Mr. Rezaie presented the application, informing the committee that revisions had been received adjusting the size of proposed mansard (due to objections by Lee Green society). Consequently changes to the submitted plans were made to reduce the bulk.
Mr. Rezaie also indicated that determining issues with regards to this application were concerned with potential impact on amenities (overbearing/overlooking) and the potential impact on character and visual amenities (Conservation Area).
Mr. Rezaie expressed that the building is located in Lee Manor Conservation area and is subject to Article 4 direction, situated within flood risk zone 2. Mr. Rezaie advised members the case officer recommended approval of planning permission subject to conditions, which was supported given precedence of similar proposals in the area.
Councillor Krupski raised a question on the subject of overlooking of the mansard and Mr Rezaie explained the assessment of officers, highlighting no detrimental impact in this regard.
The applicant was invited by the Chair to defend their proposed planning application. He defend their proposed plan and mentioned other examples in that area.
The Lee Manor Society representative, Mr. Batchelor explained that they do not raise any objections to loft conversion, however their consideration is for the setback and explained that their preference is for bigger set back as in other applications which have a setback of between 25 to 30%, while this proposed application has agreed to a setback of 10%.
After these presentations a short discussion took place on the dimensions and set back of the mansard, and the likely harm to the conservation area by councillor Gibbons, and Mr. Batchelor.
Councillor Mallory sought advice of Mr. Batchelor and his degree of satisfaction over amount of setbacks he considers acceptable and whether those changes could be made.
Mr. Rezaie expressed that only the applicant should answer the aforementioned line of request as they held the authority to decide whether or not to make those amendments.
Councillor Gibbons explained that the main consideration is not about percentage setback, but about the impact on the visual amenities of the conservation area and asked if there is precedent for this type of extension in the area.
Mr. Rezaie explained that as long as no harm is caused by the development the amount of setback would be assessed on a case by case basis. He further explained that the conservation society guideline document has no weight in planning decisions as it was not an adopted document.
Councillor Gallagher asked about the method for establishing precedent in these cases and how to establish whether there is harm particularly in a conservation area.
Mr. Rezaie further explained that as the mansard is to the rear of the building and could not be seen from the street scene and is outside of public domain, there are no harm to the visual amenities of the area.
Councillor Mallory requested the officers to go back to the applicant and request further set back to the mansard.
Legal advice was sought by the chair whether the applicant is willing to amend the plan and
Mr. Chau explained that members would be able to reject the application or differ it or accept the officer recommendation, and on that basis requests to applicant could be processed.
Councillor Gallagher moved the motion to differ decision to see if the applicant is prepared to setback the mansard more inline with the recommendation of third party. Councillor Sheikh seconded.
For the motion Councillor Penfold, Councillor Krupski, Councillor and Councillor Moore.
Against the motion Councillor Gibbons, Abstention Councillor Ogunbadewa.