This posting is designed to give readers a detailed idea of the type of comments that the Love Norbury Joint Planning Committee makes on planning applications. The recommendations re-water butts is now to be a standard comment following a requirement for one at 28 Gibson’s Hill, with the aim of it becoming a standard requirement for all applications for extensions. The 3 Croft Rd application raises the concern about the number of houses that are being used for multiple occupation without having to be registered as legally defined Houses in Multiple Occupation. The planners have admitted that such a use does not require planning permission. The increasing number of hmos (as opposed to HMOs) is leading to more cares and litter bin problems.
8 Arnulls Rd. Erection of detached single storey garage in front garden. Consideration should be given to the provision of a water butt to collect the water from the roof of the proposed garage.
54 Craignish Avenue. Alterations and use of garage as habitable room and erection of single storey rear and first floor side extensions. In addition to the measures outlined for reducing flood risk a water butt should be provided to collect water.
22 Norbury Court Rd. Erection of a single storey outbuilding in the rear garden. ‘Although the flood risk is low the Environment Agency made it clear at its meeting on the River Graveney and Norbury Brook this week that water from mains drainage does go into streams, brooks and rivers and contribute to the potential for floor risk along their courses. It would therefore be sensible to give consideration to the provision of a water butt to collect rainwater and thereby reduce the amount of such water that flows into the mains drainage.’ Specific JPC recommendation.
(1) A water butt shall be provided as specified in the application and shall be retained for so long as the development remains in existence Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into the development and to reduce the impact of flooding. (e.g.as with 28 Gibson’s Hill. (17/01202/HSE).
(2) the approved building shall only be used for purposes ancillary to the main dwelling house and not as an independent unit, for so long as the development remains in existence. (e.g. 30 Norbury Close (16/04539/FUL), and 168 Norbury Crescent (16/05936/HSE))
3 Croft Rd. Roof alterations including hip to gable enlargement, pitched roof over side extension, dormer extension in rear roof slope and roof lights in front roof slope.
JPC comment. The house has already been enlarged under planning permission 13/02171/P. It currently appears to be rented out to a family of four. The dormer is clearly designed to provide two more bedrooms bringing the total to five. Bedroom three on the first floor is being reduced in size in order to accommodate the stairs to the proposed loft area. This appears to make it a very small room, and raises the question as to whether it meets the London Plan bedroom space standard requirements. At present the extension has a flat roof so the proposed pitched roof at the front will improve the visual look of the house from the street. However the dormer is not level across the back of the house and does not sit centrally on the pitched roof so that nothing of that roof is visible. This would appear not to comply with the Council’s preference for the way dormers are provided.
The risk with this application is that it could be designed to create a house in multiple occupation, with several people sharing the house and losing it as a family house in a quiet residential street. If Development Management decides that the application is acceptable, then the Committee would like to see the following conditions required.
(1) The property may only be used as a family house.
(2) A water butt shall be provided as specified in the application and shall be retained for so long as the development remains in existence Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into the development and to reduce the impact of flooding. (e.g. as with 28 Gibson’s Hill. (17/01202/HSE).’
7 Stanford Rd. Erection of single storey rear extension to provide an additional one bedroom flat. JPC comment:
(1) Some might consider that as the adjoining property has an extension of a similar but smaller extension that this might be considered a precedent that would be a basis for the approval of the proposed extension. This would be inappropriate in this instance as the adjoining extension, whether approved or not, is a visual intrusion and should not be repeated. Adding an extension of a greater size will result in a greater adverse visual impact.
(2) The extension significantly reduces the external amenity space reducing the enjoyment opportunities of the occupants.
(3) The internal layout of the proposed flat is unacceptable. The kitchen is on the first floor but the dining room is on the ground floor at the other end of the building.
(4) The conversion of the store on the first floor into a kitchen may involve a loss of amenity to the existing flat on the first floor. As the plan does not indicate what the rooms are in that flat then there is a risk that the proposed kitchen will be next to a bedroom or living room, adding to notice problems for its occupants. This would be detrimental to the amenity of the residents of the existing first floor flat.
(5) The Design and Access Statement indicates that the additional flat will result will be supplied with a wheelie bin at the front of the property and the recycle bins will be provided in the kitchen or a store. The kitchen is small and is on the first floor meaning that the residents will have to carry them down to the front. They may also need to sue the store for other purposes. There is a risk that they will not use the recycle bins and dispose of all rubbish in the wheelie bin, in the need for extra bin storage.
The JPC notes that in the refusal of the scheme at 68 Melrose Ave (17/01842)/FUL) the following was stated: ‘The development would result in the loss of existing off-street parking and alternative arrangements have not been made for additional car parking.’ Clearly therefore Development Management is concerned about on-street parking. If the occupants of this new flat have a vehicle (e.g. car or van related to work) this will add to the increasing problems of car parking along this stretch of Stanford Rd, and therefore constitutes a reason for refusal.
Overall the proposal constitutes over development.’