Agenda item

76-78 Salusbury Road, London, NW6 6PA (Ref 15/4590)


Refused planning permission as recommended.



 Change of use of the 1st, 2nd and part of the ground floor of the public house (Use class A4) to create 8 self-contained flats (3 x 1bed, 3 x 2bed and 2 x 3bed) together with associated alterations to include removal of rear dormer window, new 2nd floor rear extension, stairwell extension, replacement and relocation of some of the windows, insertion of new windows and rooflights, terraces and screening, cycle parking spaces.



Refuse planning permission for reasons set out in the Draft Decision Notice


Angus Saunders (Area Planning Manager) in setting the background stated that the application was deferred from a previous meeting to enable officers to review  any off-site contribution, the details of the  on-site community provision and potential conditions regarding future use of the facilities covering hours of use, amplified sound, access arrangements and external activities.  He referenced the supplementary report, highlighting additional representations received in respect of loss of communityspace on the upperfloors; loss of a local community centre and community rooms forlocalgroups such as SwingPatrol.  He also referred to further objections received from QPARA as set out in the supplementary and reiterated the recommendation for refusal for reasons set out in the draft decision notice.


Janis Denselow (Chair of QPARA) objected to the proposed development for the following reasons:

The provision of 83sqm for community use would be inadequate as it was a quarter the size of the original community space.

Access arrangements to the pub were both restrictive and unsatisfactory, especially retaining the entrance on Hopefield Avenue.

Inadequate financial contribution for an off-site community facility,

The proposal failed to promote a viable pub for community space.


Kevin Barrett an objector, speaking in a similar vein on behalf of the Irish Pensioners Group, requested that the British Legion which had operated in the area without problems be considered as the preferred occupant for the community space.  In response to a member’s question, Kevin Barrett stated that he had not discussed his plans for community use of the space with the owner of the property.  He also stated that as an ACV the community space should be protected.


Judy Wilcox, a resident of Hopefield Avenue and a supporter stated that the disabled access was satisfactory and that all community groups could be considered to be accommodated within the proposed building. She made reference to the original events room on the first floor and claimed that it was not sustainable as a community facility.  She added that in her view the financial contribution for an off-site community facility was adequate to offset any consequent loss. In urging members for approval, Judy Wilcox alleged that the views expressed by QPARA on the application were founded on aspiration and supposition.


In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Southwood (ward member) stated that she had been approached by QPARA and residents of Hopefield Avenue.  She added that she was speaking on behalf of Councillors Denselow and Nerva in support of QPARA’s stance. Councillor Southwood stated that due to inadequate provision of community space, the scheme would not provide an appropriate facility as an asset of community value (ACV).  She also questioned the viability of the pub.  Councillor Southwood continued that the off site provision offered by the applicant was inadequate, reminding members that a huge amount of community funds had been historically invested in the building as a community facility.


Kieron Hogdson (applicant’s agent) stated that the proposal for the building which was currently empty would not only address the problems associated with the building as an event space but also deliver a community centre which was compliant with the provisions of DDA. He continued that in addition to the financial contributions, the proposal would provide community facilities for local groups.  He considered that the request by the British Legion would lead to a loss of the pub and therefore constitute a material change of use to which the applicant would not agree.


Members then questioned the applicant’s agent on aspects of the proposal including access, viability and re-provision of community space. In response, the applicant’s agent clarified that the access provided would not conflict with the community use and the pub use of the building.  He continued that for viability reasons, some of the flats would be sold and others for rent. He added that the rear proposed elevation would not result in overlooking as it was a stairwell window rather than a habitable room..   


DECISION:  Refused planning permission as recommended.

(For 7, Against 0, Abstention 1).

Supporting documents: