Agenda item
Former Blarney Stone, Blackbird Hill, London, NW9 8RR (Ref. 10/2053)
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Proposed mixed-use redevelopment of the Blarney Stone Public House, Kingsbury, with the erection of two 3-storey houses and 34 flats in 3/4/5 storeys above a retail unit of 470m² and parking partly at basement level, with associated landscaping. |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
|
In introducing the report, the Area Planning Manager Rachel McConnell drew the Committee’s attention to additional letters which raised objections on grounds of harm to the adjoining conservation area and possible uses of the site adding that those issues had been addressed in the main report. Members noted that a number of issues raised including impact/scale from residential gardens to the north; use and prominence of the retail unit; play facilities; access for cars and servicing; and mix of units proposed on site had also been addressed in the report. She then compared the existing and proposed parking and servicing arrangements on the site and concluded that the proposed parking would not significantly exceed the previous provision. Rachel McConnell added that as the proposed building would be set further away from the boundary with No. 1 Old Church Lane with trees proposed along the boundary the proposed development was not considered to impact on the amenities of No. 1 Old Church Lane.
In terms of transportation, the Area Planning Manager stated that officers in transportation had not raised objections in term of any impact upon the local highway network. She added that the northern side of the car park access had been amended to include a 10m radius kerb as requested by your officers in transportation, amending condition 2 accordingly. She drew members’ attention to an amendment in the Heads of Terms for affordable housing agreed with the applicant for 28% of the development and a further financial contribution of £50,000 towards off-site provision within the Borough.
Ms Amy Zubin objected to the proposal on the following grounds;
· By having access to the site, delivery and refuse collection from Old Church Lane only, the proposed development would lead to an increase in noise and dust pollution on an already congested quiet country road within a conservation area.
· The use of Old Church Lane for access and delivery purposes would make it extremely difficult for residents to get in and out of Old Church Lane.
· The parking provision of 37 car parking spaces for the proposal which was for 34 flats and a ground floor retail element would be inadequate and consequently was likely to cause problems for residents and their visitors.
· Although planning permission had not been obtained, the applicant had already carried out a considerable amount of work including advertisement.
· The residents had not been fully consulted on the proposals which would affect them in their daily lives.
Patricia Gray also an objector raised concerns on behalf of the residents on grounds of safety, noise nuisance, pollution within a conservation area and an undue pressure on the local sewerage system. Ms Gray requested a deferral to enable further consultation and to review the implications of the proposed development. In response to members’ question Ms Gray stated that although she was not opposed to some form of residential development on the site, she felt that full consultation with residents had not been carried out.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Mashari, ward member stated that she had been approached by the applicant and the local residents. Councillor Mashari expressed concerns about the lack of satisfactory consultation with the residents. She also expressed concerns about the proposed single access and delivery point via Old Church Lane which would adversely impact upon residential amenities and create parking and congestion problems.
Mrs Theresa Neary who had given notice to speak was not present due to ill health. With the permission of the Committee, the applicant’s agent Mr Pender read out a statement on her behalf reiterating her support for the proposal.
Mr Mark Pender, the applicant’s agent speaking in support stated that the proposed development for a mixed use would fit in with the streetscape and the local environment. He drew members’ attention to the 28% affordable housing that would be offered and the substantial financial contribution towards off-site provision. Mr Pender noted that transport and access issues had been adequately addressed in the report and added that it would be unsafe to use Blackbird Hill for access and deliveries to the site. He continued that the site was not within a conservation area.
In response to members’ questions, Mr Pender stated although consultation with interested parties and residents was a matter for the Local Planning Authority, but as a form of good practice his client had also carried out additional consultation including an exhibition and distributing information leaflets. He added that as the proposal complied with the Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 (SPG17) it was not considered to be an over-development of the site. He did not anticipate problems with parking as he expected most of the shoppers to be local who would walk rather than drive. He confirmed that he felt that the development would not result in overlooking to neighbouring properties.
In clarifying issues raised about consultation, the Area Planning Manager stated that 276 neighbours were consulted in addition to site and press notices. In respect of access and deliveries to the site, she considered that Old Church Lane rather than Blackbird Hill was more appropriate in the interest of vehicular and pedestrian safety. She added that the proposal which complied with SPG 17 and in design terms was considered to be satisfactory would not constitute an over-development of the site.
In the ensuing discussion, Councillor Cummins asked whether it was possible to add an informative for “sensitive let” for the retail element to indicate that the shops would not be suitable for bulky goods. Councillor Daly raised concerns about pollution and possible overlooking. Councillor Long felt that there ought to be a condition on shared access to the site. Councillor Adeyeye felt that the convenience of future users and residents of the proposed development had not been adequately explored. Councillors Kataria and McLennan also felt that transport issues, delivery vehicles and times had not been adequately addressed. Councillor Hashmi however expressed views that he would welcome the application.
The Head of Area Planning Steve weeks in response stated that traffic to the site would not be significantly higher than at present and that expected traffic increase and scale were not sufficient reasons to warrant a recommendation for refusal. He continued that the Council’s environmental Health Services had not raised the issue of pollution. He added that a relatively small retail unit was less likely to attract bulky goods and that no retail parking was proposed. Steve Weeks clarified that the site adjoined but was not within a conservation area and that, although higher the development set further away from No. 1 Old Church Lane and there was provision for landscaping along the joint boundary. On balance, he reiterated the recommendation for approval.
Having heard the responses by the Head of Area Planning and the Area Planning Manager members were minded to refuse the application for the following statement of reasons;
· Unacceptable increase in traffic using Old Church Lane due to the high density of development on site and servicing for the retail unit, resulting in further congestion;
· Overspill residential and retail parking onto Old Church Lane;
· Inadequate pedestrian/vehicular separation and control for the servicing area
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, and on the advice of the Head of Area Planning, the application was deferred to a later meeting for a further report.
DECISION: Minded to refuse the application for the following reasons and deferred for a further report; Unacceptable increase in traffic using Old Church Lane due to the high density of development on site and servicing for the retail unit, resulting in further congestion; Overspill residential and retail parking onto Old Church Lane; Inadequate pedestrian/vehicular separation and control for the servicing area |
Supporting documents:
- 6- Former Blarney Stone, Blackbird Hill NW9 8RR, item 6. PDF 340 KB
- Supplementary6- Blarney Stone, item 6. PDF 67 KB