Agenda item
Land next to Stonebridge Park Hotel, Hillside, Stonebridge, London NW10 (Ref.12/3026)
Decision:
Grant planning permission subject to amended conditions 7, 8, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21 and 22, additional condition on non-openable windows, revised Heads of Terms, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Redevelopment of site to provide 117 dwellings comprising 1 studio flat, 41
one-bedroom flats, 51 two-bedroom flats, 8 three-bedroom flats, 12 three-bedroom houses and 4 three-bedroom duplex maisonettes within 1- to 9-storey buildings and associated works including basement (incorporating plant and car park), new access pedestrian and vehicle accesses, amenity space, reconfiguration and works to existing canal feeder, public realm and other ancillary development.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to amended conditions 7, 8, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21 and 22, additional condition on non-openable windows, revised Heads of Terms, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager drew members’ attention to a number of amendments to conditions as set out in the tabled supplementary report. He also submitted the following responses to concerns raised by residents during the site visit;
In respect of community facilities, he stated that new and improved facilities which included a community hall, PCT Health Clinic, Fawood Nursery and a variety of community rooms had been delivered within the Hillside Hub which adjoined the application site.
He advised that given the decision to remove the high-rise tower blocks and provide the majority of homes as houses with front doors facing streets and private gardens (central to the regeneration of Stonebridge), it was expected that the amount of open space would decrease. He drew members’ attention to facilities for children’s play areas which were accessible and as such not considered to be segregated from the rest of the estate.
He submitted that the reasons why the height of the buildings was considered acceptable had been discussed in detail in the Committee report and drew members’ attention to other buildings within the estate which were in excess of the limit set out in the outline consent.
He considered that insufficient evidence had been put forward thus far by the NHS in its request to secure contributions towards healthcare from the development and that a meeting to discuss Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) requirements would be set up with the NHS to establish whether contributions should be sought from the development in the future.
Mrs Bridget Bainbridge in objecting to the proposed development stated that it would neither protect nor promote the interests of Stonebridge residents if planning permission was granted. She added that Stonebridge residents had expressed their objection to the scheme by submitting a 200 strong signature petition. She gave the principal reasons as follows:- inadequate communal open space, excessive height of the building (9 storey), lack of communal building and visionary landscape, all of which would result in a segregated community. She continued that charges for using the community centres available on the estate were not affordable to most of the residents. Mrs Bainbridge urged the Committee to reject the application until the concerns she had raised had been resolved by the applicant.
Nigel Swanton, the applicant’s agent, stated that a number of issues that were initially misunderstood had been clarified in the officer’s report. He continued that the community centres on the estate made only notional charges and did not make profits from their operations which were subsidised by Hyde Housing Association. He confirmed that the mix tenure would ensure that in excess of 50% of the units would be given for affordable housing.
In response to members’ questions Mr Swanton stated that 4-bedroom properties were not a feature of the scheme as they were neither desirable nor affordable. The car parking spaces had been increased to a level that exceeded parking standards and satisfied the requirements of the Council’s Highways section. In his view, the scheme would be quite open with community gardens for use by nearby residents and complied with the Stonebridge master plan in terms of height and open space and the council’s SPG17, in terms of sunlight and outlook.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended.
Supporting documents: