Agenda, decisions and minutes

8.         First floor, 1-3 Lonsdale Road, London NW6 6RA (Ref. 11/3247)

Councillor Cummins declared that he knew the applicant’s parents.  Councillor Cummins indicated his intention to withdraw from the meeting room during consideration of this application and take no part in the discussion or voting.

13.       Ground and first floors, 967 Harrow Road, Wembley HA0 2SF

Councillors Daly and Ketan Sheth declared that that had been approached by objectors to the application.  Councillors Daly and Ketan Sheth indicated their intention to withdraw from the meeting room during consideration of this application and take no part in the discussion or voting.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 15 February 2012 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

Planning permission granted as recommended.

Planning permission granted as recommended and as amended in the supplementary report and with additional amendments to condition 4 relating to landscaping.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Planning permission refused as recommended.

The application was deferred at the Planning Committee on 18 January 2012 to allow time to gather further information regarding residents' and Ward Councillors' concerns about anti-social behaviour in the area and in particular to seek the views of, and evidence from, the Metropolitan Police's Safer Neighbourhoods Team for Fryent Ward.  Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manger informed the Committee that as a result of the evidence gathered, officers had reconsidered the merits and harm of the application and had concluded the application should be refused for reasons set out in the main report.

Mr Keith Martin, Secretary of Springfield Estate Residents’ Association, welcomed the Committee’s decision at the last meeting to defer the application for further evidence.  He continued that a meeting of the Association, Ward Councillors, Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) and the Metropolitan Police agreed that anti-social behaviour which had in the past resulted in dispersal orders would be on the increase if the application was approved.  In addition, parking provision would be inadequate to support the proposed change of use to slot machine arcade.  Mr Martin endorsed the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor J Moher, ward member, stated that he had been approached by the local residents.  Councillor J Moher in endorsing the officer’s recommendation for refusal added that his views were also shared by the other Fryent ward members.

Planning permission granted as recommended with additional informative relating to construction hours.

Planning permission granted as recommended.

Planning permission granted as recommended.

Members noted an advice by the Director of Legal and Procurement to issue a fresh permission under Section 73.  In view of the advice, officers recommended that the relevant conditions from the original permission ref:11/1956 be included in this consent.

Planning permission refused as recommended.

Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager confirmed advice from Housing Services that they did not anticipate that they would use or need the level of accommodation proposed.  He then referred to a petition against the proposed development which effectively endorsed the recommendation for refusal.

Mrs Dawn Reidy, speaking on behalf of Brent Eleven Streets (BEST), objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would lead to the loss of an existing historic building which made a strong contribution to the historic street scene in that part of Kilburn and which she felt deserved to be listed.  She added that the doubling of the size of the hostel accommodation would have an adverse impact on the area particularly with several other developments that had taken place within the area.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Arnold, ward member, stated that she had been approached by the objectors to the application.  Councillor Arnold stated that the grant of planning permission would not only double the density of units but also result in the loss of a building of Victorian architecture.  She also referred to complaints she had received regarding management and environmental issues of the existing hostel. Councillor Arnold endorsed the recommendation for refusal.  

Nick Taylor, the applicant’s agent stated that the current cost of providing the hostel accommodation was becoming prohibitive and that the building, in its current state, did not conform to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).  In his view there was a strong demand for short term hostel accommodation for Brent residents and others from neighbouring boroughs.  He added that as the occupiers would stay temporarily, the officer’s reasons 6, 7 and 8 for recommending refusal as set out in the main report would not be applicable.  Nick Taylor continued that by using obscure glazing, the proposal would not result in overlooking or loss of privacy.

Planning permission granted as recommended with additional condition relating to the control of any delivery vehicles and amendments to condition 5 relating to odours and fumes.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager stated that most of the issues raised by the objectors had been addressed in the main report.  He added that in relation to noise, disturbance and pollution from existing takeaways Environmental Health Officers had provided information to confirm that there had been no complaints in the past three years in relation to litter or pest problems associated with take-ways on this stretch of Kilburn Lane. In conclusion he stated that the proposal was not considered to have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residents or other existing uses in the area.

Tracey Brent (local shop keeper), stated that as there were three (3) similar businesses in the area there was no need for a further takeaway as it would constitute an over-concentration of use.  She added that the proposed use would create a detrimental impact in terms of noise, smells and other environmental health issues including pest problems.

In response to members’ questions, Andy Bates referred to an amended condition 5 which addressed issues relating to ventilation and odours.  He added that with only four (4) such uses out of seventeen (17) commercial units in that shopping parade, the proposed change of use would not constitute an over-concentration.  He clarified the differences in use between the proposal and public houses and added that the proposal in itself would not worsen the traffic situation in the area.  Steve Weeks added that a justification would have to be made to require “no deliveries” to the site.  He however recommended an additional condition requiring that no food deliveries would be allowed unless the applicant had made a provision which had been agreed by officers regarding the storage of delivery vehicles.

Councillor Daly having commented on traffic impact, problems from delivery vehicles and noise nuisance put forward an amended motion for deferral.  This was put to the vote and declared lost. 

Planning permission granted as recommended and amended in the supplementary report and with additional Informative relating to construction hours.

Planning permission granted as recommended and amended in the supplementary report and with an additional condition relating to the refuse storage area.

Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager in reference to the tabled supplementary report drew members’ attention to letters of support of the application.  He added a further recommendation in response to a resident’s request for an additional condition on amplified music and public address system in order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents.  He referred to the applicant’s request for extended opening hours which he considered to be in excess of similar developments in Lonsdale Road and which had led to residents’ initial concerns.  In reiterating the recommendation for approval as amended, he considered that condition 5 as set out in the main report would be appropriate to protect neighbouring amenity.

Mr Mark Gautier, the applicant reiterated his request to members for the hours of opening to start from 08:00 hours instead of 10:00 hours at weekends.

In response to that Andy Bates pointed out that the recommended hours would be an acceptable balance to protect residential amenity and in response to Councillor Cummins’ enquiry added an additional condition on refuse storage. 

Planning permission granted subject to conditions as recommended and additional condition relating to the location and access to refuse collection.

Neil McClellan corrected that the proposed office use should be B1 use and not B2 as stated elsewhere in the main report. He then responded to the issues raised at the Committee site visit.  He informed the Committee that the application met the maximum parking standard and that the Council’s Transport Officer had confirmed that the servicing standard for the extended building would be met by the 8m long vehicle bay to be accessed from Harrow Road, as proposed in the amended scheme. He continued that conditions were proposed restricting the width and height of vehicles entering the site from The Boltons thereby ensuring that the rear of the site can only be accessed by cars, thus minimising impact on road safety. In officers’ view, the modest increase of additional 2 car parking spaces to be accessed via The Boltons was not considered likely to have a negative impact on highway conditions in the Boltons. 

He confirmed that the proposal which was for 106sqm was below the threshold level at which B1 office space would require S106 contributions.  He continued that as the proposed development would result in 156sqm of additional floor space, it would have qualified for the Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), adding that the CIL would not take effect until April 2012.

Mr Sarkis Zacharian an objector stated that the due to its height and proximity to the boundary of nearby residential property, the proposed development would lead to loss of light and over-shadowing.  He considered that in its current form, the proposal would be an over-development of the site. He urged that the applicant be requested to revise the plans.

Mr Mohan an objector raised concerns about the rear access to the building which he felt would encourage pavement parking to the detriment of residential amenity and also obstruct the movement of refuse trucks to The Boltons. 

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Lorber, ward member, stated that he had been approached by objectors and the local residents. Councillor Lorber stated that the rear access to the site would create difficulties for vehicle movement.  The situation would be made worse in terms of enforcement as the area was not within a controlled parking zone (CPZ).  He therefore emphasised the need to retain the closure of the rear access.  Councillor Lorber urged members to defer the application and request the applicant to submit a revised scheme.

In responding to the concerns on access, Neil McClellan reiterated the advice by the Council’s Transportation officer that access to the building via the rear yard and parking would be acceptable.

In the ensuing discussion, Councillor Hashmi expressed concerns about the narrowness of the rear access and the problems that were likely to be caused as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Planning permission granted subject to conditions as recommended.

Planning permission granted as recommended with an additional condition relating to sustainable drainage materials and a correction to Condition 5 referring to the British Standard.

Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager informed members that the scheme had been amended to two 3-storey houses for which the section 106 financial contribution had also been revised to £183,600.  He then responded to a number of issues raised at the site visit which required clarification. He advised that the quality of accommodation complied with the minimum floor space standards set out in the current London Plan and external amenity and play space standards.  He referred members to condition 8 which covered landscaping and sought to address issues about boundary security to the rear. He advised members that the Council’s Highways officers had re-confirmed their view that the proposed access arrangements would be satisfactory in road safety terms.  Neil McClellan drew members’ attention to condition 5 that sought to control noise and disturbance during demolition and construction, adding that the s106 agreement required the developer to join and adhere to the considerate construction scheme.

The Chair exercised his discretion to allow three (3) objectors in view of the prior agreement to requests to speak and the late request by a resident adjoining the site.

Mrs Myers, speaking on behalf of the neighbour at 152 Elmstead Avenue stated that whilst she was not against the principle of development on the site, she had concerns about the height of the scheme.  She stated that the development should not exceed two storeys so as to match the character of the properties in Elmstead Avenue and prevent loss of privacy.  She also expressed concerns about noise and disturbance during demolition and construction.

Mr Paul Horwitz expressed concerns (on behalf of the resident at 182 Elmstead Avenue) on the density which he felt would constitute an over-development of the site and the height of the proposed development which would lead to loss of privacy.  He added that the parking problems in the Elmstead Avenue area would be made worse by the development.  Mr Horwitz also expressed concerns about noise and disturbance during demolition and construction on the 88 year old resident at No. 182.

Monica Patel, representative of Elmstead Avenue Residents’ Association expressed concerns about the development on the following grounds;

(i)        The height, design, layout and appearance would not fit in with the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

(ii)       The proposed development, due to its five-storey height, would overshadow the back gardens and rear living areas of adjacent properties, resulting in a loss of privacy for adjacent properties.

(iii)      The proposal would significantly increase traffic in an already heavily congested area leading to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Approval to vary the proposed Head of Terms granted as recommended.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager corrected a typographical error in the main report that the payment per square metre should read £2,508 and not £2,058.  He also clarified the affordable housing required to be provided on-site.

RESOLVED:

that the planning and enforcement appeals for December 2011 and January 2012 be noted.

None.

The date of next meeting would be announced at the Annual meeting of the Council in May 2012.

The meeting ended at 10:30pm

COUNCILLOR KETAN SHETH

Chair

Note: at 8:30pm, the meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes.