Agenda item
17/1139 Garages rear of 39 Keslake Road, Peploe Road, London
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of four existing garages and erection of a 4 bedroom dwellinghouse set at ground and basement level, with associated on-street car parking, cycle parking, bin stores, landscaping and amenity space
RECOMMENDATION: That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the report
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.
That the Committee confirms that it has paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Queen's Park Conservation Area as required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
David Glover (Area Planning Manager) introduced the report and answered members’ questions. He referenced and gave weight to the Planning Inspector’s decision on application 16/0440. Members heard that the current application addressed the Inspector's conclusions in terms of harm by reducing the height and bulk of the development so that its effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area and on the living conditions of the occupants of 44 Kempe Road would now be acceptable.
Duncan McCausland (objector) circulated photographs to support his views that the proposed development would not be in keeping with the character of the business park. He added that it would set a poor precedence for similar undesirable developments in the area. He continued that as the properties in the area had shallow foundations and therefore prone to subsidence, excavation which could cause subsidence to neighbouring properties should not be allowed. Members heard that due to high incidence of subsidence, residents found it difficult to obtain buildings insurance for their properties without piling.
Jan Lambrecht (objector) echoed similar sentiments and concurred with the views expressed by the previous objector and added that the wall and roof did not comply with the design guide for Queens Park Conservation Area.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Nerva (ward member) stated that he had been contacted by local residents. Councillor expressed a view that the following factors had not been properly explored; parking problems in an over-parked area; impact on local residents; compliance with the design guide for Queens Park Conservation Area. Councillor Nerva also raised concerns about excavation, digging and piling for the basement element of the proposed development.
Nick Sutton (applicant’s agent) addressed the Committee and answered members’ questions. He informed members that the scheme had been revised following the Planning Inspector’s decision on appeal to ensure that it complied with guidance and standards. In response to a member’s question on the subsoil, Nick Sutton stated that extensive structural appraisal had been undertaken and that a concrete box would be erected around the basement to afford it a greater stability.
In summing up, Dave Glover informed members that the issues for which the Planning Inspector refused the application on appeal; height, bulk, massing and impact on the Conservation Area and the living conditions of number 44 Kempe Road had been addressed in the application. The scheme had therefore overcome the previous objections and would now be in compliance with DMP Policies such as DMP Policies DMP1, DMP7, DMP12, DMP16, DMP17 and DMP19, having regard to paragraph 132 of the NPPF and S72 of the P(LB&CA)A 1990. It was also in compliance with the criteria as set out in the London Plan as well as the Queen’s Park Design Guide.
In approving the application as recommended, members added an additional informative that any damage to public realm be repaired at the applicant’s cost.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended subject to an additional informative that any damage to public realm is repaired at the applicant’s cost.
(Voting was unanimous).
Supporting documents: