Agenda item
110 Walm Lane, London, NW2 4RS (Ref. 13/3503)
Decision:
Refused planning permission for the following reasons:
(1) Height, scale, massing & density of the development in the Mapesbury Conservation Area and in close proximity to Willesden Green Conservation Area and Grade II Listed Willesden Green Station.
(2) Inadequate provision of on-site affordable housing.
(3) Absence of legal agreement to secure Community Access Plan, Sustainability, job & training opportunities for local residents (‘Brent 2 Work’), Considerate Contractors Scheme, Travel Plan and Permit Free.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing Public House and Conservative Club and erection of 2 to 10 storey building containing A4/D1 use unit on ground floor and 53 residential units on the ground and upper floors (13 x one bed, 30 x two bed and 10 x three bed). Formation of revised vehicular access from Walm Lane to basement car park comprising 23 parking spaces and associated amenity space, landscaping works and pedestrian access from Walm Lane, subject to
Deed of Agreement dated under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended (revised description).
RECOMMENDATION:
(a) Grant planning permission, subject to an appropriate form of agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 details section of this report and referral to the Secretary of State, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
With reference to the tabled supplementary, Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager informed members about matters raised at the site visit, most of which had been covered in the main report. In response to a particular comment made by Save the Queensbury group about permitted development rights, the Area Planning Manager confirmed that the wording of the condition as drafted covered the removal of all permitted developments so a change of use to any use other than A4 Use Class would require planning permission. The Area Planning Manager also referred to objections raised by Councillor Pavey on the closure of Busy Rascals and responded that the Section 106 Agreement required the new ground floor space to provide a minimum of 18 hours of community access a week. In addition, there was a requirement for Busy Rascals to be relocated as an interim arrangement during the construction period. She also drew members’ attention to a letter of support for the scheme and the schedule of accommodation to be attached as an appendix to the main Committee Report. In response to comments raised by the Council's Tree Officer, the Area Planning Manager recommended that an amendment to condition 9 to include details of Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works on site.
A number of local objectors including representatives of Save the Queensbury, NW2 Residents’ Association, Willesden Green Town Team and Busy Rascals spoke in objection to the proposed development highlighting density, height, loss of public house which is an asset of community value, unacceptable level of affordable housing and contrary to the Mapesbury Conservation Area principles.
Councillor Navin Shah, Assembly Member (AM), in objecting to the proposed development referred to a recent motion passed by the Greater London Assembly that sought to protect public houses. He reiterated his objection to the proposed development on the grounds of loss of public house, excessive density and unacceptable level of affordable housing. Councillor Navin Shah AM added that the off-site provision for housing was not an acceptable solution for such a key site.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shaw, Ward Member, stated that she had been approached by the local residents regarding the scheme. Councillor Shaw stated that the proposal would constitute an over-development of the site in terms of height and density. In addition, the proposal would not be appropriate in the Mapesbury Conservation Area.
Judy Langley, former Organising Secretary and founder member of the Mapesbury Conservation Sub Committee, spoke in support of the application as an independent person. She commented that the proposed development would encourage and 'kick-start' Willesden Green with a high quality building. In her view any reduction in the number of storeys would compromise the elegance of the building.
Steven Gough, speaking on behalf of the applicant Fairview New Homes Ltd, stated that the scheme had been thoughtfully designed following consultation and would deliver a high quality piece of architecture that would respect the Mapesbury Conservation Area. He added that the scheme was appropriate for the location in terms of its density, design, scale and elevation detailing. Members heard from the applicant that an independently reviewed viability assessment confirmed that the maximum level of provision for affordable housing had been provided within the scheme. He continued that an agreement had been signed that would allow the existing operators of the Queensbury to take on the new lease and provision would be made for Busy Rascals to continue to provide their services within the building. Mr Gough added that as it was a prerequisite that Busy Rascals continue to deliver their services during the construction phase of the scheme and he was confident that an interim site could be found before construction commenced.
Mr James Prior, operator of the Queensbury stated that the proposal would allow The Queensbury to continue to operate.
In the ensuing discussions, members raised concerns about the height, scale, massing and density of the proposed development within a conservation area and the loss of an asset of community value in the area. A view was also expressed that the scheme would constitute an overdevelopment of the site with inadequate level of affordable housing and parking provisions.
In responding to the concerns raised, Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager stated that the scheme would be viewed in the context of the more modern development at 112 Walm Lane and Westly Court and would make a positive contribution to the streetscape. She added that the independently reviewed viability assessment had been submitted to demonstrate that the level of affordable housing was appropriate and the S106 secures a further financial review on an open book basis. The Area Planning Manager continued that as a permit free development with basement parking, the parking provision was considered acceptable.
Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning, outlined the differences between the proposed development and 112 Walm Lane and added that in terms of density, design and height, the proposal was considered acceptable. He continued that a package of measures was proposed which would re-provide community uses. In reference to the motion referred to by Councillor Navin Shah AM, he stated that as a change in policy had not yet been adopted, it would not be afforded significant weight in the determination of this application.
Members then voted by a majority to refuse the application contrary to officers’ recommendation for the following stated reasons as set out in the decision column below;
DECISION: Refused planning permission for the following reasons:
(i) Height, scale, massing & density of the development in the Mapesbury Conservation Area and in close proximity to Willesden Green Conservation Area and Grade II Listed Willesden Green Station;
(ii) Inadequate provision of on-site affordable housing;
(iii) Absence of legal agreement to secure Community Access Plan, Sustainability, job & training opportunities for local residents (‘Brent 2 Work’), Considerate Contractors Scheme, Travel Plan and Permit Free.
Supporting documents: