07_46parkviewroad - Ealing Council

Document Sample
07_46parkviewroad - Ealing Council Powered By Docstoc

PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT                                  DATE:          22/02/2006

PLANNING COMMITTEE                                           REF:           P/2005/3125

                                                             WARD:          Hanger Hill

PLANNING OFFICER:               Adam Haines                  TEAMS MANAGER: Blaithin Butler

Address:                     46 Park View Road, Ealing, W5 2JB

Proposal:                    Proposed redevelopment of detached outbuilding.

Application Received:        16/08/05                          Valid: 16/08/05

Type of Application:         Full Application


GRANT permission for development as shown on Drawing Nos. 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 and site plan
received 04/08/2005 and 06A received 19/12/2005, subject to the following conditions: -

1.    0105       Time Limit – Full Permission

                 The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the
                 date of this permission.

                 Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act

2.               Materials

                 All external materials to be used in the development shall match the appearance of
                 those of the existing dwellinghouse on the site.

                 Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings in accordance
                 with policies 4.1, 5.5 and 5.9 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for
                 the Environment' (2004).

3.               Use

                 The development permitted shall only be used for domestic purposes incidental and
                 ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling and not for any separate residential use or for
                 any industrial, commercial or business use than otherwise exempt under Section 191 of
                 the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 10 of the Planning &
                 Compensation Act 1991).

                 REASON: To protect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties in
                 accordance with policies 4.1, 5.5 and 5.9 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development
                 Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).


1.              The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies
                and proposals in the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan (2004) and to all relevant
                material considerations including Supplementary Planning Guidance:

                Adopted Unitary Development Plan Policies
                4.1 – Design of Development
                5.5 – Residential Design
                5.9 – Extensions and Alterations to Private Houses and Gardens

                In reaching the decision to grant permission, specific consideration was given to the
                impact of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring properties and on
                the character of the area as a whole. Account was also taken of a proposed Article 4
                Direction. The proposal is considered acceptable on these grounds, and it is not
                considered that there are any other material considerations in this case that would warrant
                a refusal of this application.

2.              Construction and demolition works, audible beyond the boundary of the site shall only be
                carried on between the hours of 0800 – 1800hrs Mondays to Fridays and 0800 – 1300hrs
                on Saturdays and at no other times, including Sundays and Public Holidays.


Neighbour        7 Neighbours consulted on the 31st August 2005.
Notification:    44, 53, 50, 55, 53A 44A Park View Road and 42 Crofton Road
                 Consultation period expired 20th September 2005.

                 Three Responses Received.
                 38 Park View Road: Has objected on the grounds that the proposed outbuilding presents
                 a potential overdevelopment of the site.

                 The proposed structure would have approximately the same building footprint as
                 the existing structure at a similar height (+300mm) to the existing structure.

                 53A Park View Road: Has objected on a number of grounds including: 1. that the
                 proposed outbuilding presents a potential overdevelopment of the site; 2. incongruous
                 and disfiguring in terms of both proportion and style.

                 1. The proposed structure would have approximately the same building footprint
                 as the existing structure at a similar height (+400mm) to the existing structure. 2.
                 Issues relating to neighbourhood character and architectural integration are
                 assessed in the report below.

                 51 Park View Road: Has objected a number of grounds including: 1. that the proposed
                 use of the structure is for alleged non-residential activity would be contrary to policy; 2.
                 traffic safety; 3. appearance; 4. alterations to the original dwellinghouse.

                 1. On inspection of the main dwellinghouse and outbuilding, there appears little
                 evidence of a non-ancillary commercial activity operating from the application
                 site. The existing outbuilding contains two very small offices, similar to a typical
                 residential study, which operates as a site office for the works to main dwelling.
                 Notwithstanding, in the event of an approval, a condition of permission should
                 ensure that the use of the outbuilding remain incidental and ancillary to enjoyment
                 of the dwellinghouse. 2. The use of this building for purposes incidental and
                 ancillary to the residential use of the site would not have any notable effect on
                 traffic movements to and from the site. 3. Issues relating to neighbourhood
                 character and architectural integration are assessed in the report below. 4.
                   Alterations to the main dwelling were dealt with previously by the LPA and do not
                   form part of the current application.


Ref         Date              Proposal                                                       Decision
15229/2     10-12-2002        Detached three storey six bedroom house in garden of           WITHDRAWN
                              number 46 ( to replace existing two storey garage and
                              swimming pool) with parking and landscape.

15229/3     10-06-2003        Alteration to front dormer windows, 2 dormer extensions to     GRANTED
                              side roof slopes of house, ground floor extensions to rear     CONDITIONALLY
                              and two storey extension to side of house, removal of
                              chimney stacks and alteration to windows on all elevations

15229/4     10-06-2003        Two storey side extension, roof extension and new stair        GRANTED
                              enclosure                                                      CONDITIONALLY

15229/5     10-11-2003        Alterations at ground and first floors and roof level and      GRANTED
                              formation of roof terraces with decorative balustrades         CONDITIONALLY

15229/6     18-03-2004        Two storey rear extension with mansard roof and widening of    GRANTED
                              dormer window on rear roof slope                               CONDITIONALLY


The application proposes the demolition of an existing detached outbuilding and its replacement with a
larger building for the purposes of domestic storage, vehicular garage, indoor swimming pool and
ancillary office (study). The property is not situated within a designated Conservation Area.

The site is located on the western side of Park View Road and contains a heavily modified detached
Edwardian dwelling, which has been re-constructed in an authentic neo-classical style. The dwelling
features large Corinthian columns and typical Greco-Roman forms throughout. An existing large
detached outbuilding is situated at the front of the property fronting Park View Road and is used for
ancillary storage (domestic) as well as housing a small indoor swimming pool. The surrounding area
comprises a variety of architectural styles, the details of which are summarised in the following report.

Since the original application was submitted, the applicant has revised the submitted plans
(19/12/2005) to simplify the appearance and features of the façade. The details and
dimensions of the final design are summarised in the following report.


Adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004)

4.1- Design of Buildings: The design of buildings should be guided by the following principles:

     Good Layout
     Appropriate Height and Scale
     High Quality Architecture and Character
     Appropriate Materials
     Sustainability
   Access for all
   Community Safety
   Legibility
   Appropriate Hard and Soft Landscaping
   Adaptability

However the Council will only approve development that respects adequate standards of safety, natural light,
health, privacy and freedom from disturbance or visual intrusion in relation to neighbouring land uses.

5.5 - Residential Design: Residential development should provide good living conditions for residents and
good architectural quality; it should relate well to its setting, and incorporate sustainability principles.

5.9 - Extensions and Alterations to Private Houses and Gardens: The Council will consider proposals to
extend or alter houses and gardens, including new vehicle access to the property, taking into account -
1. The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
2. The architectural quality of the proposal and its relationship with the design of the existing property.
3. The streetscape, and the character of the area.
4. Highway safety issues.


The application site is an L shaped with the main residence situated in the north-western corner of the
property. The existing detached outbuilding is situated in the south-eastern corner; the proposed
outbuilding would be located on the same footprint. The replacement outbuilding would differ
significantly from the existing outbuilding, incorporating neo-classical style architecture in keeping with
the main dwelling. The proposed outbuilding would be set back 9.0m from Park View Road, 0.2m from
the southern boundary with No. 42 and 9.5m from the northern boundary with No. 48 in keeping with
the existing footprint. Similarly the maximum height of the outbuilding would only be slightly greater than
the existing, with an increase of 400mm from 5.8m to 6.2m above ground level.

The main issues to consider are whether the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the
amenities of the adjoining occupiers and whether the resultant development would adversely impact on
the established residential character of the area. In terms architectural style and integration, it is
acknowledged that the neo-classical design would be unique when assessing the overall character of
Park View Road frontage. Having said that, the character of development along Park View Road lacks
any significant or notable architectural continuity, comprising a very mixed array of dwelling styles
including Neo-Georgian (No. 48) and 1950’s high-density residential development (No. 50) to the north.
To the immediate south is a relatively contemporary residential flat complex (No. 44) and opposite the
site is a mix of inter-war style Edwardian dwellings and high-density residential development.

This pattern of development continues along the majority of the street, hence the non-designation of
this northern part of Park View Road within the Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area.
Notwithstanding this, informal advice was sought from the Council’s Conservation Officer about the
overall design of the structure. Initial comments identified that, whilst the structure was quite large, it
would replace an existing structure of similar proportions; thus in principle, it was considered an
acceptable form of development (in the context of bulk).

The appearance of the structure as originally submitted was, however, considered too ornate, and a
revised design was sought to simplify the appearance and ambiance of the façade. The original design
included large dominant solid wood doors, an oval shape window with decorative feature over,
Corinthian columns and a rather dominant balustrade over. The revised design has sought to lessen
the ornate appearance and incorporate more symmetrical shapes within the façade; those alterations
included slightly smaller doors with glass in-set and Edwardian style mullions; rectangular feature
window with same mullion design and removal of decorative features over; half-set Corinthian columns;
and removal of balustrade over. The amended plans were referred to the Council’s Conservation
Officer and were agreed in principle. It is considered that the resultant design would be less

ostentatious than that originally proposed, whilst maintaining a design in keeping with the main

In considering the effect on streetscape and neighbourhood character - the context of the site
(detached) means that the dwellinghouse and each of the ancillary structures can be considered as
having their own individual character, not influenced by any adjoining structure. That attribute, coupled
with the lack of architectural continuity within the streetscape, presents a strong case to indicate that a
refusal would be difficult to substantiate. In addition, the footprint is heavily concealed by a combination
of screening devices, including well-established evergreen trees along each of the respective
boundaries as well as a large 2.5 metre brick front boundary wall. The combination of these factors
would result in the development being only partially visible from the street, and the outbuilding would
therefore be unobtrusive in terms of its impact on streetscape, taking account of the scale of the
existing outbuilding, which is in the same position.

In terms of neighbouring residential amenity, the proposed structure would be setback 0.2 from No. 44
and 30m+ from No. 48. It is not considered there would be any significant impact on No. 48 given the
relationship of the two structures coupled with the established natural screening along the northern
boundary. The net impact to No. 44 would also be negligible, as the outbuilding would be wholly
concealed behind the northern flank wall of this block of flats, with the exception of 1.9m projecting
beyond the rear main wall of the flats. Policy 5.9 of the adopted UDP generally acknowledges that a
projection less than 3.0m is unlikely to have any notable impact to in terms of loss of light and/or


The proposed outbuilding is considered to comply with policies 4.1, 5.5 & 5.9 in relation to
neighbourhood character, streetscape and private amenity and it is hereby recommended that
application be granted planning permission.


In making your decision, you should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise
from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such as the
London Borough of Ealing to act in a manner that is incompatible with the European Convention on
Human Rights.

You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First
Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the action that is recommended in this report
interferes with applicant’s right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence,
except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of
neighbours). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest. You are further advised that if the Council resolves to approve the recommendations
contained in this report, enforcement action is a proportionate response to the harm caused by this
unauthorised development.


Shared By: