Agenda item

1 Thanet Lodge, Mapesbury Road, London, NW2 4JA (Ref. 15/1205)

Decision:

Granted planning permission as set out in the Draft Decision Notice, subject to an additional condition for details of the rear boundary treatment of a physical fence to be erected to the full width of the development, to be submitted for approval and permanently maintained.

Minutes:

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a 2 storey 4x bedroom dwelling house plus basement level and lightwells to the north of Thanet Lodge including pedestrian access from Mapesbury Road (amendment to approved application ref: 14/3463 to include a basement level).

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement, amended conditions 8, 10 & 11 and inclusion of a revised plan and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Head of Legal Services.

 

Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) introduced the report and outlined the proposal.  In reference to the supplementary report, he explained that there was no planning condition on previous approvals that prevented access by the occupants to the communal space at Thanet Lodge, a fact that had been reiterated by the applicant.  He continued that such a condition would be difficult to enforce.  The Area Planning Manager clarified that issues relating to service charges were not material planning considerations in determining the application.

 

Victoria Pollard, an objector, expressed opposition to the development on behalf of the residents of Thanet Lodge. She alleged that a previous planning approval restricted access to the communal area and asked that such a condition be imposed again.  Milly Guest, speaking in a similar vein, complained that the proposed development which she considered would be poorly constructed, would cause extensive damage including flooding to her property based on a previous application by the same developer.  In response to a member’s question, she stated that she understood a structural survey had been conducted for the proposal.  Patricia Bramwell, the Committee’s legal representative advised that matters relating to a structural survey were not issues for the Committee.

 

Councillor Shaw stated that she had been approached by residents in connection with the application.  Councillor Shaw raised concerns about health and safety and requested that a condition be imposed to restrict access from the proposed development to the communal garden.  She continued that the proposal which would incorporate lightwells, would result in loss of light and constitute a breach of the Mapesbury Conservation Area Guidance.  Councillor Shaw urged members to defer their decision until the concerns by residents had been addressed.

 

Stephen Weeks, Head of Planning, added that the issues expressed by Councillor Shaw and in late representations provided at the meeting appeared have been addressed in the officer’s (main and supplementary) reports before members.  Patricia Bramwell, legal representative, advised that any condition imposed should be precise and enforceable and that access issues could be addressed via a further condition on boundary treatment. She added that the restriction of access to the communal garden was not enforceable.

 

Emma McBurney (applicant’s agent) confirmed that there was no condition on any previous approval restricting access to the communal garden, however the applicant would accept the suggested additional condition on boundary treatment.

 

Members then asked questions about the erection of a permanent structure in place of soft landscaping and whether it would be possible to require the applicant to ensure that the fence would be erected to the full width of the rear of the development.  The agent confirmed acceptance on behalf of the applicant. In approving the application, the Committee added a further condition requiring details of the treatment of the rear boundary fence to be erected to the full width of the development, prior to occupation, to be submitted for approval and to be permanently maintained.

 

DECISION

Granted planning permission as set out in the Draft Decision Notice, subject to an additional condition requiring details of the treatment of the rear boundary fence to be erected to the full width of the development, prior to occupation, to be submitted for approval and to be permanently maintained.

Supporting documents: