Agenda item
18/2006 97 Woodcock Hill, Harrow, HA3 0JJ
Decision:
Granted planning permission as recommended within the Committee report.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing sheltered housing (Use Class C2) and erection of a three storey building to provide 9 residential flats with associated landscaping, car parking and amenity space.
RECOMMENDATION:
GRANT planning permission and 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 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.
Mr Toby Huntingford (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, set out the key issues and answered Members’ questions.
Councillor Kansagra (ward member) stated that he had not been approached in connection with the application. Councillor Kansagra whilst welcoming the application stated that its height would exceed the height of surrounding houses
and by not being in line with top of the roofs of 93, 95 and 99 Woodcock Hill would be out of character and set a precedent for similar developments in the area.
Mr Adrian Campbell objected to the application raising several issues including the following:
· The application would breach a covenant attached to the property deeds that that requires that any alterations to the original property size should not exceed the original size or location.
· The development (as with the current building) would be out of character with the surrounding properties on the road.
· Inadequate provision of only 9 on site car parking spaces which was likely to result in parking overspill to the neighbouring streets with potential increases in safety risk and vehicular accidents.
Mr Reginald Lake (objector) echoed similar sentiments.
Mr Bryan Staff and Mr Joao Goncalves (project planner and architect respectively) addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions. The following points were noted:
· The use of the property for sheltered housing was no longer required (as confirmed by Council’s adult social care services) and as such the loss of the facilities would not have a negative impact on Brent’s ability to appropriately meet the needs of residents in the borough.
· The existing building is an anomaly in the street scene and contributed very little to the character, appearance and visual amenities of the locality.
· The development of 9 flats, predominantly comprising family sized accommodation would be of a high quality and a sustainable design, making efficient and effective use of a brownfield site which national, regional (London Plan) and local planning policies strongly advocate to ensure the successful delivery of housing for a sustainable future.
· The revisions made to the scheme through consultation with neighbours and officers had addressed previous concerns, resulting in a design that respected the characteristics and the streetscene of the locality.
· The minor shortcomings in relation to the guidance set out within SPD1, was not not as excessive compared to the existing development and thus no demonstrable harm would result.
· The redevelopment of the site would include a significant proportion of soft landscaping, softening elements of the built form, particularly in relation to the adjacent residential properties and allowing the proposal to assimilate successfully with its surroundings and with suitable levels of off street parking proposed to lessen the visual impact.
Members asked officers to clarify issues relating to the covenant, style and scale of the proposal, parking and impact on the nearby conservation areas. The following responses were note:
· The covenant to which the objector referred was not a valid planning consideration.
· The scale of the building incorporating flat roof instead of pitched roof would be sympathetic to the streetscene.
· The scheme would provide adequate for car parking than would be required and although not envisaged, any unlikely parking overspill could be accommodated in the street without impact on vehicular safety.
· Although situated in between 2 conservation areas, the application would not have any impact on the conservation areas.
With no further issues raised and having established that all members had followed the discussions, the Chair thanked all speakers for their contributions and asked members to vote on the recommendation. Members voted by a majority decision to approve the application.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended within the Committee report.
(Voting on the decision was as follows: For 7; Against 1)
Supporting documents: