Agenda item
17/2884 1-2 Drakes Courtyard, Kilburn High Road, London, NW6 7JR
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Application for alterations to the fenestration and doors at 1-2 Drakes Courtyard
RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and 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 within 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.
Damian Manhertz (Area Planning Team Leader) introduced the report, setting out the description of the site, the proposal and emphasising that the application was for alterations to the fenestration of the windows and doors. He reminded the Committee that prior approval had been granted for change of use of the office building to residential use for 39 flats. He referenced an email from Councillor Duffy that raised health and safety concerns of the application in particular the operation of fork lifts in an area close to the proposed entrance. In response, Mr Manhertz stated that there was an existing arrangement where a door can be used without any planning control. He continued that with the prior approval which would allow a change of use to residential, the alterations could take place without this planning application and that the existing door to the courtyard could still be used. The change of use was likely to result in a decrease in footfall to and from the building and would not result in any further harm to pedestrian safety.
Mr Bart Murphy (objector) raised concerns about health and safety, access and lack of highways assessment of the application. He explained that the proposed move of the door from its current entrance would conflict with the operations of MP Moran (local builders’ merchants) which occupied the land directly opposite the application site. The resulting access problems (as there would be no footpath) would mean that pedestrians and vehicles would share the road to the detriment of pedestrian and vehicular safety. Mr Murphy continued that the Council’s Highways and Transportation had not been consulted on the application. In response to a members’ question, Mr Murphy stated that although there had been no accidents on site, with the proposed move of the entrance to the courtyard, accidents were likely to occur.
Mr Owain Nedin (applicant’s agent) stated that the issues raised by the objector had been addressed in the officers’ report adding that the applicant did not require planning permission to move the doorway. He clarified that the proposed entrance would align with the change of use for which prior approval had been granted and with a more accessible layout to the cycle store, optimise the use of the building. Mr Nedin continued that the health and safety implications of the application had been considered but as movement along the courtyard isn’t normally focused on the area shown in the image, delivery vehicles could be accommodated on site without detriment. Mr Nedin highlighted that a right of way existed for the occupants of the building.
Mr John Fletcher (Highways and Transportation) confirmed that the department was formally consulted on the change of use and not on the door. He said that the use of the other existing door would be better in highways terms, but that this did not take into account what could and could not be controlled within the planning application, noting that the existing door would be in a similar location. Mr Manhertz then outlined the key considerations of the application including health and safety aspects and in reiterating the recommendation for planning permission to be granted, added that the building could be accessed via either of the doors without planning permission. Maria Henry (Senior Planning Lawyer) advised that issues about right of way were a civil matter and outside the remit of the Committee.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended.
(Voting for approval was carried as follows: For 7, Against 1).
Supporting documents: