Agenda item

4.         Basement Flat, 8 Granville Park, SE13 (DC/17/103717) (Item 4 on the agenda)

The presenting officer outlined the proposal for the construction of a single storey extension to the rear, together with the installation of a window in the side elevation. He stated there had been 7 objections, but officers consider the proposal to be a high quality design and recommended approval.

Councillor Amrani queried whether 5m deep extensions would usually be permitted and thought that the maximum allowable depth was 3m. The planning officer clarified that the 3m restriction relates to permitted development, and permission is required for anything greater, each case is assessed based upon its own merits.

Members then heard from Ade Fowler, the architect of the scheme. He explained the amendments that have been made since the previously withdrawn application and why he considered they are an improvement. He also explained that it was not the applicant’s intent to harm any neighbours, and they are working to come up with an acceptable solution to boundary treatments, which are currently in a poor state.

Councillor De Ryk sought clarification on the existing and proposed boundary treatment and whether its installation would be permitted development. The agent explained how the proposed boundary treatment has been altered since the previous application, and stated it was not the applicants’ intent to encroach onto anyone’s property. The planning officer confirmed that boundary treatment up to 2m in height would be permitted development.

Councillor De Ryk questioned whether there would be light spill from, and overlooking into the proposed rooflight as well as whether the roof could withstand the load of workmen who may need to stand on it for maintenance in the future. The applicant confirmed that the roof could withstand workmen, and that there would be some light spill from and overlooking into the rooflight, but this would be expected in an urban residential setting such as this.

Councillor Paschoud questioned whether the works would be PD if the property was not a flat, and whether the 5m depth is excessive. The applicant confirmed the works would not be PD, but that within the context of the long garden he thought it was acceptable.

Mr Benjamin Dodge of 8 Granville Park, the flat above the application property, then spoke against the proposal. He stated that he was also speaking on behalf of No.10 Granville Park, an adjoining property. He stated two main objections against the scheme, and four from No.10:

1.    Concerned the relocation of a bedroom to below their living room would cause noise and disturbance complaints against them.

2.    Concerned about disturbance cause by light spill from the rooflight, as well as the reflective roof material. He requested a condition to ensure the rooflight is opaque.

3.    Loss of privacy caused by side elevation windows proposed, requested they be fixed shut and fully obscured.

4.    Light pollution issues due to rooflight.

5.    Raised concern over noise issues.

6.    Style and scale not in keeping with conservation area or surrounding properties and would be overbearing in terms of height and depth.

Questions from members followed regarding the objectors perceived harmful impact of the light spill, to which he replied it would spoil their night time view of the garden. Councillor Amrani asked the planning officer what the depth of the garden was, which he stated approximately 17m, and clarified that the resulting garden would be comfortably greater than the 50% prescribed by Policy DM31.

Councillor De Ryk asked whether the applicants could install further side windows than those proposed, and the planning officer clarified that any new windows would require planning permission.

Councillor Walsh queried whether the rooflight was to be fixed shut, and if a condition could be added relating to this. He also queried whether there was an industry standard which limits noise transmission through glazing. The officer stated that there was no indication within the application that the rooflight would be openable, but a condition could be added to ensure it was fixed shut if felt necessary by members. He stated that noise from residential dwellings is not usually considered to be an amenity consideration.

Councillor Adefiranye raised concern over the potential of the proposal to damage underground services, but the planning officer stated that this was a building control rather than a planning consideration.

Councillor Walsh raised a motion to condition the rooflight to be obscure glazed which was seconded by Councillor De Ryk. This motion however, was not carried forward.

Members voted as follows:

FOR: Councillors De Ryk, Adefiranye, Walsh.

AGAINST: Councillors Amrani (Chair), Paschoud (Vice-Chair), Bourne, Jeffrey, Kennedy, Till

RESOLVE: Motion Defeated.

Councillor Walsh then raised a motion to accept Officer’s recommendation and approve the application, subject to the roof light being fixed shut. Councillor Till seconded the motion.

FOR: Councillors Amrani (Chair), Councillor Paschoud (Vice-Chair), Bourne, Adefiranye, Jeffrey, Kennedy, Till, Walsh

AGAINST: Councillor De Ryk

RESOLVE: That planning permission be granted in respect of application No. DC/17/103717 subject to the conditions outlined in the report.