Agenda item
37 Lydford Road NW2 5QN (Ref. 14/2952)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 12 November 2014 7.00 pm (Item 4.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 4.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing office to builders' yard and erection of a 3 bedroom, three storey (including basement) dwelling house erection of a boundary treatment and associated hard and soft landscaping |
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed after paragraph 25 of the report as amended in condition 2 and as set out in the supplementary report.
|
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) in response to a query raised by Mapesbury Residents Association (MAPRA) about the correct number of objections recorded in the report stated that since the report was published, an additional objection had been received, bringing the total to 89. He added that the additional objection raised no new issues. He drew members’ attention to the plan numbers as set out in the supplementary report which amended condition 2.
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Colacicco stated that she had been approached by members of MAPRA in connection with the application. Councillor Colacicco stated that the proposed development would detract from the character of Mapesbury Conservation Area, resulting in a detrimental impact on the area. In urging members to refuse the application, Councillor Colacicco requested members to have regard to the existing Conservation Area Design Guide for Mapesbury. She also referred to chapter three of the Local Development Framework which stated that “boundary treatments should be retained where they form an integral part of the character or appearance of a Conservation Area” and BE27 which states that “Consent will not be given for the demolition of a building… in a conservation area unless the building, or part of the building, positively detracts from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.”
Councillor Colacicco then left the meeting room and took no part in the ensuing discussions and voting on the application.
David Gee (Secretary MAPRA), an objector, by reference to the Committee report stated that only minor changes had been made to the proposed development which would have a fundamental impact on the conservation area. He added that the proposal would be inconsistent with, and contrary to, the design guide policy which sought to resist any development that resulted in garden impact. He stressed the importance of the gardens to the character of the conservation area. He also stated that the proposal would not enhance or preserve the character of the area and would set a dangerous precedent for future undesirable developments within the conservation area. In response to a member’s question, David Gee clarified that the site was a garden which was converted to a builders’ yard and therefore the proposal should be viewed as a back garden development.
Eric Cliff of MAPRA circulated a paper which highlighted the Council’s successes in appeals to the Planning Inspectorate relating to sites within the conservation area. He urged members to refuse the application and offered the full support of MAPRA if the applicant chose to lodge an appeal.
Darren Stewart and one other neighbour (Marcia) of Teignmouth Road spoke in similar terms adding that the proposed development which they considered to be out of character would obstruct their garden views without enhancing or preserving the conservation area.
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Carr stated that she had been approached by members of MAPRA in connection with the application. Councillor Carr objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would not preserve or enhance the status of Mapesbury Conservation Area. She emphasised the need to preserve and enhance the conservation area.
Peter Benda, a supporter stated that the proposed development, which would be sited on a builders’ yard, would enhance and improve the conservation area. He added that 89 objections received to the application was not significant relative to the number of residents in the area. He also stated that he was a member of MAPRA, bur did not oppose the application. Peter Frank echoed similar views adding that most of the residents were unconcerned about the development as it would not result in any detriment.
Christopher Campbell (applicant) informed members that the scheme had been revised to ensure that it complied with the Conservation Area Design Guide, preserved and enhanced the conservation area. He added that the scale and massing had been reduced and that a new landscaped area would be created which would preserve the open character of the area. The applicant continued that the proposal, which would replace a builders’ yard, would enhance the conservation area. In response to members’ questions, David Campbell stated that the proposal which incorporated improved design and accorded with local planning and national policies, would be used as single family dwelling. He clarified that he did not incorporate a pitched roof so as to preserve the openness of the development and reduce its impact and that by condition 4, the brick selected would match the brick that is prevalent in the Mapesbury Conservation Area.
In response to a question raise, the Head of Planning confirmed that the house erected on the other side of the road dated from the 1980’s prior to the declaration of the conservation area.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended in the supplementary report. |
Supporting documents: