Agenda item
Manor Park Works, Manor Park Road, London, NW10 4JJ (Ref. 17/2331)
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of industrial site to residential to form a total of 45 units comprising: change of use of the existing building from industrial and storage (B1 and B8) to residential (C3), accommodating 24 units (2 x studios, 8 x 1bed, 10 x 2bed and 4 x 3bed maisonettes) and an extension above the existing building with alterations to form 7 storeys; and erection of an 8 storey residential building plus a basement level, accommodating 21 units (3x studios, 14 x 2bed and 1 x 2bed and 3 x 3 bed maisonettes) with associated car and cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping and amenity space provision, including a roof terrace at each building (amended plans, fire safety information and description updated 12/09/2017).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated in the report.
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 Harlesden Conservation Area(s) as required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
That, if by 13/12/2017 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
Damian Manhertz (Area Planning Manager) introduced the report, outlined the material planning considerations of the proposal and answered members’ questions. Members heard that the principle of development being on a site with Site Specific Allocation, the density of the development, its design, appearance, standard of accommodation and impact on living conditions of neighbours were all acceptable. He added that the affordable housing being provided had been tested against viability and assessed by the council’s independent consultant with a pre-completion review mechanism detailed in the Section 106 legal agreement. He continued that subject to conditions, the proposal would provide acceptable landscaping. Members were advised that in respect of highways and access, the proposal was acceptable on balance, having regard to the existing access which could be brought back into more intensive use without further planning permission. The Area Planning Manager then referenced the supplementary report which set out additional concerns from residents and Councillors Chan and Kelcher and officers’ responses to them.
Ian Britton (Chair, Rucklidge Avenue Residents’ Association) in objection, raised the following issues in respect of the proposed development;
(i) Due to its height, the development would result in overshadowing to neighbouring properties and the playing fields of the local school.
(ii) Conflict with policies SPD 17, BE2 and BE9
(iii) Detrimental impact on the amenities of surrounding buildings.
(iv) The proposed development would be overbearing and out of character.
(v) The daylight and sunlight reports were flawed
Ann Rabbitt (objector) echoing similar sentiments added that the proposal would result in increased traffic flow and congestion within a strategic bus route where she understood several vehicle accidents had occurred. She continued that the cumulative impact of the above would pose a serious safety problems for pedestrians.
On behalf of the ward members (Councillors Chan and Kelcher), Councillor Hector addressed the Committee. Councillor Hector stated that the proposal for 45 dwelling units would constitute an over-development of the site which the Site Specific Allocation allowed 30 units. She continued that the site, which was near a bus stop and a dangerous junction at Park Parade, had witnessed about 16 vehicular accidents per annum and was a known traffic hotspot. In addition, the narrowness of the access to the site would be a danger to turning vehicles and emergency vehicles. Councillor Hector also added that local infrastructural facilities would not be able to cope a large influx of residents at the new development.
Dave Carroll (applicant’s agent) in responding to the issues raised by the objectors stated that the proposed development had been extensively discussed with officers who considered it acceptable in terms of its design and height. He refuted the suggestion of overshadowing adding that the nearby school had not raised any such concerns. He continued that adequate fire safety measures would be put in place, adding that in the last 5 years, only 42 traffic accidents had occurred none of which related to the design of the road layout. He made reference to the amenity space provisions and the affordable housing which the Council had secured under the S106 legal agreement with a pre-completion review mechanism.
In the ensuing discussions, members raised concerns about the application on issues ranging from height, density, amenity, daylight and sunlight, overshadowing, access arrangements and servicing, affordable housing provision to limited number of family units.
Members were informed that no overshadowing to neighbouring properties including the nearby school would result and that the level of daylight/sunlight would comply with BRE standards Officers added that the Council had no policy on overlooking to its schools. The Area Planning Manager continued that the principle of development had been tested and considered acceptable as were the access arrangements, amenity and garden space provisions.
Members then voted to refuse the application (which was declared lost) contrary to officers’ recommendation for the following stated reasons:
Excessive height, density, overshadowing, inadequate servicing arrangements, limited number of family units (less than 25%), unacceptable relationship and out of character with neighbouring properties
DECISION: Refused planning permission for the following stated reasons;
- Excessive height;
- Excessive density
- Insufficient family sized accommodation;
- Overdevelopment;
- Unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity and character of the area; and
- Access too narrow restricting pedestrian movement and giving rise to safety concerns.
Voting was recorded as follows:
FOR Councillor Moher (1)
AGAINST: Councillors Maurice and Choudhary (2)
ABSTENTION: Councillors Agha, Ahmed, Colacicco
and W Mitchell Murray (4)
Supporting documents: