Agenda item
Car Park, Ainsworth Close, Neasden, London (Ref. 15/3218)
Decision:
Granted planning permission as recommended.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Erection of three 2 storey terraced dwelling houses (1 x 2bed and 2 x 3bed) 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 in the draft Decision Notice.
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and with reference to the supplementary report responded to concerns raised at the site visit. Members heard that there would be no direct conflict with adopted guidance due to the separation distance between windows in the existing and proposed flank wall and the angle of the buildings. He continued that the cycle stores and bin stores were located so as to be easily accessible and would not impact on the scope for soft landscaping, requirement under condition 3. He advised that the spread of tree roots was not be envisaged to create neighbourly difficulties.
Members heard that Thames Water had considered the scheme and, whilst they did not raise objection to the proposal, suggested conditions to ensure that the development did not adversely impact on drainage as clarified in the main report. Andy Bates informed members that the parking standard attributable to the proposal did not anticipate overspill parking from the site and that the car park had been historically underused. He continued that although there had been some instances of anti social behaviour on the estate requiring wardens to be called out, the proposal should not give rise to anti social behaviour and should establish an active character in a currently poorly overlooked space.
John McConalogue objected to the proposed development on the grounds of overlooking, over-shadowing and loss of car parking facilities. He considered that the revisions made by the applicant were minor involving changes to a single bedroom and failed to address residents’ concerns.
Kim Darby echoing similar sentiments added that due to the narrow width of Ainsworth Close, the proposed development would result in an adverse traffic impact. She continued that the removal of trees would directly affect the foundations of nearby properties.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Dixon declared that she had been approached by, and had attended drop in sessions with residents. Councillor Dixon informed members that the applicant had made satisfactory revisions that addressed concerns previously expressed and which rendered the scheme fit for purpose. She continued that the proposal enabled Brent to respond to the housing needs of its residents and urged members to agree to the recommendation for approval.
Daniel Pan (applicant’s architect) stated that revisions had been made to the scheme which addressed concerns raised by objectors. He added that working in partnership with the Council’s Tree Officer, measures had been put in place to reduce visual impact and enhance the streetscene. He continued that although the scheme complied with parking standards, the applicant would continue to engage with residents on any possible introduction of CPZ. In response to a member’s enquiry about parking survey, Daniel Pan stated that an independent survey was commissioned by the applicant and passed on to the Council’s Highways officers who raised no concerns about the application on highways grounds. This view was concurred by John Fletcher (Development Control Highways Officer).
The Chair enquired as to whether the applicant had considered the impact of 2 instead of 3 dwelling units, whether an increase in service charges was likely and stressed the importance of improved resident engagement for such infill schemes in light of the comments made by residents about the parking survey. Tom Bremner for the applicant, Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) responded that having 3 units would in addition to providing an extra dwelling unit, enhance surveillance and assist in security. He continued that BHP was investing in the estate including general outlook and fire safety with no impact on service charges to residents.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions as recommended.
Supporting documents:
- 09- Car Park, Ainsworth Close, item 9. PDF 376 KB
- 9 Supplementary Car Park, Ainsworth Close ref 15-3218, item 9. PDF 88 KB