeholder The current freeholder at the time of the application confirmed the applicant gave notice with regard to the present application. All owners of the property are understood to have been notified. - Encroachment onto the communal areas The concerns raised in this respect are noted and acknowledged. The proposal is of the same footprint as the existing. It is not considered that the proposal would represent a harmful reduction in the communal amenity space. - Change of use from conservatory to kitchen Changes to the internal layout of a residential property are not considered as a material change or intensification of use and is not a reason for refusal. - Overlooking to and from the garden It is not considered that the replacement of an existing extension would result in harmful overlooking from or into the communal garden, taking into account the siting of windows. There would be less glazing than the existing conservatory. - Out of scale / over-dominant The proposed extension is considered to be an acceptable addition to the host property. As such, it is not considered that it will have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of the future and neighbouring occupiers including increased sense of enclosure, loss light or overbearing. - Noise / quiet enjoyment of the garden It is not considered that the proposals would prejudice the enjoyment by residents of the rear garden.

- Impact on access and parking The proposals would not increase the occupancy, number or size of the flats. It is therefore not considered that there would be a harmful impact on highway or pedestrian safety. Issues regarding private access and private parking are no planning matter and no reason for refusal. - Drainage issues It is not anticipated that the replacement of an existing conservatory with an extension would significantly impact local drainage. - Neighbours not consulted Consultation letters were sent to the adjoining properties located around the application site, included all adjoining flats, as is required by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and LB Barnet's code of practice which exceeds these requirements. All information is accessible to the public and everyone has a right to comments on an application. - Affect the view from the garden Loss of view is not a planning matter therefore it does not constitute a basis on which to refuse this proposal. 6. Equality and Diversity Issues The proposal does not conflict with either Barnet Council's Equalities Policy or the commitments set in the Equality Scheme and supports the Council in meeting its statutory equality responsibilities. 7. Conclusion Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the application site, the street scene and the locality. The development is not considered to have an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. This application is therefore recommended for APPROVAL.