Agenda item

Officer introduction:

EP said this is an application for a ground and lower ground floor extension at 76 Hales Road.  The officer has sought revisions to the original scheme, and now feels that the design is acceptable and impact on neighbouring properties minimal.  The application is at Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Jordan.

Public Speaking:

Neighbour, in objection

Is generally not against anyone improving their homes, and believes they should be allowed to do so; does not like being a difficult neighbour.  However, this proposal will impact on neighbours at 29 Kings Road and two other adjacent properties, by its scale, proximity, and impact on light levels, as well as the impact in conservation area.  Firstly, it is a large and high extension, close to his property – 4.5m high, extending 2.2m, 0.5m from the boundary with his property – an imposing edifice, which he considers to be overly large and bulky, and inappropriate in design.  Some changes have been made to the original proposal, but the extension is still very large.  Secondly, the proposal will impact on his patio and seating area which will be overlooked.  The proposed cedar cladding will not mitigate this.  The officer report states that there is already an element of overlooking between the application site and the neighbouring property and extending 2m further into the site will not make the impact any worse.  Disagrees with this – the privacy of his living space will be compromised, and not feel like his own space any more – and there will be loss of light and loss of privacy.  Finally, the buildings are in a conservation area, and should be preserved and enhanced.  Both his own and the applicant’s houses are in a prominent position in the conservation area, close to No. 80 which is identified a historically significant in the Sydenham Character Appraisal and Management plan.  Development should enhance and preserve the area, but the proposal will appear out of place, includes uPVC windows of a different style to the original, and could undermine some established and thriving trees.

Member debate:

BF:  the objector has made a lot of points about loss of light.  Can officers confirm that the proposal passes the light test in every position?

EP, in response:

-       With regard to the neighbour’s basement, the existing structure already results in a failure of the light test.  However, the neighbour’s ground floor accommodation passes the light test.

SC:  looking at the drawings doesn’t give a true impression of the height above the ground of the proposed extension.  It is a large, looming building for the neighbour, not only in his basement, but also on the ground floor.  This is a very, very large structure a few metres from the boundary.  Has great sympathy with the objector for the loss of amenity.

PB:  visited the site on Planning View.  This is one of those really difficult applications to decide, but as the applicant has reduced the size of the original proposal, and it is a well-designed scheme, will vote in support.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

2 in objection

PERMIT