Land adjacent to 1 Chaucer Road (Herne Hill) 20/00480/FUL
1. Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in this report.
2. Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to:
a. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and
b. Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
3. In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability, having regard to the heads of terms set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.
4. In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within six months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in this report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.
Case No. 20/00480/FUL (agenda item three, page 55 of the agenda pack, page three of the addendum and page six of the second addendum).
The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addenda that had been published on Friday 22 May 2020 and the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of the single storey garage building and the erection of a new two storey 2-bedroom dwelling house with associated amenity space, cycle parking and refuse storage. The location was within the Poet’s Corner Conservation Area, which had few opportunities for development. Properties within the conservation area had a variety of different frontages, and the proposed scheme was considered appropriate in the urban environment context. Detailed BRE tests on sunlight and daylight showed that the scheme complied with these standards. A financial contribution of £19,149 towards the provision of off-site affordable housing would be secured through the S106 Agreement. The scheme would be car free, with an obligation to provide a three-year subscription to a local car club membership.
Following the officer’s presentation, the objectors raised the following concerns:
· The Poet’s Corner Conservation Area Designation Report stated that that all new development was required to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. The scheme did not improve or enhance the area and was not a congruous or subordinate addition to the area.
· The building would dominate and obscure the street view as it was positioned sideways directly on the pavement.
· It would degrade the Conservation Area by blocking a historic view of Chaucer Road from Dulwich Road.
· Objectors raised concerns that the raised front elevation from 2.4m to 6m, would dominate the streetscape and significantly impact the availability of natural light into neighbours’ main living spaces.
· The two windows within the proposed design directly overlooked 1 Chaucer Road’s master bedroom and sitting room, which would impact on residents’ privacy.
· The demarcation between 1 Chaucer Road and the proposed scheme should be improved, as it partially used the driveway and the proposed fence did not follow the whole length of the boundary.
The applicant and architect then provided the following information in support of the application:
· The proposed scheme would occupy a smaller footprint to that of the current structure on the site.
· The sunlight studies demonstrated how the layout ensured that no unacceptable harm was caused to the amenity of surrounding land or residential buildings, in relation to privacy and overshadowing.
· It would incorporate the highest quality materials.
· The proposal made a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area by providing a scheme which would allow for open space, used high quality materials and a well-articulated street frontage.
· The high-quality design had been recognised by the Herne Hill Neighbourhood Area Planning Group, who described the proposal as ‘both inventive and respectful of its context.
· A Section 106 Agreement would ensure that new residents would not be able to obtain a parking permit and would provide three years of car club membership. There was a Zipcar space on Spenser Road, which was less than a minute’s walk away.
Councillor Jim Dickson then spoke as Ward Councillor for Herne Hill, stating the following:
· The proposed building passed none of the tests that would commonly apply to judge whether it was compatible with a conservation area.
· The structure was pulled forward from the building line, obscuring the view along Chaucer Road.
· He hoped that the committee would refuse the application and request that the architects would come back with a more acceptable design.
· The zinc cladding materials were vastly out of keeping with those used across the rest of conservation area.
Officers then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:
· The proposed scheme’s footprint was informed by the size of the site, and unable to be recessed as in the Angell Town development, as it would diminish the upper floor accommodation. Officers believed that the change in materials between the ground and top floor would successfully break up the mass of the building.
· The properties in the area predated the conservation area designation. The property opposite the proposed scheme was the only one approved since the creation of the conservation area. As this scheme had received a number of complaints, officers discouraged a two-storey ‘brick box’.
· The building line was difficult in front facing buildings as the gardens were generally narrow.
· The proposed scheme was not as set back as the property opposite (2A Chaucer Road), and therefore did not quite match the building line.
· Officers suggested a lightened green cladding as it would blend better with the trees. When colour and tone were visualised on a computer screen, it would depend on the resolution and quality of the screen. If the proposal was to be approved, the officers would check on site and expect a contemporary brick with sharp edges and ensure that the depth and tone was harmonious with the site. However a condition could be attached relating to officer approval of materials.
· Regard needed to be had to what was already existing in the conservation area. Although the height of the boundary with 7 Dulwich Road of 2.2m was higher that the Local Plan Q15 policy, it was deemed acceptable.
· The windows of the proposed scheme were angled to not look directly over 11 Dulwich Road, as well as to protect the privacy of the future occupants of the development. The large window to the front elevation would provide extra light.
· The boundary treatment adjoining 1 Chaucer Road could continue to the pavement, which could be achieved through a further amendment to condition 14. However, the neighbour concerned could also erect a boundary treatment themselves.
· Officers had proposed the addition of condition 19, as they wanted to protect the future occupier’s privacy and living space.
· The proposed scheme would receive generous sunlight and daylight levels as it would be south facing and would have large windows in the kitchen/dining area, angled windows in both bedrooms and a roof light.
The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:
· The scheme would be replacing a garage building, which had received complaints from residents in the conservation area designation report. Therefore, the scheme would be a neutral.
· Members agreed that the proposal preserved the character and appearance of the conservation area and the design had a lot of merit.
· Condition 19 on window glazing should be removed to allow future residents to choose for themselves.
· It was positive that Herne Hill Planning Group welcomed the proposal.
It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Kind, and
1. To GRANT conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the planning obligations listed in the report, and subject to the following:
i. An additional condition to require the submission of details of materials, fenestration and cladding for approval by officers and an informative relating to the discharge of that condition to advise that the proposed materials should be harmonious and relate to the conservation area.
ii. An amendment to condition 14 to provide details of the boundary treatment adjacent to No 1 Chaucer Road showing it carried to the front of pavement.
iii. To remove condition 19.
2. To delegate authority to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to:
a. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and
b. Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
3. In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within six months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Director of Planning, Transport and Sustainability to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.