Agenda item
Car Park, Ainsworth Close, Neasden, London NW10
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Tuesday 13 January 2015 7.00 pm (Item 8.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 8.
Decision:
Refused planning permission for the following stated reasons;
Over-development of the site due to its impact on Bell House and 80 Brook Road, failure to consider the likely impact of the development on highway conditions in the vicinity of the site.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 (x3 bed) two storey terraced dwelling houses including formation of off street parking, bin and cycle stores and associated hard and soft landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out after paragraph 30 of the main report.
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) stated that the proposed building which would be set a further 3.5m away from the site boundary and was not considered to have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. Officers considered that, whilst there would be an impact on residential amenity, on balance the relationship would be acceptable. In regards to children’s play area, he submitted that as each unit would have 70sqm of private garden which exceeded the Council’s requirements, the additional strain on the estate’s existing communal open space would be limited. He reported that Thames Water had submitted that subject to additional condition on drainage they had no objections to the proposal. In his view, the houses proposed were designed to create a good level of overlooking in the street and as such in urban design terms, may help deter anti-social behaviour.
John McConalogue, Kim Darby and Alison Hopkins (objectors) addressed the Committee and raised issues relating to loss of outlook, detrimental impact on residential amenities, inadequate car parking spaces and obstruction to emergency vehicles. They clarified that given its location, the proposal would be detrimental to the residential amenities of 80 Brook Road and the block of flats behind the proposed development. In addition serious concerns were raised about the underground bunker and tunnels, and the potential for damage to the reservoir. Members heard that the number of residents’ vehicles had been grossly understated in the report and until the car park was restored, residents would face serious parking problems. It was added that due to the narrowness of the roads, access for emergency vehicles would be obstructed. In response to a member’s suggestion for a gate to be installed to control access, Kim Darby stated that that would not be a practicable solution to the inadequate parking.
Richard De Ville (applicant) and his architect also addressed the Committee. The applicant stated that the proposal was for a carefully considered scheme which would provide affordable housing for 3 families. He continued that by building on the site, a source of anti social behaviour would be much reduced. His architect added that the design of the proposal which had been consulted with interested parties complied with guidelines and by maintaining minimum distances and reduced footprint, would protect the amenities of neighbouring residents.
A member noted that although the car parking proposed on the site complied with the Council's maximum standards, the possibility of parking overspill would need to be considered in order to understand whether the proposal would result in an impact on existing highway conditions. The applicant was invited to comment on the transportation issue. The applicant stated that the Council’s Transportation Officers had confirmed that there existed sufficient unused capacity on-street to satisfy any increased demand and address any potential overspill parking from the site. He however offered to look into parking management on the site.
In the ensuing discussions, members took the view that although the scheme would provide social housing, it would not resolve the on-going parking problems on the estate. They added due to its impact on Bell House and 80 Brook Road, the proposal would lead to loss of outlook. Members then voted by a majority decision to refuse the application contrary to officers’ recommendation for approval subject to conditions.
Voting on the decision to refuse the application was recorded as follows:
FOR: Councillor Filson (1)
AGAINST: Councillors Marquis, Milli Patel and Hylton (3)
ABSTENTION: Councillor Colaccico (1)
DECISION: Refused planning permission for the following stated reasons;
Over-development of the site due to its impact on Bell House and 80 Brook Road and failure to consider the likely impact of the development on highway conditions in the vicinity of the site.
Note: Councillor S Choudhary having declared an interest in the application as a member of the board of Brent Housing Partnership, vacated the meeting room and took no part in the discussion or voting on the application.
Supporting documents: