Agenda and minutes

Members are invited to declare, at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interests in the items on this agenda.

17        09/1312          GEKO House, Kimberley Road, London NW6 7SG

Councillor Green declared that he lived few metres away from the application site. He withdrew from the meeting room and took no part in the discussion or voting during consideration of this application.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 26 August 2009 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting subject to the following amendments:-

09/1414          4 Beechworth, Willesden Lane NW6

In paragraph 4, delete “J Moher” and insert “R Moher”.

Delete “Councillor Hirani” from the voters list.

09/1419          979-981 Harrow Road Wembley HA0

Show “R Moher” as having voted FOR and amend the figures accordingly.

With reference to the supplementary information the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks informed the Committee that as the additional rear extension at the application site was flush with the extension at No. 22 Valley Drive and set away from the boundary with no.26, it was not considered to adversely impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.  In reference to the application for No. 26 Valley Drive which was not recommended for approval, he clarified that the rear extension would have been in excess of 3.0m in depth against its neighbouring property, No. 28 Valley Drive which did not have a similar extension along the boundary.

Mr Daniel Kneafsey speaking on behalf of his parents and in objection to the application stated that the proposed two-storey rear extension would lead to loss of light to their main living area and kitchen area thus forcing the family to rely more heavily on unnatural light. He added that the proposed development which would have a dominant effect on their lives would have a detrimental impact on their visual amenity.  He continued that the additional 2 bedrooms would lead to an increased demand for parking in a section of the road that was already over-crowded.  For the above reasons, Mr Kneafsey urged members to consider a site visit before deciding on the application.

During debate, Councillor Baker moved an amendment for a site visit which was put to the vote and declared carried.

With reference to the tabled supplementary information, the Planning Manager Geoff Hewlett informed the Committee about an additional letter of objection from Barnhill Residents’ Association reiterating its members’ concerns about the works not being implemented in accordance with the approved plans and their suspicion that the house was likely to be converted into flats.  He stated that the issues raised by the Association had been dealt with in the main report.  He clarified the description of the proposal by correcting the description to the "erection of two-storey, end-of-terrace dwellinghouse with single storey rear extension and front porch, installation of vehicle access, provision of car-parking, refuse storage to front and landscaping to site”.

Mrs Patricia Marcar objected to the proposed development on grounds of its massing, density, loss of outlook, views and sunlight and parking problems.  She added that the proposal would follow the undesirable precedent set at No. 63 Beverley Gardens which was noted for its unauthorised use.

In responding to the issues raised about possible conversion into flats, the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks stated that the layout of the floor plans did not suggest that the property would be converted into flats and that planning permission would be required for a change of use from a single family dwellinghouse.  He added that the change of use of this property to flats would be unacceptable as it would fail to comply with the Council's policies for flat conversions in heavily parked streets which required a minimum original floor area of 140sqm.  He continued that, aware of the unauthorised works which were currently taking place at No. 63 Beverley Gardens, enforcement action had been authorised for both the unauthorised conversion of the property into four self-the Head of Area Planning stated that whilst concerns over the impact of development were noted, on balance the scheme was considered an acceptable response to providing much-needed family housing without causing harm to either the character of the area or the amenity of neighbouring and future occupants.

In the discussion that followed, Councillor Cummins moved an amendment for a site visit in order to assess the impact of the development at the site and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Planning Manager, Geoff Hewlett, referred to an additional representation from a neighbour requesting the existing hedge to be replaced with a structure of approximate equal height in order to preserve privacy and security.  In response he confirmed that the hedge and the existing fence of 1.8m would be retained as part of the proposal.  In order to reinforce this requirement, he recommended an additional condition as set out in the tabled supplementary information that required the applicant to submit details of the boundary treatment in order to minimise impact on privacy.  Mindful of the impact of the level differences in the rear garden he also recommended an additional condition requiring the applicant to submit for approval, further details of the patio area and access arrangements.

The applicant, Mrs Soneji expressed satisfaction with the additional conditions and therefore withdrew her request to address the Committee.  

With reference to the tabled supplementary information, the Head of Area Planning addressed the concerns raised by residents at the site visit.  He continued that the issue of anti social behaviour was discussed with Borough’s Police's Crime Prevention Design Advisor who raised no objection to the proposal, its siting and location but made a suggestion about lighting along the west-east footpath so as to avoid light spillage into the MUGA.   This would be added as an informative.  He reported that PC Mark Kirby from the Safer Neighbourhoods Team had advised that they had no issues with the Tenterden Car Park and playing fields and that complaint received about drug-dealing and other anti-social behaviour in the area had not been confirmed.  The Head of Area Planning added that the main concern expressed by the residents of Silverholme Close was in connection with Sunday league footballers’ parking in Silverholme Close and the difficulty by emergency vehicles in accessing the site.

In response to additional comments from Sport England on siting and representations from Forest United FC about the use of the site for football clinic, the Head of Area Planning stated that the siting of the MUGA had been relocated so that it was 10m away from the north/south footpath and east/west footpath at its closest point.  This would allow space for the continued use of the area to the west by Forest United FC for their "football clinic" and would also allow space to the north of the MUGA for a seven-a-side pitch.  He added that the MUGA would not affect the pitch used by Brent's NALGO.

Mr William Kemp an objector stated that whilst he agreed with the principle of MUGAs, he felt that this MUGA would lack the requisite openness, and by being proximate to residential properties, it would obscure views from Woodcock Hill and result in loss of residential amenities.  He emphasised that the MUGA would result in an anti social behaviour within the site and the public area around it, contrary to the views expressed.

Mrs Karen Flann Secretary of Preston Amenities Protection Association (PAPA) also stated that whilst she supported the MUGA in principle, there were serious concerns expressed by residents which needed addressing.  These included the need to lock the MUGA at night, the exclusive use of the MUGA by Forest United Football Club, drug taking and other criminal activities.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice Councillor Colwill, a ward member stated that he had not been approached in connection with the MUGA.  Councillor Colwill informed the Committee that he was not aware of any complaints from residents about the MUGA.  In endorsing the views expressed by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Planning Manager Geoff Hewlett reported that since the main report was written, the applicant had amended the application.  This had resulted in the removal of the proposed vehicle gates onto Gay Close and the provision of pedestrian access onto the highway. He then referred to the objections raised and the officer’s responses to them, as set out in the main and the supplementary information tabled at the meeting.  He added that the Council’s Highways and Transportation Unit had confirmed that they had no objections to the amendments to the scheme including the removal of the proposed vehicle access.  In view of the changes to the scheme, he recommended an amendment to condition 5 and the deletion of conditions 2 and 4 as set out in the tabled supplementary information.

Mr Richard Lacey stated his objections to the pedestrian access from Melrose Avenue to Gay Close adding that the access would materially affect the character of Gay Close.  He added that by allowing pedestrian access via the gates to Gay Close, the proposal would set a precedent for similar undesirable developments in the area.  Mr Lacey also objected on grounds of possible increase in car parking in the area. He urged members to refuse the application for the above reasons.

Ms Tamala Anderson the applicant, confirmed that there would be no right of way from her property and/or Melrose Avenue to Gay Close and therefore residents’ objections about adverse impact on the character of the area were not valid. She added that the gates and fence would match those of No. 167 Melrose Avenue, thus maintaining consistency of character.  In response to a member’s question, Ms Anderson confirmed that the property would remain a single family dwelling.

In responding to some of the issues raised, the Head of Area Planning clarified that planning permission for a vehicular access would not be required as it did not lead into a principal road and that the report considered the implications of controlling access points to limit the impact on parking and servicing.

With reference to the tabled supplementary information, the Planning Manager Geoff Hewlett clarified the issue of potential impact of the proposal on existing trees and added that a Tree Protection Method Statement setting out details of appropriate measures to prevent further damage was recommended in condition 3.  He continued that Transportation officers had requested the provision of a School Travel Plan to support the application in the interest of promoting sustainable travel and accordingly an informative had been added to that effect. He drew members’ attention to amendments in conditions 3, 6 and 7 as set out in the tabled supplementary.  The Head of Area Planning, Steve Weeks, also recommended a further condition to control construction methodology.

The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks updated members that following the applicant's decision to amend the submitted proposals including the removal of the proposed rear extension, the objector had formally withdrawn, in writing, their objection to the application.  As a result, Ward Councillors Emily Tancred and Will Motley had also withdrawn their "call-in" requests.

In noting the update, members asked the Head of Area Planning Weeks to satisfy himself that the proposed rear extension referred to in the supplementary information was shown as removed in the plans submitted by the applicant.

The Planning Manager, Andy Bates referred to additional representations objecting to the proposed change of use on grounds of additional traffic and parking problems, the need to extend the existing CPZ hours of operation and the availability of an existing Christian Church offering a similar facility on the High Road.  He stated that the objection about an existing Christian Church was not material to the determination of the application and that the rest of the objections had been addressed in the main report.  He reported that the applicants had confirmed that a metal palisade fence which had been erected around the car-park, and which was not considered by Officers to relate well to the setting of the listed building, would be removed within a month.  The Planning Manager drew members’ attention to comments by the Borough Solicitor on the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 legal agreement, amendments to conditions 4 and 7 and an additional condition as set out in the tabled supplementary.

Mr Dicks objected to the proposed change of use on grounds of significant impact on noise from the lift shaft and motor on the residential amenities of Brondesbury Mews.  He requested that the contractors’ hours of work be limited to 09.00 to 17.00 hours in order to protect and safeguard the amenity and integrity of the Mews.

Mr Ed Fordham a supporter stated that the proposed change of use would bring back into use a building of historical significance within the Kilburn area and address the previous unsuccessful attempts for its use including cinema use.

Mr Richard De Boise the applicant’s agent stated that with the provision of adequate parking spaces, traffic flow and parking in the vicinity would not be a problem unless the congregation exceeded 1,600 (600 more than the expected congregation).  He requested the Committee to re-consider the requirement for the applicant to make a contribution of £20,000 to the Council for local transport mitigation as part of the s106 agreement.  In response to members’ questions, Mr De Boise confirmed that a Travel plan would be submitted as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

The Head of Area Planning reported that the Council had received an amended plan indicating that there would be no sub-division of the garden area.  He added that entry to the flat would be through Montrose Avenue and that refuse bins would be located behind the flank wall rather than being in the street.

Councillor Cummins remarked that as members had not seen the amended plans it would be difficult for them to visualise the development which was likely to take up majority of the rear garden area.  In response, Steve Weeks explained the relationship of the conservatory extension to the building and garden and recommended a further condition to be imposed requiring detailing of refuse collection to be submitted.

Steve Weeks informed the Committee that following with the applicants, Council officers and ward members, the applicant had formally requested that consideration of the application be deferred in order to allow for more time to consider the feasibility of alternative sites and options.

With reference to the tabled supplementary information, the Planning Manager Andy Bates clarified the actual increase in height adding that in general, the proposed height of GEKO House would be approximately 3.3m lower than Kimberley Court and approximately 1m lower than the main roof of the top flats of Hoopers Yard. He also referred to a further letter of support from the applicant’s agent.

Mr David Keighley objected to the proposed development on the following grounds:

            Loss of privacy

            Loss of security

            Overbearing

            Inadequate parking facilities

            Detrimental impact on residential amenities.

Ms Xenia Wall an objector stated that there was no material difference between this and a previous application that was refused by the Committee.  She continued that the proposal which she considered to be an over-development of the site would lead to over-looking, loss of privacy and loss of daylight to living areas of her property. Ms Wall felt that she had not been given adequate information on the changes to the plans for a proposal which would generate an increase in traffic and associated parking problems.

Mr Julian Sutton the applicant’s agent stated that the proposal which complied with Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 (SPG 17) would have significant benefits including sustainability.  He added that none of the windows would overlook other properties and therefore claims about loss of privacy and security were both unfounded and misplaced.

In addressing some of the issues raised, Andy Bates informed the Committee that the location of the windows coupled with obscure glazing would overcome the possibility of overlooking and loss of privacy.  He added that changes to the scheme had resulted in less impact and enhanced the relationship of the proposal with other properties in the area.  He confirmed that the proposal complied with SPG 17.

During discussion Councillor Baker expressed an opinion that there were inconsistencies in the plans and moved an amendment for deferral to enable interested parties to be re-consulted.  In response to that Steve Weeks stated that amendments made to the scheme were not substantial and did not raise new adverse issues to warrant formal re-consultation with neighbours.

Note: Councillor Green  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report the Planning Manager Andy Bates informed the Committee that additional revised detail submitted by the applicant was considered acceptable and consequently the wording of condition 4 had been amended to remove the requirement for further details of the parapet to be submitted.

RESOLVED:

(i)            to note that no appeal decisions received in the preceding month of August had been upheld;

(ii)          that the appeal decisions and appeals received in August 2009 be noted.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 65.

There were none at this meeting.

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 13 October 2009 at 7.00pm.  The site visits for that meeting will take place on the preceding Saturday 10 October 2009 from at 9.30am.

09/2097, Tenterden Sports Ground, Preston Road Harrow, 1/04, Kenton, 9:40am,

09/1556, 24 Valley Drive, London, NW9 9NP, 0/01, Fryent, 10:10am

09/1708, 169 Melrose Avenue, London, NW2 4NA, 1/05, Dudden Hill, 10:40am

09/1312, Geko House, Kimberley Road, London, NW6 7SG, 2/08, Queen's Park, 11:10am

09/1294, Rathbone House Garages, Brondesbury Road, London, NW6, 2/07, Kilburn, 11:30am

09/1522, Gaumont State Cinema, 197-199 Kilburn High Road, London, NW6 7HY, 2/03, Kilburn, 11:45am

09/1508, Gaumont State Cinema, 197-199 Kilburn High Road, London, NW6 7HY, 2/02, Kilburn, 11:45am