Agenda item
205-211 ODDS Inc, 235 and Land in Church Road Car Park rear of 205-235 Church Road, London, NW10 (Ref. 13/2213)
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to revisions to condition 25, completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Full planning permission for demolition of buildings within 205 and 235 Church Road, redevelopment of section of Church Road car park site to the rear of 207-233 (odds inc.) Church Road to erect a part 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 storey building containing 65 residential units, 298m2 (GEA) retail floorspace together with 7 car parking spaces and associated works as revised by plans and details. (“car free” development)
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
With reference to the supplementary report, Andy Bates addressed the issues that were raised by members at the site visit. Members heard that refuse storage for the residential element of the development would be provided in three locations; the High Road serving blocks A and B and two located on Eric Road. In order to minimise the distance that residents would have to travel to the waste and recycling facility and in the interest of highway safety, Andy Bates recommended an amendment to condition 25 as set out in the supplementary report. He clarified that the loss of existing trees as a result of the 2m set back from the pavement was necessary as their retention would significantly hinder the scope to develop the site to achieve the aims of the Site Specific Allocation and wider Growth Area requirements. He continued that a financial contribution of £15,000 would be sought under the Section 106 legal agreement for the planting of trees on the High Road adjacent to the development. Andy Bates advised that the operation of the proposed market square including servicing, storage of stalls, rubbish collection and details of shared surface arrangements in Eric Road would be contingent upon a suitable Delivery and Servicing Plan which would be secured via a Section 106 agreement to be agreed prior to occupation and operation of the market. He added that concerns raised about unsafe structure next to Eric Road had been referred to the Building Control Team for their investigation.
Jacey Chalmers in objecting to the proposed development raised concerns about the potential loss of car parking facilities, servicing and loading facilities for the traders and the removal of trees to facilitate the development.
Mark Connell, the applicant’s agent informed members that the provision of a market square within the scheme had been agreed in principal with the previous planning decisions and with the Council’s Regeneration Team in terms of bringing forward the development of the adjoining site. He continued that the height, scale and massing of development which would also provide 24 affordable homes had been reduced whilst maintaining satisfactory internal and amenity space requirements which complied with BREEAM standards.
In response to members’ questions, Mark Connell stated that adequate mitigation of £15,000 for replanting had been agreed for the loss of trees along the Church Road frontage. He continued that as the site had been identified for growth in accordance with the Site Specific Allocation, it was considered acceptable for the density level to be marginally exceeded. Members heard that although the scheme would be a car free development with no planning requirement for visitors parking bays, nine car parking spaces would be made available when the market was not in operation. In addition, the site had a good PTAL rating being in close proximity to the tube network and a car club facility. The agent clarified the width of the market area and servicing arrangements but could not confirm whether the applicant would take steps to set the building back and closer to the local magistrate court building.
DECISION: Agreed as recommended subject to an amended condition 25 as set out in the supplementary report.
Supporting documents: