Agenda item
18 Neasden Lane and 450 High Road, London, NW10 (Ref. 14/4254)
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to conditions listed after paragraph 44 of the main report as amended in condition 2 and 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 Chief Legal Officer.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing Vicarage and yard, and erection of a part 5, part 6-storey building comprising a ground floor commercial unit (Use Class B1) (50sqm) and 47 residential flats (18 x 1 bed, 17 x 2 bed, 11 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed) with associated car, cycle and motorbikes spaces, landscaping, new metal railing fence and amenity space.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions listed after paragraph 44 of the main report and 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 Chief Legal Officer.
With reference to the supplementary report, Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) clarified queries raised at the site visit. In respect of localised flooding and drainage he stated that under a Section 106 agreement, the applicant would be required to ensure that the development complied with the Code for Sustainable Homes level 4; the current site rainfall run-off rate must be maintained. He added that in terms of the threat of flooding from rivers or other watercourses, the site was located in an area of Flood Risk level 1, where the threat of flooding was at its lowest. He clarified the separation distances between the site and the adjacent Ebony Court. Andy Bates continued that the density level would be 542 hr/ha and although higher than the level in the London Plan, the PTAL in this part of the Borough is likely to rise to PTAL4 in the future as public transport improvements come forward and in the event that these take place then a density up to 700 hr/ha would be appropriate in this location. The proposed development is considered acceptable within this context.
In respect of the boundary treatment between the site and the Magistrates Court, the Area Planning Manager informed the Committee that the submitted plans and design and access statement suggested that it would be treated with a 2.5m high perforated metal fence with hedge planting along the inner edge. He continued that as the detailed design of the fence had not been included as part of the submission it would be subject to a condition requiring the submission of further details of all landscaping proposals, including boundary treatments, for approval. He added that should the proposed fence be found to have an unacceptable appearance then a more sympathetic boundary treatment could be negotiated to discharge the condition. He continued that there was no information on potential tenants for the commercial units. He then drew members’ attention to amendments to the tenure split on the proposed affordable housing: shared ownership 74%; affordable rent 26% and the revised floor plan identifying a 3-bed unit. These amended condition 2.
Nick Sutton (applicant’s agent) informed members that the height of the proposal had been reduced to a 6 storey building incorporating forty seven (47) flats which accorded with relevant planning policies in terms of design and density. He reiterated the comments made by the Area Planning Manager on the boundary treatment with the Magistrates Court with further details to be submitted as recommended in condition 9. The applicant’s agent confirmed that the potential tenant for the commercial unit would be a charitable organisation and that the affordable housing would be managed by a Registered Social Landlord (RSL).
In response to members’ questions, the applicant’s agent stated that as the area had a high PTAL rating, car parking spaces had been reduced, however, all private units would be sold with car parking spaces and a contribution would be made for Car Club in the area. He added that waste collection would not be an issue, a view that was also expressed by the Head of Planning who added that the Council’s Transportation officers were satisfied with the arrangements for waste collection.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions as recommended and as amended in condition 2.
Supporting documents: