Agenda item
Dollis Hill Estate (excluding Further Education College and Gatehouses), Brook Road, London, NW2 7BZ (Ref. 10/1388)
Decision:
Planning permission granted subject to conditions as amended in condition 11 and condition 2 to be amended, referral to the Mayor of London and subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement to be amended with Travel Plan details and delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture, or other duly authorised person, to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor.
Minutes:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 160 residential dwellings comprising: 1 part two-, part three-, part five-storey block with a communal roof-terrace area to the three-storey part, comprising 21 x 1-bedroom and 26 x 2-bedroom private flats; 1 five-storey block comprising 17 x 1-bedroom and 26 x 2-bedroom shared-ownership flats; 1 five-storey block comprising 7 x 1-bedroom, 30 x 2-bedroom, 12 x 3-bedroom and 3 x 4-bedroom social-rented flats; with 146 car-parking spaces at basement level, associated hard and soft landscaping, emergency-access road to Brook Road, refuse stores and 137 secure cycle-storage spaces; erection of 18 three-storey, terraced dwellinghouses comprising 10 x 3-bedroom, 6 x 4-bedroom and 2 x 5-bedroom, all for social rent, with off-street parking and private amenity space (as amended by revised plans and documents received 03/08/2010) |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to referral to the Mayor of London and subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture, or other duly authorised person, to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor.
|
The Area Planning Manager Rachel McConnell started by responding to the concerns expressed by residents at the site visit. In respect of its height and prominence she stated that the five-storey element would remain below the parapet of Chartwell Court, allowing that building to maintain its prominence in the landscape. She added that an assessment of the relationship with Hillcrest Gardens was considered acceptable. In addition, the applicant submitted revised plans that resulted in amendments set out in the tabled supplementary report which not only protect residential amenities but would also comply with the guidance set out in SPG17. She did not consider that measures were required to control the use given the modest size of the proposed roof terrace and the distance from neighbouring occupants. The Area Planning Manager further informed members that the distance of the closest part of the development to Chartwell Court and Flowers Close (30m) the 5-storey element (35m) was in excess of the SPG limit of 20m and would therefore prevent an unacceptable loss of outlook. In her view the development would affect the adjoining school site unacceptably and that issues raised in the Fire Officer’s report would be covered by Building Regulations.
Mr Jochem van Ast objected on the grounds that the proposed development which would be out of keeping within the area would overlook his property, resulting in a loss of privacy. He continued that the development, with excessive density, would be unsympathetic within the area and that the amendments submitted by the applicant would not adequately address the concerns expressed by the residents. In order to overcome their concerns, he requested that the applicant be asked to re-submit the proposal for a 4-storey building.
Mr Mark Connell the applicant’s agent stated that his client had undertaken full consultations with the local residents which had resulted in a number of changes being made to the original scheme including its design. He added that adequate car parking provision had been made for every home and that the development would be about 60 metres away from the nearest home in Hillcrest Gardens. In respect of the claim for overdevelopment, Mr Connell informed members that Stadium Housing, the applicants had submitted this proposal for 160 homes, as against 170 which was considered suitable for the site by the Planning Inspector on appeal. He continued that the proposed development would address chronic housing shortage especially for larger affordable homes within Brent, adding that funding for the development was dependent on planning permission being obtained.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Jack Beck a ward member stated that he had been approached by objectors to the development. Councillor Beck stated that the development had not been designed to complement the area in view of the detrimental impact that would result in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of outlook. He continued that as a result the development would be out of keeping with the current landscape of the local area. He questioned whether all relevant residents had been consulted about the application and with that in view he requested a deferral.
During members’ discussion Councillor Cummins expressed a view that the proposed development would be an overdevelopment of the site insensitive to the area and would therefore constitute an unacceptable proposal. He suggested that the applicant be asked to submit proposals for a lower building, from a 5-storey to a 4-storey building. Councillor Daly also enquired about the possibility of lowering the building to 4-storeys. Councillor Long in expressing a different viewpoint stated that adequate distances had been maintained and that the development would not result in a detrimental impact to the residents.
In response to the issues raised, the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks submitted that any harm that could result from the proposal development would not be adequate enough to justify refusal. He added that the proposal would introduce adequate gaps between the larger blocks and the relationship to the surrounding boundaries should balance privacy and residential amenity.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions with condition 2 to be amended, referral to the Mayor of London and subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement to be amended with Travel Plan details and delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture, or other duly authorised person, to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor. |
Supporting documents: