10/2817/FUL - LAND AND GARAGES ON THE EAST SIDE, CAMBRIDGE ROAD (Mr Timothy Lucas)
Demolition of existing single storey garage building and part-demolition of existing 2-storey coach-house garage building. Erection of basement and two-storey house with courtyard garden. Demolition of brick boundary wall to Cambridge Road and erection of a replacement wall.
Officer’s recommendation: PERMISSION
Councillor Linnette reported he had been approached by the applicant, but declined to discuss their application with them.
The Development Control Officer stated that this application should also include 10/2818/CAC, for the demolition of the existing buildings.
The Development Control Officer made the following amendments to the report:
· Amend the recommendation to read:
“I therefore recommend that the application for planning permission should be APPROVED, subject to conditions and informatives, and the application for conservation area consent should be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions and informatives:
AT05 - Commencement of works within 3 years
LB02 - Retention of buildings until development commences
IE05B - Noise control building sites
IH06D - Damage to public highway
U51722 - Relevant policies (as report)
U51724 - Summary reasons for granting CAC:
The proposal has been considered in the light of the Development Plan, comments from statutory consultees and third parties (where relevant). It has been concluded that there is not a demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance caused by the development that justifies withholding conservation area consent. The demolition of the existing building and their replacement by the building for which planning permission has been granted concurrently would preserve the character and appearance of the Kew Green conservation Area.
U51725 - Drawing numbers”
· Add the following condition to planning permission:
“U37536 - Construction method statement:
‘No development shall take place, including demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall be provide for:
i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
ii) the loading and unloading of plant and materials;
iii)the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;
iv)the erection and maintenance of security hoardings;
v) measures to control the emission of dirt and dust during construction;
vi)a scheme for recycling and disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction work.”
Construction contractors must be members of the Considerate Contractors Scheme.
Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and to safeguard neighbouring amenity.’ ”
The Development Control Officer recorded that after this report had been drafted, a further site visit was undertaken, during which it was noted that thick vegetation on the site of the old church, adjacent to the application site, had been removed. Investigation of the cleared area revealed an access to the side of the old church, which allowed an inspection of the flank of the building. Three windows and a pair of doors were discovered at lower ground level, which faced on to the boundary wall of the application site, upon which the impact of the development had not been assessed. Officers had now undertaken an assessment of the impact of the development on these windows, using the BRE methodology, and concluded that the loss of daylight to the worst affected window passed the BRE test. The proposal was therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of the impact on daylight to these windows. The proposals involved an increase in height on this boundary which would have some overbearing impact on these windows, but it was not considered to be sufficient to justify an objection on these grounds.
The committee heard representations against the application from Mr Mark Carter (a neighbour not adjoining the site).
The committee heard representations in support of the application from Mr Ryle (a neighbour not adjoining the site), Mr Stuart Piercy (the architect) and Ms Jo Lucas (the applicant).
The committee discussed the possibility of using the basement and it was clarified that this could be controlled by adding a condition.
It was RESOLVED that the application be APPROVEDsubject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report and the additional condition below:
“The basement of the new house hereby permitted shall not be used as sleeping accommodation.
REASON: The building is located within a designated flood plain where basement sleeping accommodation would increase the risk of flooding to inhabitants”
It was RESOLVED that Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report.