london borough of enfield · proposal: rear dormer. applicant name & address: jules wilkinson...
TRANSCRIPT
LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD
PLANNING COMMITTEE Date : 7th April 2014
Report of Assistant Director - Planning, Highways & Transportation
Contact Officer: Andy Higham Tel: 020 8379 3848 Sharon Davidson Tel: 020 8379 3841 Misbah Uddin Tel: 020 8379 3849
Ward: Winchmore Hill
Application Number : P14-00658PLA Category: Householder Developments
LOCATION: 35, LAKESIDE ROAD, LONDON, N13 4PS
PROPOSAL: Rear Dormer.
Applicant Name & Address: Jules Wilkinson 35, LAKESIDE ROAD, LONDON, N13 4PS
Agent Name & Address: Amir Faizollahi, Plan Drawing Service Civic Centre Silver Street Enfield EN1 3XE
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be deemed to be GRANTED subject to conditions.
Note for Members Although an application for planning permission of this nature would normally be determined under delegated authority, the application is submitted by the Council’s Plan Drawing Service and the application is reported in the interests of ensuring an open and transparent process.
Application No:- P14-00658PLA28
44.5
m
21
13
GR
OV
ELA
ND
S R
OA
D
49
54
61
73LA
KE
SID
E R
OA
D
74
64
44
31
32
37
25
17
26
37
34
FW
2
El Sub Sta
1
LA
KE
SID
E R
OA
D
14
1 to 22
Fairweather Court
CF
DE
RW
EN
T R
OA
D
70
65
58
46
53
41
16
29
22
CF
Development Control
Scale - 1:1250Time of plot: 12:33 Date of plot: 26/03/2014
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150m
© Crown copyright. London Borough of Enfield LA086363,2003
1. Site and Surroundings 1.1. The property 35 Lakeside Road is a two storey semi-detached single family
dwelling house located to the western side of Lakeside Road. The application site is located within the Lakes Estate Conservation Area. The surrounding area is residential in character.
2. Proposal 2.1. Planning permission is sought for the construction of rear dormer to provide
an additional bedroom. The dimensions for the proposed dormer are 5m in depth, 2.6m in height and 5.6m in width. .
3. Relevant Planning Decisions 3.1. There is no relevant planning history. 4. Consultations 4.1 Statutory and non statutory consultees 4.1.1 Lakes Conservation Area Study Group raise no objections as none of the
works can be seen from the main road and so long as no front roof lights are being installed. They also assume that the roof tiles on the front remain.
4.2 Public 4.2.1 Consultation letters were sent to 4 neighbouring properties and the
application was also advertised in the local press. No comments have been received to date.
5. Relevant Policy 5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012
allowed Local Planning Authorities a 12 month transition period to prepare for the full implementation of the NPPF. Within this 12 month period Local Planning Authorities could give full weight to the saved UDP policies and the Core Strategy, which was adopted prior to the NPPF. The 12 month period has elapsed and as from 28th March 2013 the Council’s saved UDP and Core Strategy will be given due weight in accordance to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
5.2 The Development Management Document (DMD) policies have been
prepared under the NPPF regime to be NPPF compliant. The submission version DMD was approved by Council on 27th March 2013 for submission to the Secretary of State for examination. Examination and subsequent adaptation is expected later the year. The DMD provides detailed criteria and standard based polices by which planning applications will be determined.
5.3 The policies listed below are considered to be consistent with the NPPF and
therefore it is considered that due weight should be given to them in assessing the development the subject of this application.
5.4 The London Plan (Including London Plan Alterations 2013)
Policy 7.1 Building London’s Neighbourhoods and communities Policy 7.4 Local character Policy 7.6 Architecture Policy 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology
5.5 Local Plan - Core Strategy
Core Policy 30 Maintaining and improving the quality of the built and
open environment Core Policy 31 Built and Landscape heritage
5.6 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policies
(II) GD3 Aesthetics and functional design (II) H8 Privacy (II) H15 Roof alterations and dormers (II) C30 Works in conservation areas
5.7 Submission version DMD
DMD 13 Roof alterations DMD 37 Achieving High Quality and Design-Led Development DMD 44 Preserving & Enhancing Heritage Assets.
5.8 Other Relevant Policy Considerations
The Lake Estate Character Appraisal April 2010 National Planning Policy Framework
6. Analysis 6.1 The two main issues for consideration are: (i) The design and appearance of
the proposed rear dormer and whether it would have appropriate regard in terms of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Area having regard to Policies (II) GD3, (II) C30 and (II) H15 of the UDP and Core Policy 30 and 31 of the Core Strategy as well as Policies DMD 13, 37 and 44 of the Submission Version of the Development management Document, and (ii) Secondly, whether the dormer would have an adverse impact on the residential amenities of the immediate neighbours in terms of loss privacy having regards to Policy (II)H8 of the UDP and Policy DMD 13 of the Submission Version of the Development Management Document.
6.2 Impact on character and appearance of the Conservation Area/ Surrounding
Area 6.2.1 The site falls within the Lakes Estate Conservation Area where appropriate
regard needs to be had to ensure any new development still preserves and enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area having
regard to Saved UDP Policy (II) C30 Core Policy 31 of the Core Strategy, Policy DMD 44 of the Submission Version of the Development Management Document, as well as having regards to the Lake Estate Conservation Area Character Appraisal.
6.2.2 It is considered that the size, siting , design and appearance of the proposed dormer, situated to the rear of the property, would not detract from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area having regard to the above mentioned policies.
6.2.3 The design and appearance of the dormer is also considered not to detract from the character and appearance of the property having regards to Policies (II) H15 of the UDP and Policy DMD 13 of the Submission Version of the Development Management Document.
6.2.4 Furthermore, it should be noted no objections have been raised form the Lakes Estate Conservation Area Study Group. The proposal does not involve the provision of any front roof lights, the existing front roof tiles are also retained.
6.3 Impact on Neighbouring Amenities
6.3.1 In terms of residential amenities, the proposed rear dormer would result in no additional overlooking other than that of existing rear windows facing the rear garden of the application site. There will be no side windows facing no.33 and 37, as such there would not be any significant loss of privacy to the adjoining properties and this complies with Policy (II) H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.
6.4 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
6.4.1 As of the April 2010, legislation in the form of CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) came into force which would allow ‘charging authorities’ in England and Wales to apportion a levy on net additional floor space for certain types of qualifying development to enable the funding of a wide range of infrastructure that is needed as a result of development. Since April 2012 the Mayor of London has been charging CIL in Enfield at the rate of £20 per sum. The Council is progressing its own CIL but this is not expected to be introduced until spring / summer 2015.
6.4.2 The proposed extension is not CIL liable. 7 Conclusion 7.1 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed rear dormer would not
detract from the character and appearance of the Lakes Estate Conservation Area or adversely impact on the residential amenities of the immediate neighbours.
8 Recommendation 8.1 It is recommended that planning permission be deemed to be GRANTED
subject to the following conditions.
1. C60 Approved Plans