Agenda item
Garages R/O 129-145, 145A & Land R/O 151-157, Melrose Avenue, London, NW2 4LY (Ref.11/2414)
Decision:
(a) Planning permission granted, 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. |
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Erection of five x two-storey dwellinghouses with basements comprising two x four-bed semi-detached houses and three x four-bed terraced houses, eight car-parking spaces, provision of bin store and bicycle stands, with associated hard and soft landscaping and means of enclosure (in place of one x three bed and two x four bed dwellinghouses and eight parking spaces which formed part of the previously approved scheme with LPA ref: 06/1117). |
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.
|
In clarifying the issues raised at the site visit, Rachel McConnell (Area Planning Manager) stated that the proposed ground level would be similar to the original ground level where it adjoined the gardens of properties in Gay Close and Kenneth Crescent. She continued that the site had always been at a higher level than the Gay Close gardens. She added that the tree adjacent to the Kenneth Crescent and Gay Close boundaries was intended to be retained but if it died, it would be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 (two new trees to one lost tree). She advised the Committee that Building Control were seeking a land drain to be provided for the garden area in order to assist drainage.
In respect of the concerns expressed by residents of Gay Close on overlooking, Rachel McConnell stated that the closest point between habitable room windows of 20m complied with the standards within SPG17 and that no harm would arise from loss of privacy as amplified in the Planning Inspector's decision. She noted the residents' disagreement on the height of the fence and added that the height (between 2m and 2.8m) was a reflection of the general consensus of residents. In respect of the revised plans submitted by the applicant which showed the removal of the first floor rear projecting balconies and landscape plans, she suggested an amendment to condition 2 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
Mr Phillip Jeffrey objecting on behalf of a resident of Gay Close stated that as Gay Close was below the levels of the proposed development it would create an overbearing aspect to the residents. He suggested that the following measures to ameliorate the impact: an increase of the fence height to 3.4m; proposed landscaping should be designed in conjunction with the residents of Gay Close.
Mr Sean McDonagh, the applicant's agent, stated that the proposed development which incorporated additional landscaping was in accordance with existing planning guidance and policies. He continued that although the applicants were willing to open negotiations with residents on the height of the fence, the proposed height reflected the general consensus of residents. He confirmed that the applicants would work in partnership with the residents on the proposed landscaping.
Councillor Hashmi requested confirmation that the maintenance of the boundary fence would be the responsibility of the applicant. Rachel McConnell suggested amending condition 7 by inserting the words ‘maintained thereafter’.
DECISION: (a) Planning permission granted, subject to conditions as amended in condition 2 and 7, 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. |
(c) To delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to consider the need for changes to the informative.
Supporting documents: