Agenda item
110 Walm Lane, London, NW2 4RS (Ref. 18/4675)
Decision:
Refused planning permission as recommended and excessive height.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Replacement of existing building (containing public house and former members club) with a mixed use development within a part 4 and 5 storey building comprising public house and function room on ground floor (Use Class A4), 48 self-contained flats (14 x 1 bed, 22 x 2 bed, 11 x 3 bed & 1 x 4 bed), green roof and photovoltaics panels, bicycle and refuse storage, amenity space and landscaping (SCHEME A) (Amended Plans - Key changes to public house façade and internal layout)
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission should be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, by reason of its massing and poorly designed front elevation, would appear unduly prominent and out of character in the street scene and in the wider locality. The development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area. As a result, the proposal fails to comply with Policies 3.4, 3.5, 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan; policy CP17 of the Core Strategy, Policies DMP1 and DMP7 of the Development Management Policies; National Planning Policy Framework 2018.
2. In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter the proposal would fail to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing which would be contrary to Policy 3.12 of the London Plan, Policies H5 and H6 of the draft London Plan, Policy CP2 of the Core Strategy, Policy DMP15 of the Development Management Policies.
3. In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter the proposal would result in additional carbon dioxide emissions within the borough in an Air Quality Management Area, without any contribution to carbon reduction measures in the area. As a result, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 5.2, 5.3 and 7.14 of the London Plan, Policy CP19 of the Core Strategy, Policy DMP1 of the Development Management Policies.
4. In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter, the development would result in additional pressure on servicing, parking demand and transport infrastructure to the detriment of the free and safe flow of traffic and pedestrians which would be contrary to Policies DMP1 and DMP12 of the Development Management Policies
The Committee agreed to receive together the representations for application references 18/4675 and 18/4710 relating to the same site but to decide them individually.
Mr Sean Newton (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the reports and answered members’ questions. He referenced the supplementary reports which summarised additional objections received since the publication of the agenda adding that the points raised had been addressed within the Committee reports. Mr Newton addressed the issues raised by Councillor Miller as referenced within the supplementary report. He also clarified that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) indexation figure should be 224.
Mr Ian Elliott (Save the Queensbury) speaking in objection to the applications stated that whilst the residents accepted the principle of development on the site, he expressed concerns about a number of issues, including: the applicant’s failure to retain the heritage building which is also an asset of community value, issues with the statement of community involvement, the design, massing and height which would be out of character within the Mapesbury Conservation Area. Mr Elliott also endorsed the officers’ reasons for refusal for application reference 18/4675, as amplified within the report, adding that those reasons were equally valid to support refusal of application reference 18/4701.
Mr Stephen Nathan QC representing Mapesbury Residents’ Association objected to both schemes on a number of grounds, including: The design, scale and appearance of the proposed building including the materials, that the proposal is unsympathetic to the Conservation Area; significant heritage building that ought to be preserved rather than demolished; the existing building which made a positive contribution to the heritage area ought to be preserved so as to maintain the character of the area; the report failed to address the concerns in respect of the south elevation
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Donnelly-Jackson stated that she had been approached by the developer and the local community. Echoing the views expressed by Save the Queensbury Pub group, Councillor Jackson added that the proposals through their poor designs, would be out of character with the Conservation Area. She continued that the demolition of the existing building would adversely impact on facilities for families and the local nursery (Busy Rascals).
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Dar stated that he had been approached by the local residents. Councillor Dar also objected on the grounds that the proposed demolition would adversely affect the users including Busy Rascals and the pub. He continued that the modern design proposed would also be out of character with the area. Councillor Dar informed the Committee that the consultation for the schemes was flawed.
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shahzad stated that he had been approached by the local residents. Councillor Shahzad raised concerns about the following matters; excessive height, inappropriate roofscape, scale and massing unsympathetic and out of character with the appearance of the area. Furthermore, the proposal would adversely impact on local residents who regularly used the building.
Councillor Dixon read out a statement on behalf of Councillor Colacicco (Deputy Mayor) highlighting the following issues; potential harm to the users; excessive height; insufficient architectural merit; lack of thorough character appraisal and lack of consultation with the local community. She continued that the proposals would fail to enhance and preserve the character of the area and hence urged refusal of both applications.
Mr. Luke Raistrick (agent) outlined the main differences between the applications and drew members’ attention to the affordable and family housing provision. He considered that both schemes complied with and responded to the character of Mapesbury Conservation Area. He set out that the current pub operators have been offered the first right of refusal for the pub in the new development, if approved. Mr. Raistrick added that the schemes would provide substantial planning benefits including the provision of 48 homes of which 35 % would be Affordable, the protection of the pub use and a community space for Busy Rascals nursery for whom the applicant had offered to find a temporary accommodation.
Mr. John Pryer (the operator of the Queensbury Public House) spoke in support of the proposals. He thanked the local community and Busy Rascals for their support adding that the scheme would seek to make the best possible use of the site. In response to members’ questions, Mr. Pryer stated that both schemes would deliver the pub and community uses, hence achieving the aims of Save the Queensbury group.
In the ensuing discussion, members sought clarification on a number of matters including consultation, access, design, scale, massing, external materials, size and layout of the pub, whether the pub was designed to allow the provision of a kitchen, the level of affordable housing and tenure split to which Mr. Newton responded. Members acknowledged the re-provision of the pub. The value of the existing building was discussed together with the impacts associated with its loss and the benefits associated with the scheme. The potential impacts of the three heritage assets were also discussed. Members weighted the benefits of the scheme with the impacts associated with the loss of the existing building and the construction of the proposed development. Concern was expressed regarding the design, height and massing of the proposed scheme. Members considered that proposed building would appear overly prominent and discordant within the conservation area setting, and that both proposals would result in harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area that is not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.
Members then decided to endorse the recommendation for refusal for the reasons as set out within the report for application reference 18/4675, with the reason for refusal on design grounds amended to also include a reference to the scale and massing of the building. Members were also decided to refuse planning consent for application reference 18/4701 for the same reasons.
DECISION: Refused planning permission as recommended and excessive height, the scale and massing of the building.
(Voting on the recommendation for refusal was as follows: For 7, Against 0).
Supporting documents:
- 05 - 18-4675 - 110 Walm Lane, London, NW2 4RS, item 5. PDF 439 KB
- 18.4675 SUPP 110 Walm Lane, item 5. PDF 114 KB