Agenda item

Refuse planning permission with amendments to reasons 1, 7 and 11 as set out in the supplementary.

PROPOSAL:

The erection of a rear extension to the temple, the demolition of 1, 3, 5 Deerhurst Road and the erection of 14 care home units, 6 elderly and visitor accommodation units, and 14 self-contained flats and two storey basement parking area with associated landscaping to the site.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager, informed members that the applicant had submitted further information relating to travel plans and other highway matters but which dealt with minor points only.  He drew members’ attention to the following outstanding key fundamental issues which remained unresolved;

a)         The significant impact of the existing use on on-street parking in             residential streets which would be made worse by the proposal.

b)          The applicant’s offer to allocate 21 car parking spaces to various uses; residential, care home and sheltered housing uses cannot be enforced through condition as it needs to be resolved as part  of the assessment of the development as a whole.

c)         The applicant had failed to relate the Travel Plan to baseline data            approach.

d)          Changes between ramped and level sections in the proposed two storey basement remained unclear.

Andy Bates reiterated the recommendation for refusal with amended reason 11 to take account of the key fundamental outstanding issues outlined above.

Mr John Mann, a local resident expressed concerns about the proposed development on the grounds of noise nuisance and a significant detrimental impact on the streetscene due to its size, height and siting.  Mr Mann added that the proposal also conflicted with several provisions of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan policies as set out in the officer’s report.

Mr George Binney raised the following issues in objection to the proposal;

(i)            Back garden development of the size and massing proposed should not be allowed to be built on.

(ii)          The Council should encourage sustainable transport policy and discourage car usage

(iii)         The proposal would compromise the residential character of the area.

In response to members’ questions, Mr Binney stated that the proposed development would be out of character with the existing residential area which was characterised by semi-detached and detached houses.  He added that two levels of underground car parking would encourage car usage to the detriment of the residential amenities of the area. The legal representative interrupted that it would be inappropriate to ask questions mainly relating to the contents of the booklets tabled by the applicant as the speaker had not previously seen them.

Mr Vekaria, in support of the application, highlighted the community services and community engagement including charity walks undertaken by the Temple.  He added that the proposal would provide affordable housing as well as further enhance the Temple’s community activities in the borough.

In response to members’ questions, Mr Vekaria stated that worshippers mostly drove to the Temple and that public transport was only used if worshippers considered it convenient.  He added that the provision of the underground car park was intended to minimise on-street parking and that the affordable housing would not be exclusive to the Temple’s worshippers. He also stated that the proposal would be set back adequately to prevent terracing effect.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Hirani, Lead Member for Adults and Mental Health and member for an adjoining ward stated that he had been approached by worshippers of the Temple.  He continued that the application was in response to the Temple’s worshippers desire to provide residential accommodation as part of the Temple’s community initiatives. He added that revisions had been made to the proposal with the dual purpose to mitigate concerns expressed by officers and reduce pressure on local parking facilities.  Councillor Hirani added that the scheme accorded with the Borough’s priorities in terms of providing sustainable help and empowering communities to take care of themselves.  In response to the Chair’s questions, Councillor Hirani compared the proposed footprint of the new building with the scope to extend the existing properties under permitted development rights.    

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shaw, ward member stated that she had been approached by the local residents.  Councillor Shaw in urging members to endorse officers’ recommendation for refusal expressed a view that the proposal would be contrary to local and national planning policies.  She added that the worshippers of the Temple were creating traffic chaos and parking problems in the area in particular during the weekends, causing traffic noise nuisance and in some cases obstruction to emergency vehicles.  Councillor Shaw continued that the creation of underground car parking facility would cause flooding in the area and a detriment to the foundations of nearby buildings. Members heard that the size, height and bulk would lead to loss of light and privacy and would also destroy the residential character of the Willesden area including local infrastructure.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Cheese, ward member stated that he had been approached by the local residents and worshippers of the Temple.  With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Councillor Cheese stated that the dismissal of the appeal for 66 Chatsworth Road did not support the officers’ recommendation as that application was different from the current application.  In his view, the proposed development would not create congestion in the area.  Councillor Cheese also referred to the community initiatives undertaken by the Temple to support his view that the application should be approved.

Mr Meg Hirani, the applicant’s agent stated the following reasons in support;

(i)            The size, scale and massing of the proposed development had not been substantially increased.

(ii)          There were no major differences in the bulk and height of the development as to make it incongruous within the area.

(iii)         As the character of the area lack homogeneity, the proposal would add to the area’s variety of character.

(iv)         With parking requirements reduced over the years, there would no major traffic and parking impact from the proposed development.

(v)          The proposal would provide a much needed specialist accommodation for the old age worshippers some of whom had been separated or divorced from their husbands.

In response to members’ questions, Mr Hirani stated that there had been a marginal increase in height by only 1.2metres and that attempts to reduce the scheme would not make it financially viable, although he alluded to funding of the project through donations.  He continued that the proposal had been set back and gaps between blocks had been maintained to ensure, in his view, the proposal complied with Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 (SPG17).  Members heard that the car park would not be for the exclusive use of the worshippers.  He added that the main uses of the proposed accommodation would be care homes, social and sheltered housing. 

During members’ contribution, some members highlighted the community initiatives of the Temple in their support for the application. Councillors Hashmi, Kansagra Oladapo and Singh took the view that the application should be deferred in order to take account of matters still outstanding as set out in the decision column (below).  Councillor Kataria who advised that he had visited the temple stated that there were no tangible reasons for deferral and stated that in his view, the application ought to be approved.  Councillors John and Powney urged refusal as recommended by the officers.  In addition Councillor Hashmi expressed the view that he was having difficulty in trying to understand what the applicant was seeking to achieve and as a result should go back to the drawing board with matters.

Prior to voting, Andy Bates clarified that officers’ maintained their concerns following earlier pre-application submissions.  He continued that without any gaps between blocks A-C, the proposal would adversely impact on the character of the area.  Whilst accepting the varied character of Willesden area, he stated that the examples provided by the applicant in the booklets tabled at the meeting were different in many respects from the proposed development.  The Head of Area Planning, Steve Weeks added that the application did not propose a Section 106 legal agreement which re-inforced officers’ concerns about the use of the residential accommodation.  He continued that deferral would result in the application passing its statutory timetable and that it was essential that members were explicit in their reasons for deferring the application.  The legal representative reconfirmed that members needed to focus on the planning merits of the application.

In moving an amendment for deferral, Councillor Kansagra submitted the following points to be considered by the applicant;

(i)            re-submit a scheme with reduced car parking and further details of allocation;

(ii)          reduced bulk and massing of the flats;

(iii)         revised stacking of the flats;

(iv)         clarity on the tenure of the accommodation and financial appraisal.

DECISION:  Deferred to enable the applicant to re-submit a scheme with reduced car parking and further details of allocation, reduced bulk and massing of the flats, revised stacking of the flats, clarity on the tenure of the accommodation and financial appraisal.

Voting on the amendment was recorded as follows;

FOR:               Councillors Aden, Hashmi, Kansagra, Oladapo

                         and Singh                                                                                        (5)

AGAINST:      Councillors Kataria, John and Powney                                       (3)

Abstention:    Councillor Sheth                                                                             (1)