| Topic: | Correction to posting of 9th April | |
| Posted by: | Victor Mishiku | |
| Date/Time: | 14/04/13 15:11:00 |
| May I please make a correction to one of the paragraphs in my earlier posting of 9th April. ".....Mrs Judy Jaafar and other neighbours distinctly heard an additional reason relating to the "overbearing nature and impact on the neighbouring property" cited by Members of the Planning Committee on the night of 13th March 2013, but by the 19th March 2013, these had been omitted and the word "overbearing" (obviously relating to the impact on No.41 Castlebar Road) had been transformed into "over-intensive" (a word that was never used by a single Member of the Committee)...." You would think that the word "overbearing" means as would appear from adjoining property rather than a general detriment to the wider neighbourhood. In the recent case in Acton at 219 Horn Lane where it was proposed to replace a single-storey former Petrol Station shop and nearby canopies with a five-storey building with balconies (the four upper floors to be flats), the proposals would have been two storeys higher than the adjacent flats at Fell's Haugh and Springfield Court and would have severely overlooked their communal gardens. The five-storey development would also have backed onto a busy commercial site with noisy plant hire vehicles operating at 6.30am. The Decision Notice dated 3rd April 2013 gave three solid reasons for the Refusal. The second Reason for Refusal states:- 2. The proposal, due to its bulk, height and relative position to the adjoining properties, would represent an unacceptable and overbearing form of development, harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring properties by reason of visual intrusion, loss of outlook from the outdoor balconies and an increased sense of enclosure. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies 4.1 and 5.5 of the Council's Adopted Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004); policies 3.4 and 3.5 of the Draft Ealing Development Plan Document (2012) and Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (July 2011). You will note the word "overbearing" is stated and that is linked to the words "harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring properties by reason of visual intrusion, loss of outlook from the outdoor balconies and an increased sense of enclosure." So, I think that it's clear that the Members of the Planning Committee debating the 43 Castlebar Road case on the night of 13th March 2013 had in mind the overbearing nature and impact on No.41 immediately adjoining (as the Council Committee Clerk's hand-written Minutes accurately record). But, as you have heard, none of this appears in the official Decision Notice typed 6 days later on 19th March 2013. Why the word "overbearing" does not appear anywhere in the Decision Notice has not been explained satisfactorily. The only word used near to this is "over-intensive" but that relates only to the Conservation Area. As mentioned in an earlier posting, no councillor ever uttered the word "over-intensive" to my hearing (despite the fact that one of the gallery loudspeakers was not working!). This looks like someone in the Planning Department has wanted the wording altered - possibly this is because the case officer (who left the Council in the middle of the case) had written a Report (or someone else wrote or changed it?) saying that would be no detriment to No.41. So, were the words altered merely to spare the Planning Department's blushes? (the Planning Department of course had fully supported the developer applicant Dr Onkar Singh Sahota however the Planning Committee voted against it 10 - 0 with 3 abstentions including Cllr. Shital Manro, who had unsuccessfully tried to have Dr Sahota's application deferred rather than seeing it refused that night). One of the Reasons for Refusal has thus been "lost", which makes the appeal by Dr Sahota less easy to defeat. |