London Borough of Barnet Area... · Land rear of 40 & 42 Sunbury Avenue, London, NW7 3SJ. Demolition of 42 Sunbury Avenue and construction of a new accessway and the construction

LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET

HENDON AREA

PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE

11th August 2004

Agenda Item No. 8

Report of the Head of Planning BACKGROUND PAPERS – GENERAL STATEMENT The background papers to the reports contained in the agenda items which follow comprise the application and relevant planning history files, which may be identified by their reference numbers, and other documents where they are specified as a background paper in individual reports. These files and documents may be inspected at: HENDON AREA OFFICE Barnet House 1255 High Road Whetstone London N20 0EJ Contact Officer: Mrs Usha Mashru, 020 8359 4628

HENDON AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE

DATE:11th August 2004

INDEX TO THE REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING ___________________________________________________________________ W08792D/04 Hale 136 Farm Road, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 9LW. Part single, part two-storey side and rear extensions. Formation of basement level. Alterations to roof including addition of rear dormer window to facilitate a loft conversion. REFUSE ___________________________________________________________________ W02606W/04 Hale Land rear of 40 & 42 Sunbury Avenue, London, NW7 3SJ. Demolition of 42 Sunbury Avenue and construction of a new accessway and the construction of a part two-storey, part three-storey block of 14 self-contained flats with associated parking and the repositioning of the existing garage to 40 Sunbury Avenue. APPROVE SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT ___________________________________________________________________ W02606X/04 Hale Land rear of 40 & 42 Sunbury Avenue, London, NW7 3SJ. Demolition of 42 Sunbury Avenue and construction of a new accessway and the construction of a part two-storey, part three-storey block of 14 self-contained flats with associated parking and the repositioning of the existing garage to 40 Sunbury Avenue. (DUPLICATE). APPROVE SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT ___________________________________________________________________ W02195D/04 Hendon 20 Sherwood Road, London, NW4 1AD. Construction of single storey rear conservatory extension. APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

W10376B/04 Hendon 12 Cedars Close, London, NW4 1TR. Single storey conservatory extension to rear, insertion of two hipped roof rear dormer windows and rooflights to front, side and rear elevations. APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS ___________________________________________________________________ W07628B/04 Mill Hill 7 Marsh Close, London, NW7 4NY. Single storey front extension and associated conversion of garage to a habitable room. Ground and lower ground level side and rear extension. APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS ___________________________________________________________________ W07294C/04 Mill Hill 12 Birkbeck Road, London, NW7 4AA. Erection of two, 2 storey semi-detached houses with 4 parking spaces at front and associated landscaping following demolition of existing bungalow. APPROVE SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT ___________________________________________________________________ W00587BW/04 Mill Hill Sir John Laing Building, Page Street, London, NW7 2ER. Erection of 9no. blocks to provide a total of 52 self-contained flats and 21 houses. Associated provision of basement and surface parking, refuse stores, cycle stores and changes to landscaping. REFUSE

LOCATION: 136 Farm Road, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 9LW.

REFERENCE: W08792D/04 Received: 13 July 2004 Accepted: 13 July 2004WARD: Hale Expiry: 7 September 2004 Final Revisions:APPLICANT: Rabbi Zulman Sudak PROPOSAL: Part single, part two-storey side and rear extensions.

Formation of basement level. Alterations to roof including addition of rear dormer window to facilitate a loft conversion.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

1. The proposal would by reason of its size, design and prominent siting be unduly obtrusive and detrimental to the appearance of the property and streetscene and to the residential and visual amenities of neighbouring occupiers contrary to Policies G1, G18, T1.1 and H6.1 of the Barnet Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1991) and Policies GBEnv1, GNEnv2, D1, D2 and H27 of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development (2001).

INFORMATIVE(S):-

1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Drawing No. D1A-ZS-001-001, D1A-ZS-002-001, D1A-2S-002-002, D1A-ZS-002-003, D1A-ZS-002-004.

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS (a) Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies Barnet Adopted UDP (1991):

G1, G18, T1.1, H6.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, H27. Supplementary Planning Guidance – Design Guidance Note 5: Extensions to Houses

(b) Relevant Planning History:

W08792B/03 - Part single, part two-storey side and rear extensions and alterations to roof including addition of a rear dormer window to facilitate a loft conversion and velux roof lights to front and side elevations – Refused (13-03-2003) Application Dismissed on Appeal – (Ref No APP/N5090/A/03/1125420) – (20 11-2003) The application was refused on the following grounds: ‘The proposal would by reason of its size, design and prominent siting be unduly obtrusive and detrimental to the appearance of the property and streetscene and to the residential and visual amenities of neighbouring occupiers contrary to policies T1.1 and H6.1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1991) and Policies D1, D2 and H27 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001)’

W08792C/03 Proposed two-storey side extension, part single storey, part two-storey rear extension, alterations to the roof including the insertion of a rear dormer window to facilitate a loft conversion, and excavation operations including the insertion of a lightwell to facilitate a basement area – Withdrawn (14-07-2004). This application was withdrawn at the request of the applicant, who could not attend the 14th July 2004 Committee Date for personal reasons.

(c) Consultations and views Expressed:

The current scheme is of identical format to that of the previously withdrawn scheme and therefore the following objections therefore still stand: - Neighbours Consulted: 15 Replies 6

The owners/occupier of 132, 134, 155, 159 Farm Road, 71 West Way and an anonymous letter have raised the following objections: 1 Farm Road is characterised by smallish semi-detached houses with small

gardens – Proposal would therefore be out of keeping with the streetscene and would become an eyesore.

2 Part single, part two-storey rear extension, which aligns the adjoining boundary and the proposed rear dormer window would obliterate natural daylight to no 134 Farm Road and create a sense of enclosure.

3 The scale and appearance of the development 4 Effect on traffic, access and parking – no extra parking spaces proposed 5 Obstruction to vehicular traffic 6 Effect on the natural environment 7 Access to light would be lost and privacy affected 8 Noise and disturbance 9 Excavation for basement area would cause subsidence problems 10 Extensions would be used to run a business 11 Basement does not harmonise with adjoining properties and the general

streetscene. 12 Drainage problems Any further representations will be reported at the meeting. PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings The application site relates to a semi-detached property within a predominantly residential area comprising of semi-detached houses built in the 1930’s period. The site is located on a corner plot on the junction of Farm Road and West Way, having a frontage of around 14 metres to the former and a return frontage of about 24 metres to the latter. The application property and its attached semi are characterised by their near symmetrical design and use of ‘Mock Tudor’ rendering at first floor levels on the Farm Road frontage. Both properties are designed with hipped roof ends, with a projecting bay feature at both ground and first floor level on the Farm Road frontage, with a pitched roof above. Proposal The application seeks permission for a two-storey side extension a part single, part two-storey rear extension, alterations to the roof including the insertion of a rear dormer window to facilitate a loft conversion, and excavation operations including the insertion of a lightwell to facilitate a basement area.

The dwelling as existing is a two-storey house comprising two reception rooms, kitchen and hall on the ground floor, and three bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor. The additions proposed would allow a dining room and new kitchen to be provided within the ground floor extension, for the existing kitchen to be extended and converted to a utility room, and for a new main reception room to be provided to the side of the existing house together with an extended hall. On the first floor the existing bathroom would be moved and bedroom 3 would be extended with a new en-suite provided, and an additional bedroom created to the rear. Another new bedroom, a store and cupboard is proposed within the loft space with a study proposed at basement level. Material Planning Considerations The previous scheme proposed similar extensions and was refused on its general size, design and prominent siting and subsequently dismissed on appeal. Although the current scheme has been amended and reduced is part, it is considered that the amendments have not fully addressed the previous reasons. Each part of the application is now taken in isolation and compared against the previous scheme, the council’s reasoning and the inspectors report. Side extensions - The application proposes a two-storey side extension of which the ground floor would be 4.3 metres in width incorporating a lightwell at basement level. (The previous scheme proposed 5.4 metres width). The ground floor part would be 4.7 metres in length along the flank elevation notwithstanding the proposed front bay window (As apposed to the previous scheme, which proposed a 5.2 metre length notwithstanding a bay window). Both schemes proposed a 1 metre ‘set in’ at ground floor level on the flank elevation beyond the initial part of the proposed side extension. This part of the proposal forming a ‘utility room’ would be 3.3 metre in width coming in line with the established rear building line (as apposed to the previous scheme, which proposed a width of 4.2 metres). The first floor would be set back 0.9 metres from the frontage (as apposed to the last scheme which proposed a 0.6 metre set back) notwithstanding a bay window on both designs. The proposed scheme would be 3.3 metres in width and would project 6.7 metres along the flank elevation coming in line with the established rear elevation. (As apposed to the previous scheme, which proposed a 4.4 metre width at first floor level with the same length) It is considered that this part of the development would still take up the majority of land to the side of the dwelling, and would ‘bearing in mind the prominent corner location of the site, appear overlarge and bulky, spoiling the appearance of the streetscene’ (Para 11 – Inspectors Report). Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed lightwell on the frontage used to facilitate light to a basement area would take away the focus from the character of the original dwelling, and therefore would not provide the necessary ancillary/subordinate approach required in extensions. Rear Extensions - Both schemes proposed a 3-metre deep single storey rear extension coming in close proximity to the shared boundary curtilage of the adjoining semi-detached property, with the application in question proposing a 7.9 metre width and the former proposing an 8.9 metre width. Above this a 2-metre deep first floor extension is proposed being set in 3.1 metres from the shared boundary curtilage with No 134 Farm Road (With the previous scheme proposing a 3 metre deep rear extension with the same distance from the boundary.) The proposed rear extensions would still appear too bulky and prominent compared to the size of houses and gardens to which they relate. The extensions would still have an unacceptable effect on both the streetscene by virtue of its prominent location and the general amenities of No 134 Farm Road. Although it has been noted that the first floor has been reduced by one metre, it is still considered that the

extension would ‘have an overbearing effect on the garden immediately behind the house itself’ and ‘would restrict the light from the south, creating a sense of enclosure feared by those residents at No 134 and would make that property a less pleasant place to live’ (Para 12 – Inspectors Report). Rear Dormer Window - The proposed dormer window has also been reduced from around 5.8 metres to 3.4 in width, with a reduction from 2.1 to 1.6 metres in height and would appear to meet ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance – Design Guidance Note 5: Extensions to Houses’ by virtue of it not exceeding 50% of the roofspace. However, as the inspector noted previously in paragraph 13 of his report, “Whilst these are indeed guidelines only they are also maxima and in this case it is pertinent to bear in mind that the dormer window would be inserted into a roof slope that has already been considerably enlarged. The rear of the property, especially when enlarged, would be very noticeable as one approaches downhill from West Way and I believe that that the dormer window would appear as a dominant element, detracting from the appearance of the dwelling and, because of the sites prominent corner location, causing significant harm to the streetscene”. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS The views and opinions of the residents of 132, 134, 155, 159 Farm Road, 71 West Way and an anonymous letter are noted and have been discussed within the body of this report. Specifically, with reference to the objections not covered within the report the following are summarised: - 4&5 The development would not create a significant amount of traffic

generation/parking levels associated with a residential use. 6 There is no evidence to suggest the development would adversely affect the

natural environment 8 As there would be no change in use class the issue of ‘noise and

disturbance’ cannot be taken into consideration. Noise and disturbance from the construction period is not a material planning consideration and instead is controlled under environmental health law.

9&12 These issues are material planning consideration, however would both be addressed under the jurisdictions of the Building Regulations.

10 There is no evidence to suggest that this would occur. CONCLUSION Given all of the aforementioned, this application is considered unacceptable in planning terms and is recommended for REFUSAL.

LOCATION: Land rear of 40 & 42 Sunbury Avenue, London, NW7 3SJ.

REFERENCE: W02606W/04 Received: 18 June 2004 Accepted: 18 June 2004WARD: Hale Expiry: 17 Sept. 2004 Final Revisions:APPLICANT: Howarth Homes plc PROPOSAL: Demolition of 42 Sunbury Avenue and construction of a

new accessway and the construction of a part two-storey, part three-storey block of 14 self-contained flats with associated parking and the repositioning of the existing garage to 40 Sunbury Avenue.

RECOMMENDATION I: That the Borough Solicitor and Head of Planning be instructed to invite the applicant and any other person having a requisite interest to enter by way of an agreement into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any other legislation which the Borough Solicitor considers is necessary for the purposes of seeking to ensure the following advantages: (i) A contribution of £21,000 towards the provision of leisure facilities within the Hale Ward. (ii) A contribution of £10,389 towards the additional educational costs arising as a result of the development. (iii) All payments to be made entirely within 28 days following a material start of the building implementing the planning permission with prior written notification given to the Head of Planning 14 days prior to that start. (iv) Paying the Council's Legal and professional costs of drawing up the Legal Agreement and any otehr enabling agreements. RECOMMENDATION II: That upon completion of such agreement the Director of Environment or Head of Planning be instructed to approve planning application ref: W02606W/04 under delegated powers subject to the following conditions:-

1. This development must be begun not later than five years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.

2. Before development hereby permitted is commences details turning space and parking spaces and cycle storage facilities shall be provided and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The spaces and facilities shall be marked out and provided prior to the occupation of the development and shall not thereafter be used for any purpose. Reason: To ensure that such facilities are provided in accordance with the council's safety and the free flow of traffic.

3. Before the development is commenced details of the estate road shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The estate road as approved shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before the site is occupied. Reason: To ensure a safe form of development and to protect the amenities of the area.

4. No structure or erection with a height exceeding 1.05m above footway level shall be placed along the frontage(s) of Sunbury Avenue from a point 2.4m from the highway boundary for a distance of 2.4m on both sides of the vehicular access(es). Reason: To prevent danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway and the premises.

5. Before this development is commenced, details of the levels of the building(s), road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to adjoining land and highway(s) and any other changes proposed in the levels of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved. Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out at suitable levels in relation to the highway and adjoining land having regard to drainage, gradient of access and the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the health of any trees on the site.

6. Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building(s) and hard surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality.

7. Before the development hereby permitted commences details of proposed boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance and protect the amenities of the area.

8. Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of enclosures and screened facilities for the storage of recycling containers and wheeled refuse bins or other refuse storage containers where applicable, together with a satisfactory point of collection shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be provided at the site in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance for the development and satisfactory accessibility; and to protect the amenities of the area.

9. Before the building hereby permitted is occupied the proposed windows to the

first floor flat 10 in the elevation directly facing the site boundary with Nos.18 and 20 Maxwelton Close shall be glazed with obscure glass and permanently fixed shut with only a fanlight opening and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

10. No construction work resulting from the planning permission shall be carried out on the premises at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, before 8.00 am or after 1.00 pm on Saturdays, or before 8.00 am or after 6.00pm on other days unless previously approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

11. The development hereby permitted shall not be implemented (other than for investigative work) - (a) Until a full site investigation, which shall include a geophysical study and soil survey, has been carried out on the site in accordance with a recognised code of practice; and (b) a risk assessment of any hazards identified thereby is provided to the Planning Authority; and (c) a remediation strategy is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; and (d) a verification report and completion certificate has been produced to and accepted by the Local Planning Authority to confirm that the remediation strategy has been completed. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory treatment of the site and to protect the amenities of the area.

12. A scheme of hard and soft landscaping, including details of existing trees to be retained, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development, hereby permitted, is commenced. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

13. All work comprised in the approval scheme of landscaping shall be carried out before the end of the first planting and seeding season following occupation of any part of the buildings or completion of the development, whichever is sooner, or commencement of the use. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

14. Any existing tree shown to be retained or trees or shrubs to be planted as part

of the approved landscaping scheme which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of the completion of development shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of appropriate size and species in the next planting season. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

15. Before this development is commenced details of the location, extent and depth of all excavations for drainage and other services in relation to trees on the site shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development carried out in accordance with such approval. Reason: To safeguard the health of existing tree(s) which represent an important amenity feature.

16. No site works or works on this development shall be commenced before temporary fencing has been erected around existing tree(s) in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This fencing shall remain in position until after the development works are completed and no material or soil shall be stored within these fenced areas. Reason: To safeguard the health of existing tree(s) which represent an important amenity feature.

17. No site works or works on this development shall be commenced before a method statement detailing precautions to minimise damage to trees in particular from vehicle movements, services and construction works is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with such approval. Reason: To safeguard the health of existing trees which represent an important amenity feature.

18. Provisions shall be made within the site to ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction of the development hereby approved are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway. Reason: To ensure that the development does not cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining pavement and highway.

19. Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the foul and/or surface water discharge from the site shall not be prejudicial to the existing sewerage system and the amenities of the area.

20. A PPG24 assessment, by an approved acoustic consultant, shall be carried out on the development that assesses the likely impact of noise on the development. This report and any measures to be implemented by the developer to address its findings shall be submitted in writing for the approval of the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers are not prejudiced by rail/or road traffic and/or mixed use noise in the surroundings.

21. Before development commences, a report should be carried out by a competent acoustic consultant and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, that assesses the likely noise impacts from any plant or machinery. The report shall also clearly outline mitigation measures for the development to reduce these noise impacts to acceptable levels. It should include all calculations and baseline data and be set out so that the Local Planning Authority can fully audit the report and critically analyse the contents and recommendations. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of neighbouring premises are protected from noise from the development.

22. The access to Maxwelton Close shall be used as an emergency access only. Details to prevent its general use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents.

INFORMATIVE(S):-

1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Site Location Plan, 04/2297/1, 04/2297/2, 04/2297/3, 04/2297/4, 04/2297/5, 04/2297/6, 04/2297/7.

2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows: The proposed development accords with the London Plan and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G18, T1.1, M2.1, H1.1, H1.2, H2.1, H3.1, H3.2, H3.3, H3.4, H3.5, H4.1, H4.2, EDN1.1, E2.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001) GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D9, D12, D13, L12, M14, CS8, H5, H6, H16, H17, H18, H20, H21.

3. The details of acoustic consultants can be obtained from the following contacts: Institute of Acoustics: Telephone No: 01727 848195. Association of Noise Consultants: Telephone No: 01763 852958.

The assessment and report on the noise impacts of a development should use methods of measurement, calculation, prediction and assessment of noise levels and impacts that comply with the following standards, where appropriate: Department of Environment: PPG24 (1994) Planning Policy Guidance - Planning & Noise. BS7445 (1991) Parts 1, 2 & 3 (ISO 1996 parts 2-3) - Description and measurement of environmental noise. BS4142:1997 - Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. BS8223:1999 - Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings: code of practice. Department of Transport: Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (1988). Department of Transport: Calculation of Railway Noise (1995). Department of Transport: Railway Noise and Insulation of Dwellings.

4. The applicant is advised that Network Rail should be consulted given the proximity of the site to the mainline railway.

5. The applicant is advised that a public sewer runs across this site and that early contact with Thames Water is necessary.

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS (a) Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Barnet Adopted Unitary

Development Plan (1991):G1, G18, T1.1, M2.1, H1.1, H1.2, H2.1, H3.1, H3.2, H3.3, H3.4, H3.5, H4.1, H4.2, EDN1.1, E2.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001) GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D9, D12, D13, L12, M14, CS8, H5, H6, H16, H17, H18, H20, H21


W02606B – Three storey block of 42 Elderly Persons flats. Refused October 1974. Appeal dismissed.

W02606C – Sixteen flats and garages. Refused July 1976.

W02606F and G – Erection of sixteen three storey town-houses and one, two storey house with ancillary parking and vehicular access from Sunbury Avenue (Outline). Refused 14.12.88. Appeal allowed.

W02606H – Erection of sheltered housing units comprising 32 two-bedroom apartments and 10 two-bedroom cottages and an access road and 21 parking spaces (Outline). Refused 07.02.90.

W02606J – Erection of sheltered housing units comprising 20 teo-bedroom apartments and 18 one-bedroom apartments and construction of an access road and 19 parking spaces (Outline). Withdrawn April 1990.

W02606K – Erection of buildings comprising 28 two-bedroom apartments and 6 one-bedroom apartments, 43 parking spaces and access road. Refused 11.07.90.

W02606L – Erection of 24 two-storey houses, access road and parking spaces. Refused 29.07.92. Appeal dismissed.

W02606M – Residential development. Renewal of outline permission W02606F. Refused 05.01.93.

W02606N – Details of siting, design and external appearance of the buildings pursuant to condition 01 of the Inspector’s decision dated 21.09.89 for the erection of 16 houses. Approved 09.02.93.

W02606P – Demolition of 2 houses and erection of affordable housing consisting of 21 two storey houses. Refused 16.03.93. Appeal dismissed.

W02606R – Demolition of 2 houses and erection of 15 three storey houses and 1 two storey house. Refused 27.09.95 on grounds of overdevelopment, noise and disturbance to future occupiers of the development and existing neighbouring occupiers.

W02606T – Demolition of 42 Sunbury Avenue and erection of 14 houses – Deemed refusal 09.09.98 (Appeal against non-determination subsequently withdrawn).

W02606U – Demolition of house and outbuildings at no. 42 and construction of 11 houses. Refused 29.06.99. Appeal dismissed.

(c) Consultations and views Expressed: Neighbours: Consulted 35 Replies: 6 to date The consultation period had not expired at the time the report was written. Any additional consultation responses received will be reported at the meeting. The application was advertised on site and in the local press. The occupiers of 21, 23, 34 and 46 Sunbury Avenue, a property in Maxwelton Close and the Mill Hill Residents Association have raised the following objections:

1. Noise and vibration from railway and motorway 2. Traffic noise very loud, windows would need to be kept shut and residents

would be unable to sit outside 3. Overlooking of Sunbury Avenue properties 4. Extra strain on the road due to increased traffic and parking, made more

problematic by new CPZ 5. Out of character – flats and density 6. Use of access to Maxwelton Close would give rise to graffiti, noise and

security concerns 7. Series of applications in past and only one was ever allowed (on appeal) 8. Amenity area under the trees is not suitable 9. Protective covenants prevent such development 10. New access road will be hazardous

Environment Agency: No comment. Thames Water: Public sewers cross this site and no building will be permitted without Thames Water’s approval.

PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings The application site is an irregular shape and has an area of 0.33 hectares comprising 42 Sunbury Avenue and its garden. The curtilage of no. 42 includes a former small plant nursery site to the rear. The site falls away from Sunbury Avenue. The mainline railway and M1 Motorway run adjacent to the site’s eastern boundary. The southern and western boundaries adjoin the rear gardens of properties in Maxwelton Close and Sunbury Avenue. Trees and shrubs are located around the boundaries of the site, including conifer screens along the eastern and southern boundaries and a large TPO oak tree adjacent to the west boundary. The area is predominantly characterised by two storey detached and semi-detached houses with reasonably long rear gardens and plot widths of approx. 9 or 10m. Proposals The proposal is to demolish 42 Sunbury Avenue to provide an access to land at the rear, where it is proposed to build a part-two/part-three storey block comprising 14 two-bedroom flats. The block would be located in the eastern part of the site nearest to the boundary with the railway and motorway. The block would have a return along part of the southern boundary with properties in Maxwelton Close and it is here that the height drops to two storey. The building is designed so that habitable room windows face into the site, so as to minimise impact from rail and traffic noise. 21 car parking spaces are proposed in front of the block and the remaining part of the site would be open amenity area. Material Planning Considerations The site has a long history of applications for residential redevelopment including an approval on appeal in 1989 for 16 x three-storey townhouses. Since then however there have been a number of refusals. The most recent was a dismissed appeal in 1999 for 11 houses and access road. The principle of residential development of the site has been accepted in past decisions and the considerations in past applications have related to scale, density, design, impact on neighbours and impact on trees. In the 1999 appeal, an application for 11 houses was dismissed for 2 reasons. One was the relationship of the proposed terrace of 3 houses to the front of the site with existing properties in Sunbury Avenue, where the proximity of those particular units was considered to be a cramped and incongruous form of development on the most prominent part of the site. The second reason was the likely impact on a protected oak tree which would have been very close to one of the proposed houses. Character and Appearance: The current scheme differs from many of those submitted in that it relates to development with a block of flats rather than houses. Flats have previously been refused as they were considered to be out of character in the area. However, since the last flat scheme was proposed (1990) PPG3 has been updated with the emphasis on the need to make optimum use of land within existing urban areas. In the most recent appeal decision, although it related to houses, the Inspector did say that ‘Development within the heart of the site would not, in my judgement, be perceived within the context of the properties in the surrounding roads. I am satisfied that the form of development on most of the appeal site need not repeat the form of development found in Sunbury Avenue and Maxwelton Close.’

The current proposal differs from that appeal proposal in that no development other than the access road is proposed near the Sunbury Avenue frontage, There is scope within the wide landscaped area proposed adjoining the access road for substantial planting so that the new building would be scarcely visible from Sunbury Avenue. This would be aided by the natural slope of the land away from Sunbury Avenue and the design of the block which incorporates a curved roof. The appeal scheme had a terrace of 3 houses hard up against the boundary with 44 Sunbury Avenue that would have been much more visible from the street. The level of parking provision on site meets the Council’s standard and the amount of amenity space proposed is in excess of the minimum standard required. It is considered, given the fact that the proposed development does not have a frontage to and that the proposed block would be hardly seen from Sunbury Avenue that this particular proposal would not be detrimental to the established character and appearance of the area. Impact on Neighbouring Residents It is considered that the proposed development of flats would have no more impact on adjoining residents than a development of houses in terms of noise and disturbance. The access road is separated from no. 44 Sunbury Avenue by a substantial landscaped area. That part of the site immediately bordering most of the properties in Sunbury Avenue and Maxwelton Close would remain as the garden area to serve the new flats. No habitable room windows are proposed on those elevations nearest to adjoining gardens and the distance of elevations with habitable room windows to adjoining gardens exceeds the minimum standards required. The two storey part of the building (an elevation with no habitable room windows) would be 6.8m from the boundary with the nearest property in Maxwelton Close and 26m from the property itself. The three storey part of the building would be 30m from the house at 44 Sunbury Avenue and 2.6m from the rearmost corner of its garden. The three storey part would be 16m from the rear garden of 40 Sunbury Avenue and 34m from the property itself. It is considered that the development would not therefore have any significant impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring residents. Highways and Traffic In the most recent appeal decision, the Inspector considered that Sunbury Avenue carried relatively little traffic and that the additional traffic generated by 11 houses would not make a material difference to highway safety in the area. It is considered that the traffic generated by 14 flats would not be dissimilar. PPG24 – Noise from Railway and Motorway The building has been designed so that non-habitable room windows face the railway and motorway and the main amenity area for residents would be well away from that boundary. The suitability of the site for residential development has bee accepted and it is considered that a development of flats would be likely to provide greater protection from noise than one of detached or semi-detached houses. An assessment in relation to PPG24 is required by a proposed condition. Trees One of the reasons that the most recent appeal was dismissed related to likely damage to a protected oak tree. This tree is located just within the site to the rear of

34 Sunbury Avenue. This part of the site is to be the amenity area of the flats and no hardsurfacing is proposed within approx. 13m of this tree. Other trees in the site are to be retained, including those along the boundary with the railway. In any event the Inspector in the last appeal considered that ‘…the loss of these trees (along the railway boundary) would not be readily apparent from the roads in the vicinity and would not adversely affect the character of the area.’ Trees in the western part of the site would be lost due to the fall in level from west to east and the need to reduce levels to provide the access road. None of the trees likely to be affected are protected by a TPO. There is scope for replacement planting on the site. Sustainable Development Issues / Safety and Security Measures Re-use of a brownfield site in an urban area at increased density complies with PPG3. Disability Issues None raised. Section 106 Items The site lies in area of open space deficiency. Contributions towards open space provision and to meet educational costs arising are required in line with policy. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS Largely addressed in report. Limited use of the access to Maxwelton Close can be controlled by condition. The existence of restrictive covenants on the land is not a planning matter. CONCLUSION The development is considered, on balance, to be acceptable for the reasons outlined above.

LOCATION: Land rear of 40 & 42 Sunbury Avenue, London, NW7 3SJ.

REFERENCE: W02606X/04 Received: 18 June 2004 Accepted: 18 June 2004WARD: Hale Expiry: 17 Sept 2004 Final Revisions:APPLICANT: Howarth Homes plc PROPOSAL: Demolition of 42 Sunbury Avenue and construction of a

new accessway and the construction of a part two-storey, part three-storey block of 14 self-contained flats with associated parking and the repositioning of the existing garage to 40 Sunbury Avenue. (DUPLICATE).

RECOMMENDATION I: That the Borough Solicitor and Head of Planning be instructed to invite the applicant and any other person having a requisite interest to enter by way of an agreement into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any other legislation which the Borough Solicitor considers is necessary for the purposes of seeking to ensure the following advantages: (i) A contribution of £21,000 towards the provision of leisure facilities within the Hale Ward. (ii) A contribution of £10,389 towards the additional educational costs arising as a result of the development. (iii) All payments to be made entirely within 28 days following a material start of the building implementing the planning permission with prior written notification given to the Head of Planning 14 days prior to that start. (iv) Paying the Council's Legal and professional costs of drawing up the Legal Agreement and any otehr enabling agreements. RECOMMENDATION II: That upon completion of such agreement the Director of Environment or Head of Planning be instructed to approve planning application ref: W02606X/04 under delegated powers subject to the following conditions:-


2. Before development hereby permitted is commences details turning space and parking spaces and cycle storage facilities shall be provided and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The spaces and facilities shall be marked out and provided prior to the occupation of the development and shall not thereafter be used for any purpose. Reason: To ensure that such facilities are provided in accordance with the council's safety and the free flow of traffic.

3. Before the development is commenced details of the estate road shall be

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The estate road as approved shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before the site is occupied. Reason: To ensure a safe form of development and to protect the amenities of the area.

4. No structure or erection with a height exceeding 1.05m above footway level shall be placed along the frontage(s) of Sunbury Avenue from a point 2.4m from the highway boundary for a distance of 2.4m on both sides of the vehicular access(es). Reason: To prevent danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway and the premises.



7. Before the development hereby permitted commences details of proposed boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with those details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance and protect the amenities of the area.


9. Before the building hereby permitted is occupied the proposed windows to the

first floor flat 10 in the elevation directly facing the site boundary with Nos.18 and 20 Maxwelton Close shall be glazed with obscure glass and permanently fixed shut with only a fanlight opening and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.


11. The development hereby permitted shall not be implemented (other than for investigative work) - (a) Until a full site investigation, which shall include a geophysical study and soil survey, has been carried out on the site in accordance with a recognised code of practice; and (b) a risk assessment of any hazards identified thereby is provided to the Planning Authority; and (c) a remediation strategy is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; and (d) a verification report and completion certificate has been produced to and accepted by the Local Planning Authority to confirm that the remediation strategy has been completed. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory treatment of the site and to protect the amenities of the area.

12. No site works or works on this development shall be commenced before temporary fencing has been erected around existing tree(s) in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This fencing shall remain in position until after the development works are completed and no material or soil shall be stored within these fenced areas. Reason: To safeguard the health of existing tree(s) which represent an important amenity feature.

13. A scheme of hard and soft landscaping, including details of existing trees to be retained, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development, hereby permitted, is commenced.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.


15. Any existing tree shown to be retained or trees or shrubs to be planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of the completion of development shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of appropriate size and species in the next planting season. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.

16. Before this development is commenced details of the location, extent and depth of all excavations for drainage and other services in relation to trees on the site shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development carried out in accordance with such approval. Reason: To safeguard the health of existing tree(s) which represent an important amenity feature.

17. No site works or works on this development shall be commenced before a method statement detailing precautions to minimise damage to trees in particular from vehicle movements, services and construction works is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with such approval. Reason: To safeguard the health of existing trees which represent an important amenity feature.


19. Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the foul and/or surface water discharge from the site shall not be prejudicial to the existing sewerage system and the amenities of the area.

20. A PPG24 assessment, by an approved acoustic consultant, shall be carried

out on the development that assesses the likely impact of noise on the development. This report and any measures to be implemented by the developer to address its findings shall be submitted in writing for the approval of the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers are not prejudiced by rail/or road traffic and/or mixed use noise in the surroundings.

21. Before development commences, a report should be carried out by a competent acoustic consultant and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, that assesses the likely noise impacts from any plant or machinery. The report shall also clearly outline mitigation measures for the development to reduce these noise impacts to acceptable levels. It should include all calculations and baseline data and be set out so that the Local Planning Authority can fully audit the report and critically analyse the contents and recommendations. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of neighbouring premises are protected from noise from the development.

22. The access to Maxwelton Close shall be used as an emergency access only. Details to prevent its general use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents.

INFORMATIVE(S):-

1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Site Location Plan, 04/2297/1, 04/2297/2, 04/2297/3, 04/2297/4, 04/2297/5, 04/2297/6, 04/2297/7.

2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows: The proposed development accords with the London Plan and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G18, T1.1, M2.1, H1.1, H1.2, H2.1, H3.1, H3.2, H3.3, H3.4, H3.5, H4.1, H4.2, EDN1.1, E2.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001) GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D9, D12, D13, L12, M14, CS8, H5, H6, H16, H17, H18, H20, H21.

3. The details of acoustic consultants can be obtained from the following contacts: Institute of Acoustics: Telephone No: 01727 848195. Association of Noise Consultants: Telephone No: 01763 852958.

The assessment and report on the noise impacts of a development should use methods of measurement, calculation, prediction and assessment of noise levels and impacts that comply with the following standards, where appropriate: Department of Environment: PPG24 (1994) Planning Policy Guidance - Planning & Noise. BS7445 (1991) Parts 1, 2 & 3 (ISO 1996 parts 2-3) - Description and measurement of environmental noise. BS4142:1997 - Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. BS8223:1999 - Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings: code of practice. Department of Transport: Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (1988). Department of Transport: Calculation of Railway Noise (1995). Department of Transport: Railway Noise and Insulation of Dwellings.

4. The applicant is advised that Network Rail should be consulted given the proximity of the site to the mainline railway.

5. The applicant is advised that a public sewer runs across this site and that early contact with Thames Water is necessary.

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS This is a duplicate application to Ref: W02606W which is somewhere in the Agenda.

LOCATION: 20 Sherwood Road, London, NW4 1AD.

REFERENCE: W02195D/04 Received: 22 April 2004 Accepted: 22 April 2004WARD: Hendon Expiry: 17 June 2004 Final Revisions:APPLICANT: Mr B Maccaba PROPOSAL: Construction of single storey rear conservatory extension.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS


INFORMATIVE(S):-

1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Site Location Plan, MA-11 Rev.A, MA-12 Rev.A.

2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows: The proposed development accords with the London Plan and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Barnet Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, T1.1 & H6.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 & H27.


Development Plan (1991): G1, T1.1, H6.1. Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 & H27


W02195 – Withdrawn application for a carport (Permitted Development).1969

W02195A – Determined that single storey rear extension and swimming pool enclosure would not require planning permission (Permitted Development).august 1986

W02195B/02 - Single storey side and rear extension, conversion of garage to habitable room, side dormer windows, front dormer and internal changes – Approved (Sub-Committee) 25-09-2002

W02195C/04 – Construction of single storey rear conservatory extension. – Refused 24-03-2004

(c) Consultations and views Expressed: Neighbours Consulted: 4 Replies: 2 The occupiers of 18 and 22 Sherwood Road have raised the following objections:

1. Proposed extension would represent an overdevelopment of the site. 2. Proposal will be detrimental to the appearance of the property and the

residential visual amenity of neighbouring occupiers 3. Scale and appearance of the proposed extension 4. Loss of light 5. Noise from construction

PLANNING APPRAISAL This application was deferred from the last sub-committee meeting (14h July 04) for a site visit. Site Description and Surroundings The property is located on the eastern side of Sherwood Road, south of Great North Way, Hendon. Sherwood Road is a predominately residential road, comprising mainly of single-family detached dwellings. There is an enclosed single storey building (consisting of a swimming pool) in the rear garden of this property and which is connected to the main bulk of the house. Planning permission was give in 2002 for a single storey side and rear extension, side dormer windows with front dormer and for the conversion of the garage to habitable spaces. This work has been recently completed and the applicants have begun work on this proposed conservatory extension. Proposals The proposal is for a single storey rear conservatory extension. Material Planning Considerations The proposed rear conservatory extension will be 3.5 metres in depth and 11.8 metres in width. The conservatory extension will be built along the full width of the rear elevation and will be built up to the boundary with No No 22 Sherwood Road. This extension will connect up with an existing single storey side/rear extension, built along the boundary with No 18 Sherwood Road. Along the boundary with No 22 Sherwood Road the extension will have a sloping brick facia wall which will be 3.8 metres in height at the highest point and 2.8 metres at the lowest point. No 22 Sherwood Road at a slight angle to No 20 and there is an approximate gap of 2.8 metres between the flank elevation of 20 and 22 at first floor level. There is a single storey building (a garage and utility room) along the side of No 20, which is built up to the boundary. The single storey utility room projects out approximately 3 metres along the boundary with No 20.

Along the other side of the property the conservatory extension will connect up with an existing flat roofed single storey side/ rear extension. The proposed conservatory extension will be have no direct impact on the residential amenities of No 18 Sherwood Road. The rest of the proposed conservatory extension will be built of glass panels. The rear conservatory extension will open out onto a small area of decking. This area of decking will be 0.5 above ground level and will project out 3 metres. The proposed decking will not lead to overlooking or loss of privacy to the residents of No 22 Sherwood Road. The depth of the proposed conservatory extension along the boundary with No 22 has been reduced down from 5 metres, as per the last application, to 3.5 metres in this application. The depth and height of the conservatory extension is now considered to be acceptable and will have no significant impact on the residential and visual amenities to the residents of No 22 Sherwood Road. The proposed extension is considered to be acceptable and to be in accordance with the Council’s Design Guidance on Residential Extensions (Note No 5). Given above the application is recommended for approval. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS The objections raised are commended upon below:

1 Proposed extension represents an overdevelopment of the site – The proposed extension does not represent a disproportioned additional over and above the size of the original house.

2 Detrimental to the appearance of the property and to the residential visual amenities of neighbouring occupiers – The proposed extension will have no significant impact on the residential and visual amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

3 Scale and appearance of the proposed and impact on the area – The depth and height of the extension is considered to be acceptable and will have no significant impact on the residential and visual amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

4 Loss of light – The proposed extension will lead to no significant loss of light. 5 Noise from construction – Noise and disturbance from the construction period

is not a material planning consideration and instead is controlled under environmental health law.

LOCATION: 12 Cedars Close, London, NW4 1TR.

REFERENCE: W10376B/04 Received: 19 May 2004 Accepted: 19 May 2004WARD: Hendon Expiry: 14 July 2004 Final Revisions:APPLICANT: Kerrin Rosenberg & Andrea Whyt PROPOSAL: Single storey conservatory extension to rear, insertion of

two hipped roof rear dormer windows and rooflights to front, side and rear elevations.



2. The materials to be used in the construction of 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 the surrounding area.

3. The proposed rear dormer window serving the en-suite bathroom shall be glazed with obscure glass only and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

INFORMATIVE(S):-

1. The plans accompanying this application are:- L(-01)01, L(-2)01, L(-2)02, L(-3)01, l(-4)01, L(-4)02, L(-2)11, L(-2)12, L(-2)13A, L(-2)14A, L(-3)11A, L(-4)11A, L(-4)12.

2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows: The proposed development accords with the London Plan and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, T1.1 & H6.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6 & H27.

3. Trees at the site indicate on a Tree Preservation Order; if treatment to

protected trees are proposed an application would be required in accordance with the Tree Preservation Legislation.

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS (a) Relevant Unitary Development Planning Policies: Barnet Adopted Unitary

Development Plan (1991): G1, T1.1, H6.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBE nv1, GBE nv2, D1-D6 & H27


W10376A/03 - First floor side and rear extensions. – Approved 01-07-2003 (c) Consultations and Views Expressed: Neighbours Consulted 31 Replies: 2

Two letters of objection have been received in regards to this application, one from the owners of 6 Cedars Close, the property which backs onto the rear garden of No 12 Cedars Close, and one from 16 Cedars Close: The objections raised are as follows:

1. Overlooking (to No 6 Cedars Close) and loss of established privacy. 2. Dormer windows would set a precedent for other such development in the

area. 3. Overdevelopment of site.

PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings The subject property is a detached house located on a quite end of street/ cul-de-sac site. This subject property sits on a triangular shaped plot which fronts onto a small crescent. The street is characterised by large detached dwellings. The subject property has recently been extended to by way of a first floor side extension. Parts of the previously approved planning application (W10376A/03) have yet to be built. Proposals The proposal is for a single storey conservatory extension to the rear, the insertion of two hipped roof dormer windows to the rear roof slope and rooflights to front, side and rear roof elevations. Material Planning Considerations The proposed rear conservatory extension will be 3.6 metres in depth and 6 metres in width and will be positioned approximately along the centre of the rear elevation. This conservatory extension will be built entirely from glass panels and will be 2.7 metres in height. The conservatory extension will not be directly visible from neighbouring properties due to the high degree of screening along the boundaries to neighbouring properties. The proposed hipped roof dormer windows will be 1.1 metres in width and 1.5 metres in height at the highest point. The rear dormer windows will be positioned in the middle of the roof slope and are in keeping with the criteria for dormer extensions as set out in Council’s Design Guidance Note No 5: Extensions to Houses. One of the

proposed dormer windows will serve an en-suite bathroom, and will be conditioned to be obscured glazed. The other rear dormer will have clear glass (0.9 metres in width by 0.7 metres in height), broken up by a number of glazing bars. The proposal is for 4 rooflights, one on the front and rear roof slopes and one on either of the side roof slopes. The number of rear dormer windows has been reduced from 3 to 2; as well the size of the dormer windows have been reduced. The rear dormer windows will not lead to any significant degree of overlooking to the neighbouring and adjoining properties. There is a 38 metre gap between the rear elevations of No 12 and No 6 Cedars Close, as well as a high degree of screening (largely consisting of deciduous trees) along the rear boundary to these properties, therefore significantly minimising the degree of overlooking and loss of privacy to No 6. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION The objections raised are commented upon below.

1 Overlooking (to No 6 Cedars Close) and loss of established privacy – Addresses in report above

2 Dormer windows would set a precedent for other such development in the area – The principle of dormer windows to properties in this area is acceptable, so long as they meet the Council’s design guidance on roof extensions as set out in Design Guidance Note No 5, or the criteria for roof alteration allowed under Permitted Development (Class B Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning - General Permitted Development - Order 1995.

3 Overdevelopment of site – The proposed extension will not lead to significant increase in the footprint of this property and therefore does not represent an overdevelopment of this site.

CONCLUSION The proposed extensions are considered to be acceptable and to be in keeping with the Council’s Design Guidance on Residential Extensions (Note No 5) and will have no significant impact on the residential and visual amenities to the neighbouring occupiers.

LOCATION: 7 Marsh Close, London, NW7 4NY.

REFERENCE: W07628B/04 Received: 4 February 2004 Accepted: 16 February 2004WARD: Mill Hill Expiry: 12 April 2004 Final Revisions:APPLICANT: Mr Jani PROPOSAL: Single storey front extension and associated conversion of

garage to a habitable room. Ground and lower ground level side and rear extension.



2. The materials to be used in the construction of 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 the surrounding area.

INFORMATIVE(S):-

1. The plans accompanying this application are:- 3395, Site Plan.

2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows: The proposed development accords with the London Plan and the adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): H6.1 and T1.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): D1, D2, D4, D5, D7 and H27.


Development Plan (1991): T1.1, H6.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): D1, D2, D4, D5, D7, H27. Supplementary Planning Guidance – Design Guidance Note 5: Extensions to Houses.


W07628 - First floor side extension: Approved (14/07/1985) W07628A - Two storey rear extension: Approved (11/02/1987)

(c) Consultations and views Expressed: Neighbours Consulted: 4 Replies: 2 Two letters have been received from the owners/occupiers of 6 Marsh Close and 73 The Reddings. The objections raised are as follows:

1. Loss of light 2. Damage to foundations 3. Impact of the rear extension on the character of the property

PLANNING APPRAISAL The application was deferred for a site visit from the June Sub-Committee Meeting (16 June 2004). It was then deferred for amendments from the July Sub-Committee meeting (14 July 2004). As requested the side extension would be retained as a conservatory to prevent loss of light to the adjacent property. Site Description and Surroundings The application site relates to a two storey detached single family dwelling, located on the South side of Marsh Close. Proposal The proposal is for a single storey front extension and associated conversion of the garage into a habitable room. Ground and lower ground level side and rear extension. Material Planning Considerations The proposed front extension would attach to the front of the existing garage, which would then be converted into a habitable room as part of this application. It would be 2.8m wide, 1.4 m deep and 2.5m high with a mono pitch roof running flush with the bulk of the front building line of the property as existing. There would be 1 x window on the front elevation which would match the existing windows in its size and design. The existing side and rear conservatory would be demolished and in its place a brick built replacement extension is proposed which would match the existing in footprint. A further extension would be constructed which would link onto this and would run along the rear of the property, creating an ‘L shaped type extension’ wrapping around the face of the property. This would not extend further into the rear garden than the existing conservatory. The resulting extension would be 6m deep and 5.8m wide with patio doors leading onto the existing rear raised patio. As the rear garden is approximately 2m lower than ground floor level the proposal would be 5.3m high as viewed from the rear elevation, with a flat roof. It is considered to have an acceptable impact on the character of the property. Due to the existence of the conservatory, it is considered that there would be no additional impact to the residential or visual amenities of the neighbouring occupiers and the size and design of the proposal is in keeping with Council Policy and Design Guidance Note 5: Extension to Houses. Given the above, the application is recommended for approval.

COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS 1. Loss of light: Addressed in report. 2. Damage to foundations: Covered under building regulations. 3. Impact of the rear extension on the character of the property. Addressed in

main report.

LOCATION: 12 Birkbeck Road, London, NW7 4AA.

REFERENCE: W07294C/04 Received: 9 June 2004 Accepted: 9 June 2004WARD: Mill Hill Expiry: 4 August 2004 Final Revisions:APPLICANT: Mr A Glasner PROPOSAL: Erection of two, 2 storey semi-detached houses with 4

parking spaces at front and associated landscaping following demolition of existing bungalow.

RECOMMENDATION I: That the Borough Solicitor and Head of Planning be instructed to invite the applicant and any other person having a requisite interest to enter byway of an agreement into a planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and any other legislation which the Borough Solicitor considers is necessary for the purposes of seeking to ensure the following advantages: (i) A contribution of £4200 towards planned improvements for open space amenities within the Mill Hill Ward. (ii) All payments to be made entirely within 28 days following a material start of the building implementing the planning permission with prior written notification given to the Head of Planning 14 days prior to that start (iii) Paying the Council's Legal and professional costs of drawing up the legal agreement and any other enabling agreements. RECOMMENDATION II: That upon completion of such agreement the Director of Environment or Head of Planning be instructed to approve planning application ref: W07294C/04 under delegated powers subject to the following conditions:-



3. Before the development hereby permitted is occupied the parking spaces/garages shown on Plan No. 20030430-04 shall be provided and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles in connection with the approved development.

Reason: To ensure that parking is provided in accordance with the council's standards in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety, the free flow of traffic and in order to protect the amenities of the area.

4. No structure or erection with a height exceeding 1.05m above footway level shall be placed along the frontage(s) of Birkbeck Road from a point 2.4m from the highway boundary for a distance of 2.4m on both sides of the vehicular access(es). Reason: To prevent danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway and the premises.


6. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use or occupied the site shall be enclosed except at the permitted points of access in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality and/or the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties and to confine access to the permitted points in the interest of the flow of traffic and conditions of general safety on the adjoining highway.



9. A scheme of hard and soft landscaping, including details of existing trees to

be retained, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development, hereby permitted, is commenced. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.


11. Any existing tree shown to be retained or trees or shrubs to be planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of the completion of development shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of appropriate size and species in the next planting season. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.


13. The roof of the single storey rear element shall only be used in connection with the repair and maintenance of the building and shall at no time be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity or sitting out area without the benefit of the grant of further specific permission in writing from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties are not prejudiced by overlooking

14. Notwithstanding the provisions of any development order made under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1980 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) the building(s) hereby permitted shall not be extended in any manner whatsoever or any hardstanding created other than that which has been approved without the prior specific permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason To ensure that the development does not prejudice the character of the locality and the enjoyment by existing and/or neighbouring occupiers of their properties

INFORMATIVE(S):-

1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Location Plan, FG2.0, 20030130.01A, 20030430.02A, 20030430.04.

2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows: The proposed development accords with the London Plan and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Barnet Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G2, G18, T1.1, T1.2, H3.2, H3.3, H3.4, M2.2. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D7, D11, M14, H16, H17, H18.


Development Plan (1991): G1, G2, G18, .1, T1.2, H3.2, H3.3, H3.4, M2.2 Barnet Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D7, D11, M14, H16, H17, H18


W072944B/03 – Erection of two storey building comprising 5 self-contained flats and 5 parking spaces at the front and associated landscaping following demolition of existing bungalow – refused and dismissed at appeal 2003

(c) Consultations and views Expressed: Neighbours Consulted: 54 Replies: 4 The occupiers of 14 Bryon Road and 10, 16 and 22 Birkbeck Road have raised the following objections:

1. The two storey house would block views from properties on Byron Road 2. Demolition of bungalow and construction of new houses would result in a loss

of trees and large shrubs in the back garden which will affect nature conservation in the area

3. Will introduce overlooking and loss of privacy for occupiers of properties on Byron Road

4. Increased noise and disturbance 5. Will put additional strain on parking 6. The removal the bungalow will expose the flank elevation of No. 10 Birkbeck

Road which will expose that property to the elements. 7. The two storey building will block light to the rear rooms of No. 10 Birkbeck

Road 8. The property will not be kept as a pair of semi-detached properties but will be

turned into flats in the future PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings

The application site is a single-family bungalow with a detached garage. The area is characterised by a mixture of single family dwellings and houses that have been converted to flats. Proposals It is proposed to demolish the existing bungalow and detached garage and replace it with a pair of two storey semi-detached houses. Four parking spaces (two per house) would be located at the front of the site. In addition to the hardstanding provided for the parking spaces there would be a landscaped area which would break up the paved area. The existing rear garden would be sub-divided with each house receiving half of the existing garden. The existing building measures 10.4m in width at the front of the property and 11.5m at the rear. The depth of the building is approximately 11.5m. The existing property has a detached garage adjacent to the boundary with No. 14/16 that measures 2.9m in width and 6.2m in length; it is 0.6m from the site boundary and between 1.1m and 1.7m from the bungalow. The gap between the garage and the bungalow is used as an access into the rear garden. The proposed pair of semi-detached houses would measure 13m in width and a maximum of 13m in depth at ground floor and 10.5m at first floor. A gap of 1m would be retained at either side for access to the rear gardens. Although the frontage of the proposed semi-detached houses would be wider than that of the existing bungalow, the proposed footprint would be the same as that proposed in the earlier application for a block of flats. At the time of the appeal the planning Inspector states that the building would be wide but in his view it would be well-related to the size of the site. It would not occupy a greater proportion of the frontage than the bungalow and garage combined and that the proportions were considered to be generally consistent with the houses on the established in the street scene. With this in mind it is considered that the additional bulk along the frontage of the site is not considered to cause unacceptable harm to the street scene. With regards to the depth of the proposed houses, the first floor would not protrude beyond the rear building lines of the adjacent houses. The ground floor would extend 1m beyond the rear building line of the existing bungalow. It is considered that this additional 1m would not be detrimental to the visual and residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. The height of the proposed building would be approximately 1.2m greater than the height of No. 10 and 0.8m less than the ridge height of No. 14/16. It is considered that the additional height resulting from the replacement of the existing bungalow with a two-storey building would be acceptable due to the fact that the neighbouring properties are two storeys and the area is characterised by two storey properties. With regards to parking, the applicants have provided two off-street parking spaces at the front of the property. This meets parking standards. In terms of the proposal to locate the parking at the front of the property, this is considered consistent with the character of the area. The applicants have proposed areas of soft landscaping at the front in addition to the areas of hardstanding. This will break up the paved area and reduce it’s prominence within the street scene. It is considered that this would be acceptable and would not cause undue harm to the appearance of the street scene. Section 106 Items The applicants have agreed to contribute a sum of £4200 towards Greenspaces.

COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS

1. Considered that any impact will be minimal 2. None of the trees are preserved and the applicants have stated that none of

the trees are to be felled. 3. Any increase in overlooking and loss of privacy is considered minimal 4. Any increase in noise and disturbance is considered minimal 5. Application meets parking standards 6. Not a material planning consideration 7. Not considered to have a significant impact 8. Any conversion to a block of flats would be subject to a new planning

application CONCLUSION In conclusion, it is considered that that proposed scheme would be an acceptable form of development in accordance with development policies and that there would be a minimal impact on the visual and residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers. Approval is recommended.

LOCATION: Sir John Laing Building, Page Street, London, NW7 2ER.

REFERENCE: W00587BW/04 Received: 14 June 2004 Accepted: 14 June 2004WARD: Mill Hill Expiry: 13 Sept. 2004 Final Revisions:APPLICANT: George Wimpey North London PROPOSAL: Erection of 9no. blocks to provide a total of 52 self-

contained flats and 21 houses. Associated provision of basement and surface parking, refuse stores, cycle stores and changes to landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

1. The development, by reason of the size, siting, bulk and design of the proposed buildings and layout of the hard surfacing and landscaping would be detrimental to the character and appearance of surrounding development and the residential amenities of occupiers of neighbouring residential properties, contrary to Policies G18, T1.1, H1.2 and H3.1 of the Barnet Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1991) and Policies GBEnv1, D2, D3, D5 and H16 of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001).

2. The development does not incorporate a formal undertaking to meet the extra educational costs arising as a result of the development, contrary to Policy EDN1.1 of the Barnet Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1991)and policy CS8 of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001).

3. The development does not incorporate a formal undertaking to include the provision of any affordable housing in the Borough contrary to Policy H5 of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001).

INFORMATIVE(S):-

1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Site Survey, Site Location Plan, PL/456/01-11, LSDP 10199.01A, Planning & Design Statement.


Development Plan (1991):G1, G18, T1.1, M2.1, H1.1, H1.2, H2.1, H3.1, H3.2, H3.3, H3.4, H3.5, H4.1, H4.2, EDN1.1, O1.3, E2.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001) GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D9, D12, D13, O7, M14, CS8, H5, H6, H16, H17, H18, H20, H21, L12


W00587AU – Redevelopment for residential use comprising 139 new houses and 87 flats with parking, open space and accesses from Page Street and Bunns Lane – approved 6/02/97

Various other consents for approval of details in relation to part of site.

W00587BQ/02 – Environmental Impact Assessment – Screening Opinion – Not required - !8/12/02.

W00587BP/02 – Erection of 17 x three storey houses with off street parking and 3 x three storey blocks and 1 x part two/part three blocks comprising 70 flats, with basement and surface parking and associated landscaping – Refused 12.03.03. Appeal dismissed 19.11.03.

W00587BR/03 – Erection of 9 no. three storey buildings to provide 54 self-contained flats and 21 houses, with associated parking and landscaping – Appeal against non-determination dismissed 19.11.03.

W00587BT/04 – Erection of 9 no. three storey blocks to provide a total of 52 self-contained flats and 21 houses. Associated provision of basement and surface parking, refuse stores, cycle stores and changes to landscaping.- Withdrawn 28.04.04.

(c) Consultations and views Expressed: Neighbours Consulted: 79 Replies: 1 to date

The consultation period had not expired at the time of writing the report. Any further replies received will be reported at the meeting. The occupier of 4 Bampton Drive raises the following objections:

1. Access through Sebergham Grove to serve the existing dwellings is difficult without creating additional pressure, increased use of junction will be dangerous.

2. Proposed parking is insufficient; 3. Scale at three storeys is out of character and would be overbearing for many

residents; 4. Increased density over previously approved scheme; 5. Unacceptable noise and disturbance due to number of dwellings 6. Strain on local resources;

The application was advertised on site and in the local press. In response to consultation on the previous (withdrawn) application W00587BT/04, replies from 3 residents were received re-iterating objections to previous schemes: 1. Traffic and parking – existing residents already experiencing difficulties. The

increased density will only make matters worse; 2. Underground parking may be unpopular, thereby resulting in its disuse and

consequent crime problems. 3. Other developments in area also increasing traffic and parking problems. 4. Increased noise and pollution; 5. Overlooking and loss of light from townhouses; 6. Overdevelopment, increased density in relation to rest of development; 7. Loss of trees and wildlife habitat; 8. Density far higher than original 59 dwellings approved for this site; 9. Height of new buildings out of character with the existing 2 storey buildings; 10. Decrease in amount of open space; 11. Are there enough GP’s etc. to serve the increased population? 12. Will there be any affordable housing?

PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings The site forms part of the Laings development, the other phases of which have been completed. Proposals The original approval in 1997 included 59 units on this part of the site. 2 applications for variations of the approved scheme were made in 2002. One involved the substitution of the 59 dwellings with 87 dwellings comprising 17 houses and 70 flats. with a total of 109 surface and underground parking spaces. The other involved the erection of 75 dwellings comprising 21 houses and 54 flats, with a total of 107 parking spaces. Both applications were refused permission and were dismissed at appeal. The current application seeks to overcome the reasons for refusal. In relation to W00587BR/03, which was the smaller of the 2 schemes considered at the appeal, the following changes have been made: 1. The height of block A has been reduced in part to 2 rather than 3 storey. 2. The number of flats has been reduced by 2 to 52 in total. 3. The positions of blocks A and B have been swapped, so that the longest block is

in the middle of the 3 southern blocks. 4. The longest block has been reduced from 32m to 31m in length. 5. 8 of the proposed houses towards the west of the site which back on to the

existing development of Colenso Drive have been amended so that the second floor accommodation is incorporated within the roofslope and the ridge height is lowered by approx. 0.9m. Dormer windows are proposed on the front (east facing) elevations.

6. Spacing between the 3 southern blocks of flats has increased from 2m to 3m, but block C is 1.5m nearer to Page Street and the depth of rear amenity space is slightly narrower.

7. 7 additional surface car-parking spaces are proposed. 8. The area of the central open courtyard is smaller as the staircase to the

basement car park is now incorporated in this area. Material Planning Considerations The principal considerations in this case are the impacts arising from the increased density and scale of development on the character and appearance of the locality and on the amenities of residents and whether the amendments made overcome the objections to the previous schemes. Character and Appearance The following comments relate to the Inspector’s decision on W00587BR/02 (the smaller appeal scheme). The Inspector considered that block A together with the terraces of three storey houses would dominate and be overbearing on the two-storey houses to the west that are sited at a lower level. She concluded that ‘the topography, the unrelieved mass of block A facing south and the scale and limited separation between the terraces facing west would create a dominant and overbearing development.’ The current scheme swaps block A with block B, omits the return to block A and lowers the eastern part of block A to 2 storeys. This just moves the impact of the longest block further east and could arguably make it more visible from Page Street.

8 of the houses in the west facing terraces have been amended so that the second floor is incorporated within the roofslopes. Although this reduces the amount of fenestration overlooking to the rear and lowers the eaves height (by 2.2m) and the ridge height (by 0.9m) there is no attempt to increase the separation between blocks. It is considered that the Inspector’s comments in relation to overbearing impact have not been overcome. The increased surface parking, introduction of basement access in the courtyard and re-arrangement of the blocks has resulted in reduced space for landscaping to soften the development. Open Space The previous applications were refused due to a loss of open space provision compared to the original development proposals for the site. The Inspector however considered that, although the amount of space that would be open and readily visible for public access would be insufficient to provide a comparable area of open space to that in the extant permission, there was no requirement for any area in the extant permission to be maintained as public open space. Accordingly she did not find the loss of open space in the extant permission a reason for withholding permission. Affordable Housing and Educational Contributions The development incorporates 5 four-bedroom houses for affordable housing, the same number as the smaller appeal scheme. The Inspector considered this to be acceptable in policy terms. No formal undertaking has been made however. With regard to educational contributions, the Inspector concluded that she could not determine whether the contribution proposed by the developer at the appeal was acceptable. She deemed the Undertaking proposed to be premature given that the appeal was to be dismissed. Again, no formal undertaking has been made to provide a contribution in connection with this current application. Traffic and Parking The proposals meet the Council’s standards, providing 78 spaces for the flats, 2 spaces for each private house and 1 for each affordable unit. This represents an increase in 7 spaces with a loss of 2 flats when compared with the appeal scheme. The Inspector saw ‘that the roads leading from Page Street to the appeal site are of restricted width when on-street parking occurs’, but she ‘does not consider that the development would increase on-street parking in roads leading to the appeal site’. 90% of the dwellings would be flats or affordable housing and the Inspector ‘in view of Government advice’ found ‘no harm in the level of parking proposed’ for the larger (appeal) scheme. She considered that the use of existing roads to access an additional 28 units would not cause harm to conditions of highway safety. Although she considered the provision in the smaller scheme to be inadequate, she considered the provision of 1/1 spaces for affordable housing and 1/1.5 spaces for private sale housing would be appropriate. This level is met in the current scheme and it is considered that the refusal of this scheme on the grounds of impact on highway safety would fail to accept the findings of the Inspector on this issue and would be very likely to be upheld in the event of a further appeal. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS Largely addressed in the report or by the Inspector in the appeal decision.

CONCLUSION It is considered that the proposals do not incorporate significant or sufficient changes and do not overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous schemes or the comments made by the Inspector in dismissing the appeals,

Documents

London Borough of Barnet Area... · Land rear of 40 & 42 Sunbury Avenue, London, NW7 3SJ. Demolition of 42 Sunbury Avenue and construction of a new accessway and the construction