Agenda item
20/1335 - Oman Court, Oman Avenue, London, NW2 6AY
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, the conditions (as amended below) and informatives as set out in the report:
Condition 10 – to be amended to include the proposed parking spaces in order ensure they are provided and made available prior to occupation. The condition to also require that the proposed spaces for the new dwelling remain ancillary to the development.
The inclusion of an additional Condition to require the submission and approval of revised bin storage details relating to collection distance
In addition it was RESOLVED:
· that in advance of the planning permission being issued a unilateral undertaking should be obtained relating to parking cost.
· An informative be included relating to the wider sites previous permission(s), the informative would advise the applicant to vary all condition/plans which would be amended as a result of this application.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Redevelopment of part of rear parking to Oman Court to build 2 x two-bed residential duplexes with gardens
RECOMMENDATION:
(a) That the Committee resolve to grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives as set out in the report, as well as securing a unilateral undertaking from the applicant.
(b) That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters as set out in the report.
(c) That the Head of Planning is 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.
Sarah Dilley, Planning Officer South Team, introduced the report, set out the key issues and answered members’ questions. In introducing the report members were advised that the application proposed two new dwellings to be located on the northern side of the existing car park to the rear of Oman Court. The dwellings would be part single, part two storey and would incorporate a front garden and parking space for each new dwelling. The proposal also includes the laying of block paving across a larger proportion of the car park.
Whilst no written supplementary update report had been provided the Committee were advised of the following clarifications and amendments to the original committee report:
· Within the summary of key issues section, reference had been made to the loss of seven parking spaces as a result of the development. However, as assessed within the main body of the report, clarification was provided that the proposed development would result in the loss of ten existing parking spaces.
· Reference had been made in Paragraph 47 of the Committee Report, that the agent had given the residents the opportunity to apply for parking permits and that this would attract a cost. The agent had subsequently clarified that the detailed terms and cost were not given to residents but rather residents were advised they could apply to the freeholder for a space.
· A change to condition 10, with it now recommended that the proposed parking spaces be included within the condition to ensure they were provided and made available prior to occupation. It was also recommended that the condition require the proposed spaces for the new dwelling to remain ancillary to the development.
David Connolly (objector) was then invited to address the Committee (as an online participant) in relation to the application who raised a number of concerns including:
· Local residents felt the application had been based on a serious breach of planning control relating to proximity to gardens and buildings.
· In terms of the original breach (relating to application 10/2012- Oman Court Penthouses) residents had also raised concerns relating to the impact of the development on parking although the Committee had been advised that 23 parking spaces had been proposed (as existing) within the retained parking court. However, a number of the existing lessees had subsequently been advised to remove their vehicles and not been invited back into the car park meaning the 23 car parking spaces were not retained as existing. This had been reported as a breach to the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team and was also been subject to a formal complaint.
· Whilst noting the clarification provided by the Planning Officer, regarding the contact between the agent and residents in relation to parking spaces residents remained concerned about the discretion being exercised by the block management company in dealing with applications for parking spaces along with the cost being charged, which it was felt should reflect the cost of on-street parking.
· The proximity and overshadowing of the development to adjoining properties and gardens in Oman Court and Olive Road with the development felt to fall short of the required guidelines.
· The difficulties experienced by lessees in ensuring the applicant adhered to conditions and specifications as part of previous planning consent granted.
· The adverse impact the proposed development would on residents in relation to amenity and overcrowding as a result of previous developments in relation to the Oman Court side extension and penthouse and Chronicle Height flats.
As the Committee had no questions for David Connolly the applicants agent, Dave Carroll, was then invited to address the Committee highlighting several matters including:
· The work undertaken to secure a design that has been carefully sculpted and a building carefully positioned to ensure that it delivered what the Council’s planning officer had described as ‘a good quality design that adequately respects the character and appearance of the surroundings’.
· The proposed development had complied with London Plan Housing standards and although the external amenity space was 3m (square) smaller than Brent’s standards, this was considered sufficient to satisfy the needs of future residents (noting also the presence of Gladstone Park in the area).
· In respect of car parking, whilst off-street car parking spaces would be lost that would leave five unassigned spaces within the parking court which the applicant had advised they would (if necessary secured via condition in relation to a car parking management plan) be prepared to rent to residents at a rate equivalent to those in the CPZ with sufficient additional on-street parking capacity also available.
· The replacement trees proposed had been deemed as acceptable by the Council alongside the proposed green roof.
· It was felt that the proposed development would not result in adverse harm to the amenity of nearby residents and their gardens.
In response to questions from members, Dave Carroll made the following points:
· In terms of further greening of the proposed development, whilst the development would include the removal of three trees these would be replaced with a green roof also proposed to the flat room and hedging to the boundaries of the front gardens. It was considered this would result in a more green visual appearance.
In the ensuing discussion, members raised several issues including the character and appearance of the development along with its impact in terms of distance and overlooking on neighbouring amenity, parking and bin storage access. Officers then clarified a number of key points including:
· The proposal was considered to be a good quality design that adequately respected the character of its surroundings and would have appropriate relationship with the surrounding buildings and street scene.
· The development had been assessed against loss of light, outlook and sense of enclosure on all neighbouring properties and was considered to comply with the relevant guidance contained in SPD1 and not result in adverse harm to the residential amenity of any nearby properties or their gardens.
· As refuse vehicles would be unable to access the site it was proposed that residents within the proposed development would place their bins in the communal bin storage area at the western end of Oman Court on collection days. Concerns expressed regarding the location and distance to the communal bin storage area could be addressed by inclusion of an additional condition requiring the submission and approval of revised bin storage details relating to collection distance.
· In relation to the issues highlighted on parking, officers considered (on the basis of the parking survey undertaken and reviewed by Brent Transport Team) that sufficient parking was available on and off-street to meet likely future demand. Whilst issues relating to the cost of parking could not be secured via planning condition, members were advised it would be possible for the Committee to request that an undertaking be obtained relating to parking costs as a means of addressing the concerns expressed.
· Whilst confirming that a case was ongoing in relation to a breach of a previous planning consent relating to the site, officers confirmed that this would not impact on the ability of the Committee to determine the current application, which it was noted would need to be considered on its current planning considerations and merit. The inclusion of an additional informative was also recommended relating to the wider sites previous permission(s), which would advise the applicant to vary all condition/plans amended as a result of this application.
With no further issues raised and having established that all member had followed the discussions, the Chair thanked all speakers for their contributions and asked members to vote on the recommendation.
DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, the conditions (as amended below) and informatives as set out in the report:
Condition 10 – to be amended to include the proposed parking spaces in order ensure they are provided and made available prior to occupation. The condition to also require that the proposed spaces for the new dwelling remain ancillary to the development.
The inclusion of an additional Condition to require the submission and approval of revised bin storage details relating to collection distance
In addition it was RESOLVED:
(1) that in advance of the planning permission being issued a unilateral undertaking should be obtained relating to parking cost.
(2) An informative be included relating to the wider sites previous permission(s), the informative would advise the applicant to vary all condition/plans which would be amended as a result of this application.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 6)
Supporting documents: