Agenda item
13-18 Inc and 19-24 Inc Lawns Court, The Avenue, Wembley, HA9 9PN (Ref.14/1168)
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Alterations and replacement of some of the existing windows and erection of a third floor to residential blocks at 13-18 and 19-24 to provide 4 self contained flats (2 x 2 bed at block 13-18 and 2 x 2 bed at block 19-24) (as per revised plans received on 4 July 2014).
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager) drew members’ attention to the supplementary report that provided further details of responses to queries raised at the site visit. She advised that the applicant has confirmed that the roof extensions accommodating the new flats will be of lightweight construction and built in accordance with Building Regulations. With regard to the cracks in the wall to Flat 13, Lawn Court, the applicant had been advised by the managing agent of the block that this would be dealt with as part of the major improvement and refurbishment works being carried out to the flat. Rachel Murrell also highlighted an amendment to condition 3 as set out in the supplementary report.
Rasha Mohammed spoke on behalf of Sharon Mazi, a local resident, in objecting to the application. Rasha Mohammed commented that although a number of concerns had been addressed, there were still some outstanding issues, in particular the loss of the skylight in the hallway of Flat 14, Lawns Court. Members heard that the proposed flat above Flat 14 would obscure what had been significant daylight to Flat 14. Rasha Mohammed added that there were other issues that needed further details, such as access arrangements for removing the sky light and the timetable of works. In reply to queries from members, Rasha Mohammed stated that there had been no discussions between the applicant and the resident concerning compensation for loss of the skylight to Flat 14. There was also no suitable alternative location for any kind of window and Rasha Mohammed confirmed that one other flat in the block also had a skylight.
Mr Nazidi, in objecting to the application, sought confirmation as to the total number of parking spaces proposed and whether a condition could be attached with regard to constructing a wall between the proposed car park and Mayfields Close and that there be no exit doors to the car park. He also felt that lighting in the car park needed to be addressed.
During members’ discussion, it was queried that if the loss of the skylight had been to a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen or living room, would this have had a more significant impact on the application. Clarification was also sought as to whether there was any possibility that the applicant could replace the skylight with another suitable window. Another member felt that condition 6 (e) adequately covered issues in relation to the car park boundary and in noting that some windows were to be changed to enhance the site as it was in a conservation area, he queried that if other properties also expressed a desire to have their windows changed, would the applicant be compelled to undertake this.
In reply to the issues raised by residents and members, Rachel Murrell advised that although the loss of skylight was a planning consideration, the hallway was not a habitable room so it was considered that the proposal could not be objected to in planning terms. Members noted that the application would have been viewed more rigorously if the loss of skylight had involved a habitable room. Rachel Murrell confirmed that 19 car parking spaces were proposed and condition 6 (c) addressed lighting issues and there would be soft landscaping around the car park. She advised that the existing access to the proposed car parking area would remain, along with an additional access point from the frontage. Members heard that it was possible that the applicant might be amenable to constructing a wall around the car park, although this would be subject to discussions with local residents. Rachel Murrell informed the committee that the applicant could replace windows that were in their control, however if other properties also wished to change their windows, they had been provided with the template as to what the window should look like in order to comply with the conservation area.
Stephen Weeks (Head of Planning) advised that because there was a wide disparity in the appearance of the windows on the site, it was felt that in this instance it was not considered appropriate that all windows comply strictly with the conservation area. He added that although the applicant could offer to change windows of other properties in addition to the ones in the proposals, they would not be compelled to in planning terms.
DECISION:
Agreed as recommended and an amendment to condition 3 as set out in the supplementary report.
Note: Councillor S Choudhary left the meeting room during consideration of the application and took no part in voting or in the discussion.
Supporting documents: