Agenda, decisions and minutes

None declared.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 December 2011 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

Grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Legal and Procurement Service.

Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager addressed the issues raised by residents in respect of car parking, over-development, architectural quality and character.  In respect of car parking, he stated that although the parking requirements for the proposed houses would increase, there was sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in on-street parking. This conclusion was based on existing parking conditions in the vicinity, the restoration of the existing crossover to increase on-street provision and the removal of any demand for servicing vehicles to the site.

In terms of the design and appearance of the development, Officers considered that whilst the development would be different to neighbouring houses, that in itself did not make the scheme unacceptable. He continued that the proposal which was a contemporary interpretation of a terrace would replace the existing unattractive warehouse building as well as enhance the character of the area. He added that although the proposal did not seek to copy the existing semi-detached buildings found in Bryan Avenue, officers considered that it would not be out of character with the houses in Dobree Estate.  The Area Planning Manager also informed the Committee that an 87 signature petition objecting to the proposal and calling on Councillors to refuse the planning application had been received but it did not raise additional issues.

Mr Paolo Di Gennaro objected to the proposed development on the following grounds:

 (i)       The height which would be 1m higher than existing houses would be excessive and lead to overshadowing and loss of residential amenity.

(ii)        Significant loss of light resulting in infringement of right to light.

(iii)      It would be contrary to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 (SPG17).

Dr Robert Davis, an objector stated that although he did not want the warehouse building to be retained, the proposed development raised car parking issues.  He clarified that with inadequate parking spaces and likely excessive demand for parking in the front garden, the proposal would ruin the character of Bryan Avenue.

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shaw, ward member stated that she had been approached by residents who objected to the proposal.  Councillor Shaw objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would result in a significant demand for parking particularly in relation to houses with multiple occupation. She continued that the height and ridge of the roof together with the layout of the road would be uncharacteristic and would destroy the leafy atmosphere of an Area of Distinctive Residential Character (ADRC).  Councillor Shaw expressed a view that the £60,000 contribution under the Section 106 legal agreement was inadequate in view of its adverse impact on the entire Dobree Estate. In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning informed the Committee about correspondence received from the Fryent Ward Councillors raising concern that the application may further contribute to anti-social behaviour and environmental issues in the area.  He responded that there was no evidence to indicate that users of an amusement centre would be a threat to safety and security or cause anti-social behaviour and unless there was demonstrable harm, refusal on these grounds could not be sustained.

Mr Keith Martin, Secretary of Springfield Estate Residents Association in objection to the proposed change of use stated that due to inadequate consultation and information, residents were not aware of the activities that would take place at the premises.  He added that being in close proximity to residential properties and local schools, the use of the premises for a slot machine arcade would be inappropriate.  Mr Martin provided examples of anti-social behaviour in the Colindale area which he added would be exacerbated by the proposed change of use would weaken the efforts being made by the local Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) to address the situation.

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Ruth Moher, ward member, stated that she had been approached by local residents.  Councillor Ruth Moher added that the change of use would be inappropriate in a largely residential area, resulting in significant adverse impact.  She added that complaints had been made by the local traders about youngsters congregating in the area which had resulted in two dispersal orders being issued.  Councillor Ruth Moher also complained about inadequate consultation.  In response to members’ questions, she stated that the area was considered a high car crime area and that the dispersal orders were issued in 2011.

During members’ discussion, Councillor Cummins moved an amendment for the application to be deferred pending a report from the Safer Neighbourhood Team and greater consultation with residents.  This was put to the vote and declared carried. 

DECISION: Deferred pending a report in liaison with the local Safer Neighbourhood Team on anti-social behaviour in the area.

Grant variation of condition 3 of planning permission 09/2350 as proposed and a new permission issued.

DECISION: Variation of condition 3 of planning permission 09/2350 as proposed granted and a new permission issued.

Grant consent subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement Services.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager submitted the following responses to issues raised by members at the site visit:

i)       Any meaningful improvement to the exteriors of Manor and Lodge Court would probably require external cladding which would be too great an expense. While Section 106 money could contribute to their refurbishment it would be at the expense of other spending commitments.

ii)      Building 2 is five storeys high, a storey lower than the rear portion of Building 1 which is six storeys.

iii)     Any significant increase in the height of Building 2 would have an overbearing impact on the public spaces around it and there may also be a practical limit on the amount of development that could be built over the station deck.

In response to members’ enquiry about the reduction of the Section 106 contribution by 30%, the Area Planning Manager stated that it resulted from issues with viability of the project.  He added that the reduction would not set a precedent for future financial contributions for Section 106 legal agreement.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.

Grant consent subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement Services.

Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager drew members attention to the tabled supplementary report which set out in some detail, the revised Energy Statement including baseline CO2 demand for the site and reductions associated with the Mayor’s target to achieve a 20 % reduction in CO2 through “on-site renewables”.  He referred to comments by Legal Services confirming that there was no need for a new full Section 106 agreement and suggested amendments to conditions 6 and 7 as set out in the supplementary report.

DECISION: Planning consent granted subject to conditions as amended in conditions 6 and 7, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.

RESOLVED:

that the appeals for 1 – 30 November 2011 be noted.

None raised at this meeting.

The meeting ended at 8:10pm

KETAN SHETH

Chair