Agenda item
1-11 (incl), Cairnfield Court, Cairnfield Avenue, London NW2 7PP (Ref. 11/1520)
Decision:
(a) Planning permission granted subject to conditions as amended in condition 5, an additional condition on the parking area (as Supplementary) and subject to a Section 106 as recommended and an informative in respect of appropriate fire access, or;
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Erection of second-floor rear and third-floor rooftop extension to existing residential block, forming an additional 4 self-contained flats (1 x 2 bed, 2 x 1 bed, 1 x studio), provision of 3 parking spaces and associated alterations (alterations to flats as built to reduce size of second-floor and third-floor rooftop extension) |
RECOMMENDATION: (a) Grant Planning Permission, subject to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report,or;
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
|
Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager in reference to the tabled supplementary report submitted the following responses to clarifications sought at the site visit:
The car parking spaces were proposed to reflect the possible additional demand by the new flats as there is no CPZ and Cairnfield Avenue is heavily parked at night. She added that the spaces could be used by the occupiers of the existing and proposed flats so as to reduce the impact on the surrounding streets. In order to ensure an acceptable level of parking , she recommended an amendment to condition 5 to ensure the parking is provided for the occupiers of Cairnfield Court and an additional condition requiring additional cycle parking if access to the car parking cannot be provided as set out in the tabled supplementary.
Members noted that while a number of windows within the block had been replaced with UPVC windows, the design and proportions of the replacement windows reflected the original windows to an acceptable degree. She added that the windows in the proposed extension were simpler and reflected the change in design of the addition to the original building. The Area Planning Manager advised the Committee that additional landscaping including three trees was proposed to the frontage of the block in addition to a hedge along the front boundary and around the proposed parking spaces to the rear. She then drew members’ attention to the additional correspondence and objections and officers’ responses to them as set out in the supplementary report and reiterated the recommendation for approval.
Ms Renata Garwolinska objected to the proposal on the following grounds;
(ii) Reduction in amenity space including parking spaces
(ii) Insufficient bin storage
(iii) Loss of light
(iv) Loss of view and overlooking
Mr Welsh, the applicant’s agent in responding to the above stated that the amenity space provided was in accordance with the Council’s standards. He added that the provision for bin storage and outlook was a generous interpretation of Council’s guidelines and urged members to approve the application.
Councillor Hashmi asked the agent for a clarification on who would be entitled to use the car parking spaces. Councillor Kabir referred to the partitioning of the bin area and expressed her concern that it could obstruct the means of fire escape. In response to members’ queries, Mr Welsh stated that the use of the parking spaces was a matter for the management of the block and added that measures would be taken to ensure that the stairs were maintained to a high standard as a proper fire escape.
Members discussed the application during which Councillor Daly noted the objector’s claim about loss of amenity space and enquired whether there was any requirement on the landowner to upgrade theamenity area. Councillor Cummins emphasised the need for a management plan for parking and to regularise the fire exit. Councillor Moloney echoed the need for a proper fire exit and the boarding in the bin store removed. Councillor Kabir sought a clarification on guidance for increased density.
Rachel McConnell responded that the proposal complied with the council’s amenity space standards, parking provision and refuse storage. She added that issues about fire exit were a matter for Building Control but that an informative could be added to advise of the need to comply with Building Regulations regarding a satisfactory means of escape. She noted that whilst there would be a reduction in outlook, it was not considered significant enough to warrant refusal of the application. Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning, advised against a management plan for parking adding that the key point to note was that parking would be for the residents only.
DECISION: (a) Planning Permission granted subject to conditions as amended in condition 5, an additional condition on the parking area and an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report,or;
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission. |
Supporting documents: