Agenda item
Garages rear of 27-34, Oxgate Court, Coles Green Road, London, NW2 (Ref. 12/0275)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Tuesday 17 April 2012 7.00 pm (Item 4.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 4.
Decision:
(a) Grant planning permission, subject to conditions, informatives and 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: Demolition of 14 no. existing garages and erection of a residential development of 14 units comprising six no. three-bed dwellinghouses and eight no. two-bed flats and associated means of enclosure and hard and soft landscape to provide 14 car parking spaces, secure cycle storage for 20 bicycles and refuse storage.
|
RECOMMENDATION: (a) Grant planning permission, subject to conditions, informatives and 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.
|
With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager responded to a number of issues raised by local residents and Councillor Hopkins, ward member. In respect of concerns about highway safety and visibility of access, she informed the Committee that since a turning head would be provided within the site and all vehicles would be able to exit the site in forward gear, officers were satisfied that the development would not result a material change to highway and pedestrian safety. She continued that the provision of one parking space for each house and two visitors’ spaces would be sufficient to meet the expected demand for parking generated by the development.
Rachel McConnell advised members that whilst there was a problem with anti-social behaviour, it was not related to the site and that there was no evidence that the residential development would lead to an increase in such behaviour. She continued that following consultations with the Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser, the applicants had made minor amendments to the scheme including revised bin store position for which condition 2 had been amended and boundaries with Crest Road for which a further condition was proposed to secure the provision of further details. She updated members that the applicant had confirmed that the rear and side wall would be retained and that further details on low level lighting would be secured by condition. Members heard that the revised Sustainability Checklist score of 48% was marginally below the usual 50% sought for schemes of this nature, however, officers were satisfied that it represented an improvement sought by policy 5.2 of the London Plan 2011.
Mr Neil Walsh, an objector, expressed concerns about pedestrian safety, access to and from the estate and traffic congestion. He added that the situation would be exacerbated with two bus stops closely nearby to the estate, a situation which led to a fatality some three years ago.
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Hopkins, ward member stated that she had been approached by objectors and residents. Councillor Hopkins stated that although she supported the principle of the development for affordable housing on the site, she expressed concerns about the density of the development which she considered to be excessive due to lack of a play area and smaller private gardens. She continued that access into and out of the estate would cause problems due to impaired visibility for motorists and with two bus stops closely nearby, the likelihood of serious accidents would be greater as motorists drove past parked bus stops. Councillor Hopkins requested that the arrangement for the road layout be revisited and that building work during construction should be properly controlled. With that in mind, Councillor Hopkins requested members to require the applicant to submit further details prior to commencement of construction.
Mr Stephen Davy, the applicant’s architect stated that the density of the proposed development was within the London Plan with each dwelling unit having its own private garden in addition to the communal space. He added that traffic calming measures would be introduced to make the development safe for both residents and visitors. Mr Davy continued that as a registered social landlord, his client would carry out the development to specifications and conditions, adding that the client would also welcome additional conditions if they were felt necessary for the development.
In response to the Chair’s enquiry about privacy and outlook, Mr Davy stated that privacy would be maintained throughout the development and as an added measure the high brick wall of the garages would be retained. He continued that by increasing the boundaries with properties in Crest Road to 2.4metres, the development would not result in overlooking, loss of outlook and loss of privacy. He advised members that access would not be a problem and that the Council’s Transportation unit were satisfied with the access arrangements.
During question time, Councillor Mitchell-Murray enquired as to whether officers had consulted with Transport for London (TfL) about relocating the bus stops nearby. The Chair also invited officers to comment on measures to control construction work. Rachel McConnell stated that as no alterations were proposed to the bus stops and as Coles Green Road not classified as a distributor road, there was no statutory requirement to consult with TfL. She advised members that condition 12 had been recommended to address concerns about construction work. Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning, suggested that condition 15 could be amended to require further consideration to the design and surface treatment of the access, with advice from the Head of Transportation. He acknowledged concerns regarding the safety of Coles Green Road and as a separate matter would request that Brent’s Transportation liaise with TfL regarding safety concerns and mitigation.
DECISION: |
(a) Granted planning permission, subject to conditions, amendment to Condition 15 to require further consideration to the design and surface treatment of the access, informatives and 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: