Agenda item

PROPOSAL:Creation of second floor to provide two flats (retrospective); changes to the fenestration comprising alterations to existing windows and doors, introduction of new windows and doors and part replacement of gabled roof to north east of the building (retrospective); Proposed Detached Single storey building to provide two cottages; external alterations; associated landscaping and parking; Refuse and cycle storage

Following questions and comments from Members, an officer advised that:

·                     the condition relating to the use of the balcony for maintenance purposes only would be enforceable.  Another officer added that if there was evidence to show that this condition had been breached, then an enforcement notice, (which would require any further use of the balcony to cease), could be issued.  Enforcement notices were not designed to be punitive but rather, in accordance with good practice, were intended ‘to remedy the harm’ caused.  A breach of planning conditions could lead to prosecution, a fine and possibly a criminal record.  Officers considered that the changes proposed to the balcony, for example, the removal of access doors to them would be sufficient to deter residents from using them;

·                     from a planning perspective, the applicant was not obliged to provide a lift.  However, from an accessibility point of view, having a lift would be  useful.  The parking spaces to the rear of the building were located at an angle to the building;

• there was no formally adopted Right of Way within the application site, although neighbouring residents had enjoyed informal access over time.  An application for a Right of Way would take several months to complete. Nonetheless, this was under separate legislation and therefore outside the remit of the application. The residents of Nelson Way and West Street had been allowed access on an informal basis and tended to park in the same location and in the same manner as the proposed parking indicated along the rear boundary of Nelson Road properties. There were no changes planned to the current parking layout;

• the fact that the proposed north facing elevations of the cottages would only be sited some 4m away from the south facing windows of the Powerhouse, though not ideal, was deemed acceptable by officers, particularly since the ground floor flats were already overlooked as the cottages had dual aspect.  The Harrow SPD (Supplementary Planning Document) was a guidance and not a policy document and officers had assessed all material site considerations and provided a balanced judgement of the application.  Officers considered that the impact of the proposed cottages would be acceptable and would not have an unduly detrimental impact on the Heritage assets;

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

‘The proposal is an overdevelopment, visually obtrusive, excessive in scale, bulk and height, and out of keeping with the surrounding Conservation Area, Area of Special Character, listed buildings, Metropolitan Open Land, protected views and other heritage assets, including the Old Pye House, Church Fields and St Mary’s Church.  It would therefore cause significant harm to local character, amenity, heritage assets, and access to open space, contrary to policies DM1, DM3, DM6, DM7, DM17 and DM20 of the Local Plan, CS1 and CS3 of the Core Strategy, and 7.4, 7.6, 7.8 and 7.19 of the London Plan.’

The motion was seconded, put to the vote and won.

The Committee received representations from an objector, Mr Lamb, from a representative of the applicant, Mr Peirson, & Councillors Marilyn Ashton & Honey Jamie.

DECISION:  REFUSED

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to refuse the application was unanimous.