In addition to the objection to the application for 1363 London Rd extending its opening hours (see previous posting), the Norbury Residents Associations Joint Planning Committee has submitted comments and objections on a number of planning applications.
1523B London Rd (16/05060/DISC) for discharge of condition 10 attached to planning permission 15/04806/P for the alterations to existing building; erection of 3 bedroom house to rear fronting Roche Road; provision of refuse storage.
‘The documentation showing the way in which the Conditions are to be met are not complete. Therefore it and the residents at 1 Roche Rd cannot assesses whether all the Conditions are being properly met. Further the risk analysis does not specify and discuss the risks to 1 Roche as a building which will be effected by the development. This is a serious omission in terms of satisfying the Council that the Condition is being met as the Council is not party to any Party Wall Agreement. The Committee understands that the developer plans to start work on site in November. It should be made clear to them that no start should be made until the Council has agreed that Conditions have been met. The only work that should start on site is separate from the planning permission and relates to the dangerous structure state of the wall along the Roche Rd pavement which I drew Development Management’s attention to by email on the same day, and asking them to notify the Dangerous Structures section of the Council.’
84 Northborough Rd (16/04932/HSE) for erection of dormer extension in rear roof slope.
The Committee considers that the proposed dormer (window to rear roof slope) is significant and not, as described in the Design and Access Statement, “minimum to the existing vast roof”.
‘The proposed dormer is not sufficiently subservient to the main roof slope to be acceptable amongst this tightly planned collection of buildings in the area. The dormer also creates an awkward junction with the side roof slope. The proposed roof lights to the front elevation are inappropriate and adversely impact on the street frontage and the conservation area. These proposals are unacceptable and should be refused.’
227 Tylecroft Road (16/05124/LP)
Although the Council does not invite comments because this application is to check that the proposed extension is within current permitted planning, the Committee has submitted the following views.
‘This application is for a Lawful Development Certificate but the proposed single storey side extension is within 2m of the boundary and over 3m in height, the proposed single storey rear extension is part within 2m of the boundary and over 3m high and the new decking/patio area to the rear is 0.6m above the existing ground level.
These features are not acceptable as Permitted Development and this application should be refused.
We note that there are no floor plans for the new 2nd floor so we cannot comment on its use and space standards.
In the event that this application is changed to a full planning application, without alteration to its contents, then we are likely to object to the proposals on the grounds of the adverse impact the ground floor rear extension will have, because of its height, on 225 Tylecroft Road and also because of the height of the proposed raised deck area above the existing ground level will thus increase the opportunity of the garden of 225 being overlooked and therefore loss of privacy.
We are also concerned about the impact that the rear dormer will have when viewed from the rear of premises in Darcy Road and from the adjoining recreation ground. The dormer is over large and is not sufficiently subservient to the main roof to be a positive contribution. The introduction of a gable end destroys the composition of the semidetached character of the block and the immediate area.
With the extent and possible occupancy in relation to the remaining external area the proposals might be considered as over development.’