Agenda item
76 Burnley Road, London, NW10 1EJ (Ref. 16/0857)
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Change of use from Use Class B2 (Car Repair Garage) to Use Class A1 (Retail), partial demolition, installation of plant equipment and associated external alterations
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission for reasons set out in the draft decision notice
Angus Saunders (Area Planning Manager) introduced the report and outlined the proposed change of use. Angus Saunders updated members that although the applicant had submitted further information as set out in the supplementary report, it did not raise further material consideration nor significantly outweigh
the harms of the scheme. Consequently, the proposal did not overcome the employment and sequential test reasons for refusal. He continued that as elements of potential unacceptable conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, cars and servicing vehicles remained, officers concerns on the safety audit had not been addressed. Members heard that there was no confirmation of permission from Transport for London (TfL) for the relocated bus stop; furthermore, residents and businesses were more likely to object to the provision of an on- street loading bay during consultation on the grounds of loss of on street parking along their frontage as well as having a bus stop located outside their house. He advised that Burnley Road was a heavily parked street and therefore the loss of any on street parking would not be acceptable to local residents and businesses. The Area Planning manager also drew members’ attention to comments submitted by Councillor Long as set out in the supplementary report.
Mark Cummins (an objector) stated that the proposed change of use in particular, the use of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) would be not be suitable in Burnley Road which was already a heavily parked street. He added that the proposal would destroy the local community services as well as be detrimental to residential amenities including the quiet enjoyment of sleep.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Collier, ward member for Willesden Green declared that he had been approached by the Co-operative Group of which he was a member. Speaking in support, Councillor Collier informed the Committee that the proposal would be an important public utility which would increase shopping traffic and enhance business activity locally. In addition, the proposal would generate a 3 fold increase in local employment. Councillor Collier, in responding to a member’s question about the aspects of the proposal which was not currently available, cited the ethical procurement of the Co-op, availability of a brand name and a greater range of stocks
Robert Tindale and Emily Shields (applicant’s agents) addressed the Committee. Robert Tindale informed members that the proposed change of use would complement existing shops in the locality and create up to 25 jobs. He continued that technical data had been provided to the Council to demonstrate satisfactory servicing arrangements and to meet the sequential test criteria. He also referred to the safety audit and added that the local bus stop would be relocated 2 metres away subject to a Traffic Order, from the existing location to facilitate the servicing arrangements. In response to members’ questions, the agent clarified that the proposal would provide a mix of full and part time jobs and that any outstanding issues including measures to mitigate noise could be conditioned. Emily Shields added in response that the applicant was in negotiation with TfL about moving the bus stop although no firm response had been received from TfL.
The Area Planning Manager clarified that as the proposal was for a change of use, no weight had been given to the issues raised by Councillor Collier and that convenience did not outweigh the reasons for refusal, which he reiterated.
DECISION:
Planning permission refused as recommended.
(Voting: For 4; Against 0; Abstention 1).
Note having made their declarations, Councillors Marquis, Daly and Kabir left the meeting room and did not take part in the discussion and the voting.
Supporting documents: