Agenda item
19/4434 Pharamond Garages, rear of 258-262 Willesden Lane, Willesden, London
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of the existing garages and redevelopment to provide a four storey building comprising 10 self-contained flats with associated car parking, cycle and refuse storage, amenity space and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION: Resolve to grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out within the Committee reports.
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the following matters within the Committee reports.
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 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.
Damian Manhertz (Development Management Team Leader) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions. He referenced the supplementary report highlighting amendments to address the issues regarding the proximity of balconies to the adjoining gardens and amendments to the first floor layout. He added that to address the privacy issues, the plans had relocated and re-sized balconies.
Rebecca Woolf (in remote attendance) objected to the proposed development for several reasons including the following;
· Loss of privacy to Chatsworth Road residents.
· Loss of outlook
· Loss of residential amenities in terms of usable shared outdoor and communal space. This would be necessary with the restrictions arising from Covid-19 pandemic.
· Potential problems with boundaries and lack of Party Wall Act notice.
· Inadequate provision of parking spaces and electric charging points.
· Detrimental impact on residents and access for emergency vehicles during construction.
Councillor Gbajumo (in remote attendance) speaking in a similar vein echoed the above. She added that whilst she was in favour of affordable homes, the application had not addressed residents’ concerns.
Kerry Csuka (agent, in remote attendance) addressed the Committee and answered members’ questions. She informed Members that the application for 10 genuinely affordable including larger family-sized homes at London Affordable Rent was the result on extensive consultation and feedback from residents. She added the following points;
· The proposed 4-storey building would be lower in height than the adjacent 6-storey Pharamond building and its height and massing further minimised through a flat roof and recessed top floor.
· The design would protect the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties and would be maintain an 18-metre separation distance.
· The submitted daylight and sunlight report confirmed that neighbouring properties would retain acceptable levels of daylight, sunlight and outlook.
· Re-provision of spaces, 1 on-site garage, 1 wheelchair space and 11 electric vehicle charging points, compliant with Brent’s maximum parking standards.
· Eleven low quality trees proposed to be removed would be replaced with a comprehensive landscaping and tree replacement strategy for 25 trees.
· Over 1,000 sqm of communal amenity space would also be retained and enhanced, through the provision of seating, new planting areas and opportunities for children’s play.
Members asked the Team Leader to respond to the issues raised during which the following points were noted;
· Issues relating to the Party Wall Act was not a material planning consideration.
· Planning decisions are made in accordance with the Development Plan and other relevant planning policies and guidance and that the current restrictions from the pandemic do not hold significant weight.
· The application would provide adequate separation distances to ensure the privacy and amenities of other neighbours.
· Adequate turning circles have been provided to enable access for emergency and refuse vehicles
With no further issues raised and the Chair, having established that all members had followed the discussions, asked members to vote on the recommendation.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended and subject to the amendments to condition 2 and the removal of condition 25 as set out within the supplementary report.
(Voting on the recommendation as amended was as follows: For 7, Against 0).
Supporting documents: