Agenda item

Rainham North

Part retrospective application for the construction of two storey side extension together with part two storey part single storey rear extension and installation of dormers to front and rear to facilitate the change of use of existing care home (use class C2) to provide 8 flats with private amenity space, vehicle parking and landscaping.

Discussion:   

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and informed the Committee of the changes to the development at this site which had been undertaken without the benefit of planning permission.

He informed the Committee that during the construction phase of the approved development MC/17/3735 it had come to light that the development was not being constructed in accordance with approved plans and the applicants had submitted a minor material amendment application to remedy this breach which had subsequently been refused. It was considered that the development as constructed was substantially different to the scheme approved under planning reference MC/17/3735 with particular reference to the increase in the size and number of dormer's, installation of additional windows to the side elevations and roof slopes, construction of a flat roof to the two storey projection to the rear; and an increase in the number of bedrooms, proposed occupants and changes to the gross internal floor area. Therefore, this did not constitute a minor material amendment and an application for full planning permission had been required.

A further minor material amendment application had been submitted MC/19/3135 but had subsequently been withdrawn as the applicant had been advised that an application for full planning permission was required.

The current application had since been submitted to address concerns raised and included several alterations to the originally approved application to that which had been constructed on site, full details of which were set out in the report and displayed on plans at the meeting.

The Head of Planning expressed disappointment that the applicant had not discussed with officers the proposed changes prior to commencement of the works. However, he was satisfied that the applicant had mitigated concerns as far as possible and therefore the application had been recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Committee discussed the application and expressed concern that the development constituted an overdevelopment of the site and resulted in unnecessary overlooking of neighbouring properties. In addition, a number of the proposed flats failed to meet the Council’s required living standards and Flats 7 and 8 had roof lights which were to be obscure glazed and fixed shut.

Furthermore, the Committee noted that the proposed development had now increased from 27 to 32 occupants and whilst the original approved scheme had marginally failed to meet the Council's Parking Standards, parking provision was now insufficient.

Concern was expressed that having obtained planning permission for the original development, the developers had proceeded to build a development which was vastly different to the scheme originally approved and had failed to consult the Council for advice prior to undertaking these works.

Had the revised scheme provided an improvement on the originally approved development this may have been considered acceptable but on this occasion this was not the case and therefore it was considered that the application could not be approved.

Decision:

Refused on the following grounds:

1.    The proposed development, by virtue of the additional rear dormer and increase in size and bulk of the dormers to front and rear as approved under MC/17/3735, results in a contrived, bulky and unduly prominent form of development that dominates the roof slopes of the property and creates an incoherent roof design that is out of keeping with the original property and other existing developments. The cumulative impact of the dormers to front and rear along with the other elements of the development are considered detrimental to the architectural character of the property and constitute overdevelopment of the plot. The proposal is contrary to Policy BNE1 of the Local Plan and paragraphs 124 and 127 of the NPPF.

2.    The installation of an additional dormer to the rear and two additional roof lights to the north facing roof slope that facilitates the third bedroom of Flat 8 enables direct overlooking into the rear private amenity space of 27 Berengrave Lane, which in turn results a loss of privacy, detrimental to the amenity of the occupiers of 27 Berengrave Lane contrary to Policy BNE2 of the Local Plan and paragraph 127f of the NPPF.