Agenda item
1-42 INC, Thanet Lodge, Mapesbury Road, London, NW2 4JA (Ref. 13/3902)
Decision:
The Council would have granted planning permission, had it been in a position to do so, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a 2 storey 1 x 4 bedroom dwelling house to the north of Thanet
Lodge.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Council would have granted planning permission, had it been in a position to do so, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement.
Members deferred this application at the meeting on 9 April 2014 to allow for further negotiations to take place between the applicant and the residents of the existing Thanet Lodge. Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) informed members that a number of changes in respect of the matters for which the application was deferred had been made to the proposal. These had been consulted with residents who had expressed their support to the amended scheme. He continued that the applicants had however submitted an appeal against non-determination of the application which meant that the Planning Inspectorate would consider the application and make a final decision on the proposal taking into account all material considerations. Andy Bates added that the Planning Authority would have granted planning permission, had it been in a position to do so, subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement.
Mr Alan Ward, the applicant’s architect confirmed that following a series of meetings and the outcome of the Council’s consultations, the applicant felt that all differences had been resolved. He added that the appeal was lodged by the deadline date otherwise the applicant would have lost the right to appeal. He understood that the Planning Authority would shortly validate a second identical application that he had submitted and if approved, the applicant would then withdraw the appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
Members then raised a number of questions with the architect including the proximity of the building in relation to amenity space, the level of the windows, the right to light and a confirmation that the applicant would withdraw the appeal if the Planning Authority approved the revised scheme. The architect was also asked to clarify issues relating to the refuse and bicycle store and the implications of construction traffic on the wall on Mapesbury Road.
Alan Ward explained that the applicant had agreed with the tenants that the remainder of the garden would be retained as an amenity space which he added would be in excess of the amenity space requirements for the development. He continued that the windows were now slightly smaller than those in the previous scheme and had been moved to maintain adequate lighting. Alan Ward clarified that the refuse and cycle stores would be relocated and that a new wall would be constructed to replace the current wall which he felt was not quite stable. He also confirmed that if the recently submitted scheme was approved by the Planning Authority, the applicant would withdraw the appeal.
Andy Bates explained that matters relating to the garden could be dealt with under landscaping conditions and these could include the details of the replacement front boundary wall. However the re-construction of the wall along the side boundary in the event that was ever needed was covered under the Party Wall Act rather than Town and Country Planning Act. He therefore suggested an informative rather than a condition to address this matter. In response to a suggestion for the recently submitted application to be dealt with by officers under delegated authority without the need to come back to Committee Stephen Weeks stated that this would be explored after the consultation taking into account whether or not any comments had been received.
DECISION: Planning permission would have been granted as recommended.
Supporting documents: