Agenda item

Members considered items 6.2 and 6.3 together as they related to the same site address.

Note: At this juncture Councillor Robin Crookshank Hilton sat in the public gallery and did not take part in the debate or decision.

Planning application reference number 10-AP-3756

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of late 20th century additions to allow the construction of a new extension to the side and rear at ground and lower ground floor levels to provide additional living accommodation; internal alterations.

The planning officer introduced the reports and circulated site plans.

The planning officer drew Members’ attention to the addendum report which contained late comments with regard to both applications. 

It was noted that a site visit was attended by members of the community council.

Members asked questions of the planning officer.

A spokesperson for the objectors addressed the meeting on applications 6.2 and 6.3.

The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the applications.

There were no supporters present at the meeting.  All parties responded to questions from members.

At this point Councillor Robin Crookshank Hilton left the room.

Members discussed the application.

RESOLVED:

That planning application 10-AP-3756 be refused on the following grounds:

1.  The proposed extension by reason of its footprint, scale and bulk would result in an incongruous addition, overwhelming the existing built proportions and removing significant gaps within the building.  The proposal is considered out of character with the existing Grade II listed building and with the Dulwich Village Conservation Area.

2.  The proposal is also considered contrary to Saved Southwark Plan policies: 3.2 Protection of amenity, 3.12 Quality in design, 3.13 Urban design, 3.15 Conservation and the historic environment, 3.17 Listed buildings, Strategic Policy 12 Design and conservation of the Core Strategy 2011, PPS 5 Planning and the historic environment and the Dulwich Village Conservation Area Appraisal.

3.  The proposed extension by reason of the extensive use of glazing to the rear would result in an intrusive feature impacting on the residential amenity by reason of visual impact and privacy to the adjoining properties.  The proposal is contrary to Saved Policy 3.2 Protection of amenity of the Southwark Plan and Strategic Policy 13 High environmental standards of the Core Strategy 2011.