Issue - meetings

The Planning Officer presented this application. This application  was submitted under Section 73a of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a Minor Material Amendment to allow for an amendment of Condition (2) relating to the construction of 2, two-storey, two bedroom houses at the rear of 97 Honor Oak Park, SE23. The application had received 8 objections.

The proposed amendment was to allow siting of House B closer to the western boundary; repositioning of two dormers to 'House A'; the addition of front door canopies; insertion of a ground floor flank window to 'House A'; formation of circular opening at first floor; installation of automated sliding gate to the rear; erection of fence between new dwellings and main building; resiting of parking bays; relocation of bin store and cycle store; and additional paving measures. The houses were unoccupied at this time.

The committee report of 2011 advised that the footprint of both house would be the same- 9.3m in length and 5.2m in width. In comparison, the house A footprint had been measured as 9.4m in length and 5.4m wide. House B measured at 9.57m in length and 5.4m wide, both houses being larger than the approved measurements. The houses were also built slightly closer to the boundary.

The key planning considerations are the design and appearance of works undertaken, and those proposed; whether the works represent a significant change from the approved scheme; residential amenity; standard of accommodation; landscaping proposals.

The development was considered to be acceptable in its merits. The changes to the construction are not considered significantly different to those proposed. Therefore it was recommended by officers to grant permission, subject to the appropriate planning conditions.

Councillor Paschoud asked about the previous appeal of this application. The planning officer clarified that the application went to Committee in 2011 with the recommendation to approve. It was refused for design and scale reasons. The applicants appealed and the appeal was upheld in 2016 with conditions attached to the planning consent.

The applicant then spoke on the proposed amendments. He stated the following:

His parents bought the house as a family home in 1971 as an already dilapidated building with the intention of restoring the Victorian structure back to its original form and enhancing the accommodation. His parents worked hard to restore the home for future generations. The applicant undertook the task of restoring the house and converting it to 6 apartments and building the two new house at the rear of the garden.

The siting of House B is closer to the western boundary because it was discovered that an ancient sewer had been directed across the development, cutting across the proposed position of House B. the decision was taken to move the site of House B a distance away from the sewer but still far enough away from the western boundary so as not to disturb the sewer.

The dormer windows on the ground floor and the flank window of House A are positioned exactly as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9