Croydon officers are recommending that the Planning
Committee on 10 July accept the conversion of the outbuilding at 7 Beatrice Ave
in to a games room and gym for the use of the ground floor flat.
There are several aspects of the application and
the recommendation which seem to me to be a real concern.
Firstly, there appears to have been a history of
the Council not wanting the outbuilding to be retained at all. Yet the officers
provide no detail and no proper explanation as to why they are now happy to
retain it in a reduced size.
Secondly, the paper states: ‘there is no planning
history for this conversion but it is thought to have commenced more than 4
years ago.
Does this not make it an illegal conversion
against which the Council could take action|?
Even if it is out of time to do so granting
permission on the outbuilding is tantamount to letting the developer get away
with it.
Given the intention of the Council to get tougher
with landlords, granting permission will give a contrary signal to other
landlords and developers converting houses into flats.
It would also weaken the Council’s future ability
to defend areas of special character.
Thirdly, the recommendation is against the
views of the residents association.
There is an objection reference to ‘The support
has been entirely from the Labour Party and none from the local residents.’
Granting permission would undermine the
development of improved partnership between Norbury Councillors and the
particular residents association and will spill over into that with the other
three associations, given they are now working closely on the Love Norbury
campaign.
Fourthly , it seems strange that a private
landlord would be turning a single storey outbuilding fur use as a games
room and gym by the occupants of a ground floor flat. Ciould it be a holding
exercise by the applicant in the hope that in the future he can try and get
permission to knock it down and build a small house. Granting planning
permission gives Council approval to the existence of the site of
outbuilding site as a building plot.
It is to be hoped that the Planning Committee will
reject the officers’ recommendation and instruct them to bring a paper to a
future meeting on the situation with regard to the conversion of the house.
Previous
Outbuilding Rejection Reasons
This despite their refusal last August of an application
to retain the outbuilding, and the fact that it appears that the property was
converted into flats without planning permission.
In rejecting the retention of the outbuilding the
officers argued that:
‘1. The proposal would result in an
overdevelopment of the site out of keeping with the character of the area and
thereby would not comply with Croydon Local Plan Strategic Policy SP4.1, London
Plan 2011 Policies 7.4 and 7.6, Policies UD2 and UD3 of the Croydon Replacement
Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan 2006) Saved Policies 2013 and
Supplementary Planning Document No. 2 on Residential Extensions and
Alterations.
2. The development would be detrimental to the
residential amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property by reason of
visual intrusion and loss of outlook and would thereby conflict with Croydon
Local Plan Strategic Policy SP4.1, London Plan 2011 Policy 7.6, Policy UD8 of
the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan 2006) Saved
Policies 2013 and Supplementary Planning Document No. 2 on Residential
Extensions and Alterations.’
Norbury Labour Councillor Maggie Mansell tells me that that the line in the committee report referring to Labour support foe the application is wrong and that Labour councillors are supporting Pollards Hill Residents Association on this matter.
ReplyDelete