Agenda item
Former Kensal Rise Branch Library, Bathurst Gardens, London, NW10 5JA (Ref. 14/0846)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Tuesday 17 June 2014 7.00 pm (Item 8.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 8.
Decision:
Deferred the application for further legal advice on whether the alleged falsification of consultation responses on a previous application relating to the site (ref. 13/2058) would be a material planning consideration in the assessment of this case.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of the existing vacant building to provide 5 residential units (2 x studios, 1 x 1 bed duplex flat and 2 x 2 bed duplex flats) on part ground and upper floors and 186m2 community space (Use Class D1) on the ground floor, single storey ground floor extension to west elevation, provision of roof extension and communal residential roof terrace fronting onto Bathurst Gardens and creation of basement for bin/cycle store, provision of new entrance door on Bathurst Gardens serving D1 space, with associated cycle parking and landscaping to Bathurst Gardens and College Road and erection of temporary site hoarding to protect site for period of vacancy.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager outlined the differences between the application and the previous application that was refused by the Committee in October 2013 (reference 13/2058). Members heard that although the 5.5sqm proposed storage area for the site was potentially in excess of what was required for a community use of this size the Area Planning Manager drew members’ attention to a proposed condition as set out in the supplementary report requiring the submission and approval of revised waste storage for community use. He continued that the layout submitted by the applicant would also need to be amended to accommodate the refuse and recycling area.
He continued that the proposed entrance had a sufficient width as set out in the main report which complied with Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) legislation. Although there was scope for a wider door and one with automatic opening, it was not required in this instance as that could result in an additional unnecessary service charge for its maintenance. He explained that although the proposed development could accommodate an internal lobby for the community space, that would result in a loss of community floor space. The Area Planning Manager then referred to the responses to issues raised at the site visit and by Councillor Filson, as set out in the reports.
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Filson declared prejudicial interest in that he had previously expressed views which prejudged the application. Councillor Filson stated that he wished to remain in the meeting room after addressing the Committee. The legal representative advised Councillor Filson against his intention not to vacate the meeting room after addressing the Committee as his presence could affect the voting and outcome of the application. In his address, Councillor Filson stated that the current application had addressed the concerns he had previously raised in respect of waste and refuse storage, interior detailing, bicycle storage, planning gain and community use. He withdrew from the meeting room after addressing the Committee.
Mr Karl Abeyasekera an objector stated that there was an on-going police investigation about falsification and disclosure of emails in support of the previous planning application by the developer (13/2058) and urged members to defer consideration of this application until after the conclusion of the investigations.
Mr David Butcher representing Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) speaking in support of the application stated that on balance the provision of D1 space at peppercorn rent for use as a library was the best outcome in the circumstances. Members heard that a letter of intent for D1 space for library use had been signed by all parties that FKRL would be the preferred group for the D1 library use which would be a thriving community asset, accessible to all residents. In response to Members’ questions he confirmed that, at this stage, the FKRL would prefer to maintain the refuse storage in the basement rather than reduce internal floorspace. Ms Stephanie Schonfield who had been listed as an objector but indicated prior to the meeting that she would be speaking in support of the application spoke in similar terms in support of the application.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice Councillor Nerva declared that he had been approached by FKRL in connection with the application. Councillor Nerva paid tribute to the tenacity of FKRL in their efforts to secure a library which would offer opening hours considerably in excess of the previous library. He however highlighted the lack of affordable housing and bicycle storage.
MandipSahota, the applicant’s agent stated that the current scheme which incorporated views expressed by residents including FKRL had overcome previous concerns in design terms and offered a larger facility with significant improvement for a variety of community uses. Mr Sahota continued that he was not aware of falsified letters of support in connection with the current application which had the support of FKRL, local residents and councillors.
In response to members’ questions about security concerns, the community entrance door and bids from any other community groups, Mr Sahota stated that the 1m wide entrance door complied with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 2010 and would not raise security concerns; he was not aware of any other community group that had submitted a bid for the D1 community use of the scheme. He continued that FKRL were not guaranteed tenants for Kensal Rise Library and that an open bidding process to select a tenant for the community space was planned.
Members then sought legal advice as to whether the investigations referred to by the objector had any bearing on the current application. Horatio Chance, legal representative informed members that the Council’s Audit and Investigation unit had concluded its investigation into the allegations and had passed the matter to the Metropolitan Police. He advised that the investigations were not material in the determination of the current application and added that under Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act, the Committee had a statutory duty to determine the application, failing which the applicant could appeal to the Secretary of State with implications for cost award against the council. He also advised that Planning Committee could not specify the final tenant for the D1 use as it was out of the scope for the Committee. Stephen Weeks, Head of Planning spoke in similar terms. He also summarised the following options to members:
· To decide the application;
· To defer the application to the next Committee cycle;
· To approve the application and delegate subject to counsel’s opinion on the application.
Members voted by a majority to defer for further legal advice on whether the alleged falsification of consultation responses on a previous application relating to the site (ref. 13/2058) would be a material planning consideration in the assessment of this case.
DECISION:
Deferred the application for further legal advice on whether the alleged falsification of consultation responses on a previous application relating to the site (ref. 13/2058) would be a material planning consideration in the assessment of the current planning application.
Supporting documents: