Agenda item
Thames Water Utilities, St Michaels Road, London NW2 6XD (Ref. 11/1135)
Decision:
Planning permission granted as recommended and as amended in the supplementary report and with additional amendments to condition 4 relating to landscaping.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing industrial buildings and erection of a residential development comprising 23 houses (17 x 4-bed, 5 x 3-bed, 1 x 2-bed) and 16 flats (2 x 3-bed, 10 x 2-bed flats, 4 x 1-bed flats), with 44 parking spaces and associated landscaping and cycle storage with combined vehicular and pedestrian access via existing access from St Michael's Road and pedestrian access onto Olive Road accompanied by a Design & Access Statement and as amended by revised plans received 29/02/12.
|
RECOMMENDATION: (a) Grant Planning Permission, subject to conditions as amended in conditions 2 and 4, 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 responded to the issues that were raised by members at the site visit. In respect of traffic and parking spaces, she stated that each unit would have one parking space in addition to five visitor parking spaces. She continued that as only maintenance work and vehicles associated with them would be accommodated, vehicular use would fall considerably and accordingly the scheme would not worsen the existing situation on the local highway network.
On residential amenity, Rachel McConnell advised members that as the nearest houses would be at least 14m away, she was satisfied that the relationship would be acceptable. She added that the high quality of architecture and proposed landscaping which would be secured via conditions would improve the setting of the landmarks without detracting from them. She referred to the Section 106 financial contribution of £329,400 for local infrastructure of which a substantial percentage could be made available for helping to provide additional school places. In reiterating the recommendation for approval, Rachel McConnell drew members’ attention to an amendment to condition 2 to include correct revisions of approved plans as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
Ms Ruth Roth objected to the proposed development on the following grounds;
i) It would destroy the green space.
ii) It would have a detrimental impact on school places in the area.
iii) Additional traffic would result creating congestion and parking problems.
Mrs Jayne Graham objected to the application on the grounds that it would result in the loss of trees and the park. She continued that Olive Road was already densely populated and that an additional development as proposed would increase the population density with additional impact on local school places. Mrs Graham added that the proposed development would be out of character with properties in the area.
Mrs Linda Aitken, the applicant’s consultant started by saying that she had met with different community groups regarding the application for the development which was located within a brownfield site and which, in her view, was a blight on Gladstone Park. She added that the development would reduce considerably the number of vehicles to and from the site. She continued that with a significant amount of orchid trees to protect the hedgerows and the use of opaque glazing in some of the windows the development would not create overlooking or loss of privacy.
During members’ questioning, Councillor Hashmi asked about any measures that the applicant had taken to address the parking situation. Councillor Daly asked about the number of proposed replacement trees and the design aspects of the development. The Chair requested the consultant to comment on the alleged loss of wildlife.
Mrs Aitken stated that a total of 44 car parking spaces (incl. four disabled) and two bicycle stores were proposed around the site, with the majority of the proposed houses having off-street car parking within their curtilage. She added that although the scale of the proposal was unlikely to have a significant impact on the local transportation network, a supporting Transport Statement had been provided which demonstrated that the overall transport impact would be acceptable and that the parking provisions complied with standard PS14 of the adopted UDP 2004. She continued that about fifty three (53) new trees would be planted and that the design of the low density development accorded with the London Plan. Mrs Aitken informed the Committee that there was no wildlife corridor on the site.
Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning in responding to questions about aesthetic enhancements and encroachment stated that a condition had been imposed to ensure that acceptable materials would be used so as to ensure that the aesthetic quality of the development did not suffer. He added that Thames Water were running down their operational contractors on the site who were moving elsewhere. He suggested an amendment to condition 4 to require replacement planting within 5 years.
DECISION: (a) Planning permission granted subject to conditions as amended in conditions 2 and 4 as set out in the tabled supplementary report, 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: