Minutes:
Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes which amended the report.
Councillor Alex Karmel declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of 32A Vereker Road as he knew two of the objectors. He remained in the meeting, participated and voted on the item.
Introducing the report, officers confirmed that an additional 4 letters of objection had been received since the agenda had been published and these raise no new issues.
The Committee heard a representation in objection to the application from a local resident. Some of the points raised included: The applicant had submitted numerous applications in the last 12 months, all of which were detrimental to her next-door property. If approved, the application would create noise and disturbance during the construction phases, as well as odours and fumes. Concerns were raised about the new subterranean basement, the construction techniques employed and what impact this might have on the adjoining property. The Committee’s attention was drawn to the technical accuracy of the submitted plans and how these translated into building designs. Further concerns were raised about security, privacy and overlooking aspects of the proposal.
The Committee heard a representation in support from the Applicant. Some of the points raised included: the property had been purchased in 2016. The issues raised by the neighbour at 32 Vereker Road were not valid concerns. Approaches had been made to neighbours including 32 Vereker Road to explain the proposals but there had been no response. The property was not listed and was not a building of merit. It was confirmed that the proposal would not change the roof height but would extend the rear roof. In relation to the accuracy of the drawings, the Applicant confirmed he did not have a copy of drawings provided by objectors to respond to.
Councillor Larry Culhane spoke as ward Councillor for North End. Some of the points raised included: the application site was a unique property in Barons Court and had been vacant for a long time. The design proposals were very ambitious and had been put together in a careless way. The plans were littered with inaccuracies and several key features including overlooking windows had been omitted. The proposal lacked details about how it would impact on neighbouring properties and most residents had been in contact with Ward Councillors to express their concerns. He concluded his remarks by stating that he hoped the application was either refused or deferred for a site visit.
The Committee considered the floor and ceiling heights, proposed basement, Velux windows and the accuracy of the plans / drawings. Further issues which were explored included the light and ventilation conditions of future occupiers.
The Committee voted on application 2017/04889/FUL and whether to agree the officer recommendation set out in the report and the changes set out in the addendum. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:
For:
0
Against:
8
Not Voting:
0
The Committee agreed the following reasons for refusal: an unneighbourly form of development, the poor quality of the accommodation in the basement, loss of light and privacy to 32 Vereker Road and an over development of the site.
The Committee voted on application 2017/04889/FUL and the reasons for refusal. This was put to the vote and the result was as follows:
For:
8
Against:
0
Not Voting:
0
RESOLVED THAT:
That application 2017/04889/FULbe overturned and refused for the reasons set out above.