Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
39 20/03843/FUL - Carlyle House, Carlyle Road PDF 206 KB
Minutes:
The Committee
received an application for full planning permission.
The application
sought approval for a single storey roof extension to create a third floor.
First, second and third floor rear extension. Refuse and secure cycle stores to
the rear boundary.
The Committee received a representation in objection to the application
from a Carlyle Road resident:
i.
Firstly: Contradicting the
excellent work done and the impressive vision shown in both the Local Area Plan
and Mitcham’s Corner Framework:
a.
The proposed building does not meet the requirements for any
new development to "create altered or new roof profiles that are
sympathetic to existing buildings and the surrounding area" which "do
not unacceptably overlook, overshadow, or visibly dominate neighbouring
properties." According to the Mitcham’s Corner Framework, "building
heights along the north western edge of the site “should reflect those of the
adjacent 1-17 Carlyle Road”.
b.
Neither does it offer "coherent structures that
reinforce the unique quality of the area... through well-designed architecture,
developed in a sensitive and sustainable manner and built to the highest
quality".
c.
It was of an inappropriate mass and scale and the development
exacerbated the impact of an already ugly office building. It certainly does
not protect and enhance the character of a Conservation Area right next to the
city centre.
ii.
Secondly: The negative effect on
immediate neighbours:
a.
The terrace opposite would lose light and be significantly
overshadowed, since the houses were 2.5 storeys high and this development will
be 4 storeys.
b.
Loss of privacy because of the ‘bird’s eye view’ created by
the additional 4th ‘penthouse’ floor. The office building was often open
outside normal office hours and workers would have a clear view into
neighbour’s bedrooms.
c.
The new rear extension overlooks/overshadows the Protected
Open Space at Grasmere Gardens' lawns.
d.
Its scale will adversely affect the subsequent redevelopment
at Henry Giles House, where the aim is to be in sympathy with surrounding
rooflines.
iii.
Thirdly: Negative environmental and
community impact:
a.
The pandemic made it clear that fewer offices would be needed
in future, so this extra office space in a residential area was superfluous and
ill-located.
b.
The development would reduce on-site parking and lead to
additional traffic, access and parking issues.
c.
It would detract from a largely residential community
recently revitalised by a new play park and traffic pinch point, making the
area safer and more family friendly.
d.
If the longer-term plan is to convert to residential use
under permitted development rights, the issues over mass and scaling, loss of
light and privacy, poor design, and adverse effects on the community would be
more urgent.
iv.
Believed the planned proposal would constitute a kind
of ‘test case’ for whether the bold vision and high standards of the Local Area
Plan and Mitcham’s Corner Framework are adhered to in practice, and such a
large and ugly development, if approved, would potentially set a precedent for
a poor standard of design and build.
Mr Hopwood (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the
application.
Councillor Porrer proposed amendments to the Officer’s recommendation:
i.
Condition 15: Require
passive provision for electric vehicle charging points so the number or points
could potentially be increased in the future.
ii.
Require details of the mast
location during construction.
The amendments were carried
unanimously.
Councillor Thornburrow proposed an amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation to restrict Class E use to offices and café (not nursery etc).
This amendment was carried
unanimously.
The Committee:
Unanimously resolved to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the Officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the planning conditions set out in
the Officer’s report;
ii.
delegated authority to officers, in consultation
with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes, to draft and include the following
additional conditions:
a. Condition
15: Require passive provision for electric vehicle charging points so they
could potentially be increased in future;
b. Require
details of the mast location during construction;
c. restrict
Class E use to offices and café (not nursery etc).