Agenda item
37 Lydford Road, London, NW2 5QN (Ref. 14/1201)
Decision:
Refused planning permission.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing office to builders’ yard and erection of a 3 bedroom three storey (including basement) dwellinghouse, relocation and reduction in width of existing crossover, one off-street parking space and associated soft landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission.
All members of the Committee declared that they had received correspondence from the applicant and that they would approach the application with an open mind and therefore had not been influenced.
With reference to the supplementary report, Andy Bates clarified the points raised by members during the site visit. He informed members that it was not considered that the proposal would have a materially harmful impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents, given its compliance with the adopted guidance in SPG17. He clarified the overall height of the building and the distance between the building and the footway, adding that it was not considered that the application could set a precedent for future developments in the Mapesbury Conservation Area. Andy Bates confirmed that although the principle of a contemporary dwelling at the site could be supported, the bulk, height and massing of the proposed development would obstruct views through rear gardens, thus detracting from the character and appearance of the conservation area.
Ms Sheelagh Putnam, Chair of Mapesbury Residents Association and an objector stated that the proposed development in terms of its excessive height would cause loss of views and openness to the neighbouring properties and would be out of keeping with the Victorian and Edwardian character of the conservation area. She added that the proposal would be contrary to the Article 4 Direction that afforded added protection to the conservation area.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shahzad, ward member, stated that he had been approached by both residents and the applicant. Councillor Shahzad urged members to take note of residents’ concerns about the impact of the development on the conservation area.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Carr, ward member, stated that she had been approached by both residents and the applicant. Councillor Carr stated that the proposal, by its height, would cause loss of views, loss of outlook and loss of visual amenities and therefore would not complement, enhance or preserve the character of the Mapesbury Conservation Area. Councillor Carr also added that despite her comments, there were also supporters of the scheme.
Mr Peter Benda, speaking as a supporter, stated that the current site as a builders’ yard was an eyesore within the conservation area. He welcomed its replacement with a contemporary building that complied with the council’s guidance.
Mr Chris Campbell, the applicant stated that the proposal which incorporated a sympathetic and low level design complied with the design guide of the conservation area and would complement and enhance its character. In response to members’ questions, Mr Campbell stated that the proximity of the building to the footpath was due to the constraints of the site, however he would ensure that the envelope of the site and neighbouring residents’ right to light were maintained. He continued that although the first floor was not protruding, he could reduce the bulk of the first floor of the building by a setback of 300mm.
The Area Planning Manager advised members that the overall height of the building would be 6m and that the first floor would protrude. In echoing the advice, the Head of Planning added that the overall design and bulk were pertinent in the recommendation for refusal.
Councillor Kansagra took a view that if the applicant was prepared to reduce the protrusion then the committee should be minded to defer the current application pending submission of revised plans. He therefore moved an amended motion for deferral. Councillor Filson opposed the amended motion adding that the applicant could re-submit a revised application if members endorsed the recommendation for refusal, a view that was seconded by Councillor S Choudhary.
Horatio Chance advised Members that they were under a duty to consider the application before them and on its individual merits. It was not possible for the applicant to seek to vary his application during the committee process despite the positive submissions he put forward by way of the suggested amendments he would make to the application. If that was his intention, and if Members were minded to approve the officer’s recommendation, he should submit a fresh application, working closely with the Council’s Planning Service during that process.
Members then voted on the amended motion in the name of Councillor Kansagra for deferral pending revised plans which was declared lost. Voting on the substantive recommendation for refusal for reasons set out in the main report was declared carried by a majority.
DECISION: Refused as recommended.
Supporting documents: