Agenda item
Land rear of 270-288 Neasden Lane, NW10 (Ref. 13/3199)
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the Committee report and additional condition requiring details of level changes as set out in the supplementary.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of vacant land to form single storey office unit (use class B1a) with one associated car parking space and one delivery space to land off Cairnfield Avenue, NW2 and to the rear of Neasden Lane. |
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the Committee report and additional condition requiring details of level changes as set out in the supplementary.
|
Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager in reference to the tabled supplementary informed the Committee that ground level changes across the site were not shown on the elevation plans. In order to address this and to ensure a satisfactory development, she recommended an additional condition as set out in the tabled supplementary. Rachel McConnell also clarified that in
policy terms, the location of the site was considered appropriate for B1 office accommodation as it was located within a town centre and had good access to public transport.
Mr Zabihi, an objector stated that the site had been used as a service road and for car parking by local businesses owners within the area, staff and residents of 270-288 Neasden Lane and Cairnfield Court in excess of 25 years until the applicant started to take deliberate steps to prevent its use by installing entrance gates and encouraging deliberate fly tipping. He continued that the use of the site as a service road was vital for loading and unloading and urged the Council to compulsorily purchase the land. Mr Zabihi alleged that construction of the proposed development would adversely impact on the use of the service road and business activity in the area.
During questioning of the objector, Members discussed matters raised regarding the ownership of the land. The legal representative advised that ownership of the land was outside the remit of the Committee and that Members should focus on the lawful planning use rather than the ownership of the land. He added that as a general rule, a landowner can take steps to prevent the unauthorised use of his land but that where it was felt that the landowner had carried that out illegally, civil remedies including an injunction could be sought.
Jane Brumwell, an objector circulated copies of her statement that raised the following issues:
(i) The use of the service bay would be available exclusively to the units within the proposed development and would therefore be of no use to local business owners in the shopping parade.
(ii) Construction noise would adversely impact on residential amenities.
(iii) Being the only open space adjacent to their homes and where local children use as a play area, by blocking the walkway adjacent to the service road, the children would be denied the facility.
(iv) The applicant had used intimidatory tactics including illegally erecting a fence and containers, issuing of bogus parking tickets, debris, tyres and strewn glass over the parking area to prevent the use of the site as a service road.
(v) The proposed development would not enhance the local environment.
(vi) Although no one could confirm the ownership of the land, local businesses had been made to contribute towards the clear up of debris left on the land.
Mr Chris Veasey, the applicant’s agent and the transport consultant, confirmed that the land was in the ownership of the applicant who had previously fenced it off to prevent unauthorised use. He added that he had not observed significant pedestrian or business use of the service road. He continued that the existing width of the service road would remain and that the development would result in an improvement of unused land. In response to a Member’s question about the use of the land, Mr Veasey reiterated that the applicant fenced off the site to prevent endemic fly tipping and that the service road would not encroach on the activities of the local businesses.
In response to some of the issues raised, Rachel McConnell stated that the lawful use of the land was for car parking for occupiers of 312 to 314 Neasden Lane secured by Condition 3 of planning permission reference 90/2038. The condition had since been removed by a recent application under reference 13/2865 and that there were no other planning restrictions. She advised Members that a Construction Method Statement secured by condition would require the applicant to submit information to minimise the impact on the use of the service road during construction. Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning added that the service road was in private ownership and not a major thoroughfare. He advised that these sorts of service road existed across the Borough and had similar characteristics and that a requirement to provide a separate footpath could not be justified.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended. |
Supporting documents: