Four self-contained flats at 5 Llanvanor Road, London NW2

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission to convert two self-contained flats into four, with cycle parking, refuse storage and vehicle parking.

“Received: 5th September 2024 Accepted: 5th September 2024 Ward: Childs Hill Expiry: 31st October 2024”

“Proposal: Conversion of 2no self-contained flats to 4no self-contained flats. Associated cycle parking, refuse/recycling store and vehicle parking (Retrospective Application) (Amended Plans)”

Officer report

The site

The site contains a semi-detached dwelling converted into four flats, is not listed or in a conservation area, and has a PTAL rating of 4.

“The application site is located at 5 Llanvanor Road, London, NW2 2AR. The site contains a semi-detached dwelling, which has been converted into 4 self-contained flats which is…”

“The property is not listed and is not located within a designated conservation area. The property has a PTAL rating of 4.”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Earlier permissions covered extensions, driveway alterations, flat reconfiguration and conversion from two flats to three flats.

“Reference: 21/4136/FUL Address: Llanvanor Road, London, NW2 2AR Decision: Approved subject to conditions Decision Date: September 2021 Description: Two storey side and rear extension following demolition of the existing garage. Roof extension involving rear dormer and 3no front facing rooflights. Alterations to front driveway. Reconfiguration and increase in size of existing flats.”

“Reference: 21/5300/FUL Address: Llanvanor Road, London, NW2 2AR Decision: Approved subject to conditions Decision Date: January 2022 Description: Conversion of 2no self-contained flats to 3no self-contained flats. Associated cycle parking, refuse/recycling store, parking. Two-storey side extension and roof extension involving rear dormer window. Full width ground floor extension and first floor rear extension [amended plans and description]”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the development would have an acceptable effect on character, the street scene and neighbouring occupiers.

“Having taken all material considerations into account, it is considered that subject to compliance with the attached conditions, the development has an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the application site, the street scene and the locality. The development is not considered to have an adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. This application is therefore recommended for APPROVAL”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Environmental Health, Highways and Waste and Recycling raised no objections, while 18 neighbours objected and four supported the application.

“+ Non-compliance with previous Planning Permission + Community Impact, Negative Impact on Neighbours + Parking impact + Environmental and Safety Impact + Drainage issues + Obstructive and Unsightly Bins + Visual, character Impact + Opposition to Further Permissions, should comply with previous permission + Concerns About Structural Integrity + Doubt Over Building Standards + Unfinished and Untidy Property + Poor Building Condition, Ongoing Property Neglect + Overdevelopment…”

“Environmental Health: no objection Highways: no objection, parking survey is acceptable. Waste and Recycling: no objection…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker addressed the committee against the application, and the agent addressed it in support.

Committee discussion

The committee questioned the speakers and officers before considering the officer recommendation.

“The Committee then had the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers.”

“Following discussion, the Committee moved to a vote on Officer’s recommendations.”

Minutes

The votes

The committee voted five against approval, one for approval and no abstentions, then voted five for refusal, none against and one abstention.

“For – (approval) 1 Against – (approval) 5 Abstention – (approval) 0”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because the proposed ground-floor flats would have inadequate daylight and provide substandard accommodation for future occupiers.

“The proposed self-contained ground floor flats by reason of their layout, size and configuration of living spaces would fail to provide adequate light provision which would…”

Minutes