Agenda item
7-8 Elmwood Crescent, London NW9 0NL (Ref. 09/1851)
Minutes:
Erection of a single storey rear and side extension, first floor front extension, raised terrace with ramped access to rear and front, new canopy to front entrance door, 2 front and 1 rear rooflight and associated landscaping, and change of use of premises from single family dwelling (Use Class C3) to supported accommodation for people with mental health problems, incorporating 11 self-contained units (Use Class C2). |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Interim Borough Solicitor. This is to secure the submission of and adherence to a Management Plan to ensure that preference be given to placing Brent residents in any vacant spaces available in the facility, and to ensure that the cost of such places is comparable and competitive in the market, for the lifetime of the development. Details of the proposed heads of terms are given under Section 106 notes. |
This application was deferred from the last meeting of the Committee for a site visit to assess the impact of the proposed development and the change of use. With reference to the supplementary information tabled at the meeting the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks responded to the issues raised at the site visit.
The Head of Area Planning stated that the height of the proposed side extension complied with SPG5 guidance and although the height of the proposed rear extension was 0.4m higher than the existing conservatory, due to the distance of the extension from the site boundary, the proposal would not have a significant additional impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residents. He did not consider that the proposal would add significantly to existing problems which arose from the local special school. He outlined the differences between this and the previous application and similar facilities in Fairfields Crescent. In respect of the comments about the suitability of the ground floor front-facing bedrooms the Head of Area Planning submitted that the rooms would provide an acceptable level of accommodation similar to many other residential properties with similar bedroom orientations. He then referred to a petition from residents adding that it did not raise new issues. In reiterating the recommendation for approval he drew members’ attention to an amendment to condition 9 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
Ms Bashir in expressing her objection stated that the location of the proposal was inappropriate within a residential area as it would grossly impact on the neighbourhood in terms of loss of privacy, sunlight and noise pollution. She added that the scale of the development within a small cul-de-sac would exacerbate the problems with parking and traffic flow in addition to the detrimental impact on local infrastructure.
Mr A Letvin also objected on grounds of loss of privacy, over-intensity of use due to its bulk which would be out of character within the residential area and the impact on the neighbourhood.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor R Moher, ward member, re-stated her prejudicial interest that she had been involved in previous applications for the site. In echoing the sentiments expressed by the previous speaker, Councillor R Moher pointed out that by using a disproportionate amount of the rear garden in excess of guidance, the proposal would be out of character within the area. She added that the proposal would be inappropriate in Elmwood Crescent on grounds of traffic, a situation which would be made worse by an unknown number of inhabitants.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Crane, ward member, stated that he had been approached by the residents. Councillor Crane raised objections to the proposal on grounds of over-development of the site, problems with access and over-concentration of similar homes within the vicinity.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor J Moher, ward member, stated that he had been approached by the residents. Councillor J Moher objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would constitute a material change of use to the detriment of the character and residential amenities of the area. He continued that its impact in terms of overbearing, overlooking and loss of privacy could not be adequately controlled by conditions. In endorsing the comments by the previous speakers, Councillor J Moher added that the proposal would be inappropriate within Elmwood Crescent, a small cul-de-sac.
Mr M Ahmed, the applicant clarified that the proposal would enable 11 single occupants with mental health problems to simulate normal residential living with support from 2 to 3 staff. In endorsing the officer’s reasons for recommending approval, Mr Ahmed added that the proposed development would not be out of character with the area. In response to members’ questions, he stated that although the occupants would have the ability to use ordinary services including an excellent local public transport service, the management plan proposed would ensure that there would be no excessive number of visitors and therefore excessive traffic would not be generated in the area. The applicant added that the expected average stay per person would be 24 months and that all occupants would be supervised by a total of 6 staff using only 2 vehicles, to comply with standards.
Members discussed the application during which they expressed concerns about the intensity of use of the property and its impact in terms of access to and egress from the site which they felt would be out of character with the area. They also pointed out that there was an over-concentration of similar facilities within the area.
The Head of Area Planning in response stated that the side extensions adjoining No 9 Elmwood Crescent were not significantly higher and that the number of residents at the property was not dissimilar to a large property occupied by 2 families. He added that in his view, the proposal was less likely to generate excessive traffic.
Members however voted to refuse the application on grounds of over-intensive use of the property, cumulative impact including access problems for emergency vehicles.
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, voting on the recommendation for approval subject to a Section 106 or other legal agreement was recorded as follows:
FOR : Councillor Long (1)
AGAINST : Councillors Anwar, Baker, Cummins, Jackson and Steel (5)
ABSTENTION: Councillors Powney, Hashmi, Mistry and CJ Patel (4)
DECISION: Planning permission refused on grounds of over-intensive use of the site, cumulative impact on the neighbourhood and access problems for emergency vehicles. |
Supporting documents:
- 3, 7-8 Elmwood Crescent, NW9 0Nl, item 3. PDF 276 KB
- Supplementary Elmwood Crescent, item 3. PDF 53 KB