Agenda and minutes

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

15        09/1854          1-30 Peascroft House, Willesden Lane, NW6

Councillor Hashmi declared that he was a Director on the Board of Brent Housing Partnership (BHP).  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 16 September 2009 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

In reference to objectors’ concerns over loss of sunlight, the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks acknowledged that given the orientation of the first floor extension some loss of sunlight may result.  He added that the proposal was within the Council's Adopted Guidance for two-storey rear extensions, which seeks to balance and limit any potential loss of sunlight, especially to the habitable-room windows of neighbouring dwellings.  He pointed out that by providing two parking spaces the proposal complied with policy TRN23 and PS14 of the adopted unitary development plan (UDP).  In reiterating the recommendation for approval Steve Weeks drew members’ attention to an amendment to condition 7 (the deletion of “as closely as possible”) as set out in the supplementary information tabled at the meeting.

With reference to the tabled supplementary, Steve Weeks clarified the relationship between the application site and No. 59 Beverley Gardens adding that the proposal was considered to provide sufficient levels of outlook from the kitchen window of No. 59 Beverley Gardens.  He informed the Committee that enforcement notices (2) had been served on 63 Beverley Gardens and the adjoining land for breaches of planning conditions as set out in the tabled supplementary.  He updated the Committee that the Borough Solicitor had confirmed that a signed copy of the S106 legal agreement had been received by the Council's legal department and that the agreement was ready to be sealed should Members resolve to grant planning permission. Steve Weeks drew members’ attention to an amendment in condition 8 on bin storage and recommended a further condition in order to ensure that the alterations were carried out satisfactorily, as set out in the tabled supplementary. 

Mrs Marcar an objector raised concerns about the application on the following grounds:

Excessive massing and density would be uncharacteristic

Loss of privacy

Loss of sunlight and daylight

Parking problems in the area would ne aggravated

The extended property could be used as a house in multiple occupation.

Mr John Parker an objector speaking on behalf of Barnhill Residents Association circulated some photographs of the property and raised concerns that the proposed development in terms of its massing and density would constitute an overdevelopment of the site.  He continued that as the applicant was also the owner of No. 63 Beverley Gardens which was currently the subject of enforcement notices for various breaches, it was likely that those breaches would be repeated at No. 61 Beverley Gardens, the application site. The breaches which included unauthorised extensions would uncharacteristically encourage multiple occupation.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Van Colle one of the ward members stated that he had not been approached by the applicant or the objectors.  Councillor Van Colle submitted that as the applicant had a history  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

With reference to the tabled supplementary information, Steve Weeks referred to additional letters of objection from residents of St David’s Close on grounds of detrimental impact on parking, pedestrian safety, sewerage system, overcrowding and out of character adding that those concerns had been covered in the main report.  The concern about loss of property values was not a valid planning consideration.  He added that although London Underground (LU) and TFL had no objections, LU would want to review the foundation arrangements for the development before any work commenced, if the application was be approved.  Steve Weeks drew members’ attention to an amendment in the second reason for refusal as set out in the tabled supplementary.

Mr Richard Wimberley an objector started by emphasising that there was a need for the retention of the garages as their demolition would worsen the parking problems in the area and thus lead to a detriment to the quality of life of the residents.  He added that one of the ways by which the deterioration of the parking situation could be prevented was by restoring the garages to satisfactory condition which would in turn encourage usage by local residents.  In respect of the planning application for Garages 1-3, Mr Wimberley stated that there were no off-street parking provisions to address the resultant congestion and parking problems.

The Committee heard from Mr Luke Warren the applicant’s agent that he intended to file for a 3-stage complaint against the Planning Service for its failure to decide on the applications for an unusually long period.

The Chair in response reiterated that the Committee always decided all applications based on planning grounds and applicable policies and that threats of complaints against any part of the Council’s services was not a planning consideration.

See above for discussion on this application.

With reference to the tabled supplementary information Steve Weeks drew members’ attention to additional concerns raised by the adjoining neighbour and officers’ responses to them.  He clarified the position on the certificate of lawfulness of use adding that the issue of the scale of development had to be considered against the original building and plot size as well as the local area.  He continued that the paved front forecourt, would be able to accommodate at least 2 off-street parking spaces and in keeping with the required parking standard.  He recommended an additional condition to ensure that the property was restricted to use as a single family dwellinghouse.

Mr Jeff Munton objected to the proposed development on the following grounds;

The plans submitted with the application did not clearly describe the existing property in respect of floor area and accommodation.

The property had been the subject of five previous applications by the same applicant/agent for extensions to the roof, side and rear of the property and change of use to bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless families.

Although two of the applications had been granted Certificate of Lawfulness Development, the applicant had not implemented them to date and when he did, the property would resemble a small hotel or boarding house rather than a family dwelling unit.

There were already in the area a large number of properties in the area which following extensions were being used as houses in multiple occupation.

The proposal and the possible use would be out of character and could result in loss of quality of life of the local residents.

The development would constitute an overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of residential amenities.

At the start of members’ discussion, Councillor Thomas moved an amendment for a site visit to enable members to assess the impact of the development.  Prior to voting, Steve Weeks advised the Committee that in design terms the proposal complied with policies adding that fear of a possible future event was not a valid planning reason to warrant a recommendation for refusal. Members voted on the amendment for a site visit which was declared carried.

In response to an objection from the residents of Kendal Road, Steve Weeks clarified that the floodlights would allow the local rugby club to provide training for up to 6 hours in a week and in the evenings only.  He added that the park had benefitted from a drainage system installed over the summer months to ensure that the pitches were usable during the winter months.  This had assisted in addressing the concerns over problems with water-logging.  Steve Weeks informed members that following the comments of the Council's Legal Officer, the condition relating to the restriction of the hours of operation had been changed so that the hours of use would be between 18.30 and 20.30 rather than 16.00-20.00 hours.

The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks informed members that a separate application for a certificate of Lawfulness for a proposed outbuilding with internal layout of 4 rooms had been received.  He added that Officers were considering the size of the internal floor area of the proposed outbuilding in relation to the size of the original dwellinghouse and whether the proposed fixtures and fittings would be "incidental" to the use of the main building.  He drew members’ attention to textual errors in the main report as set out in the tabled supplementary.

Mrs Laura Levy an objector raised concerns on the following grounds;

The proposed development which would be out of character within the area would constitute an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal would result in an unreasonable amount of shade, causing loss of light to adjoining residents.

The extended property could result in overcrowding and noise nuisance in the vicinity.

The proposal would aggravate the car parking situation in the area.

Mr Budzar the applicant’s architect started by saying that the proposal which complied with Council policies and guidelines with the ground floor set back to preserve the character of the area and the first floor also set back 1metre from the boundary in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 5 (SPG5).  He continued that matching materials would be used and that the windows would be obscure glazed to prevent loss of privacy.  In response to members’ enquiries, Mr Budzar confirmed that the extended property would be maintained as a single family dwelling unit, although he could not confirm that the applicant lived at the property. 

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor van Colle, a ward member stated that he had not been approached.  Councillor van Colle submitted that the proposal would not only constitute an overdevelopment of the site, but also would also alter the character of the road.  He therefore requested members to refuse the application.

Members noted that the extended property would remain a single family dwelling unit and were minded to make that an additional condition if the application was granted planning approval.

In response to comments and some of the issues raised, the Head of Area Planning advised that whilst the enlarged property would result in a 7 bedroom dwelling unit all with en suite facilities, it was not a valid reason for refusing the application.

With reference to the tabled supplementary, the Head of Area Planning, Steve Weeks drew members’ attention to amendments in conditions 5, 9, 11 and 14.  He clarified the rationale for the reduction in the section 106 contribution to £1,000, in response to queries by Councillors Green and Hashmi.

With reference to the tabled supplementary, the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks informed members about two additional letters which raised objections to the demolition of the chimney located towards the rear of the property and the depth of the ground-floor rear extension.  He submitted the following in response;

Given the generally sympathetic design of the proposed alterations to the building, the loss of the chimney, on balance, could be supported.  He continued that the retention of this feature would rather result in the chimney breast rising through habitable rooms.

The loss of the chimney and the introduction of a sympathetic side extension would, on balance, preserve the character and appearance of the Mount Stewart Conservation Area, and as such would comply with policies BE25 and BE26.

Whilst the additional 0.5m would exceed permitted development for a semi-detached house and the guidance as outlined in SPG5 and the Design Guide, its height and set-in from the boundary was considered sufficient to allow No. 8 Grenfell Gardens to maintain adequate levels of light and outlook.  

Mr Sharif Hasnain an objector stated that the proposed development would lead to loss of light, outlook and detrimental impact on residential amenities.

In response, the Head of Area Planning stated that as the roof would be marginally above average (0.1m) with an insignificant impact on natural light and outlook, the proposal was on balance, considered acceptable subject to conditions as set out in the main report. 

In his introduction, the Planning Manager Andy Bates referred to correspondence received from Councillor Long regarding the issue of the security of New Crescent Yard and the height of the wall as built along the boundary.  He went on to state that although the height of the wall as built was significantly lower than what was there previously, it achieved a satisfactory appearance in the context of listed buildings.  He added that in planning and listed building terms the wall as built discharged condition 7 of the original application (reference 03/3432).  Andy Bates continued that although a 2.4 metre high structure had been approved to the rear of the New Crescent Yard, it would not be appropriate to the front.  He added that although the landscaped area to the frnt and side of the Church it did not extend the full length of the wall, the provision of an area of defensible planting would provide a buffer area between the pedestrian access in the church grounds and the wall in question and with that in view, he recommended an informative as set out in the tabled supplementary.

James Williamson an objector stated that the boundary wall did not conform to the drawings submitted.  He added that due to issues of security including theft and robberies, there was a need for the height of the wall to be increased and possibly the installation of a CCTV camera.  In response to an enquiry from the Chair, Mr Williamson expressed his preference for a 2.4m high wall.

Father Stephen Willis started by saying that the rebuilding of the wall was as a result of a request by the residents of New Crescent Yard to replace what was considered to be a dangerous and an inferior structure.  He stated that whilst the wall would be built to its original height, the Diocese Church did not have the financial means to erect a 2.4m high fence wall or metal railing.  In addition a fence wall would not be in keeping with the listed building status of the Church.

Mr Peter Fishenden a supporter and a contractor for the Church stated that the new wall as built maintained the same height as before and in his view, had improved visibility and egress from New Crescent Yard.  He added that the concerns raised by the objector were not supported by the residents of New Crescent Yard.

In response to the issues raised including a suggestion by Councillor Cummins for a 2m high metal railing, Andy Bates stated that the wall, as built, satisfied the relevant condition, thus ensuring that it did not prejudice the appearance of the locality in the context of the Listed Building.  It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Planning Manager, Andy Bates corrected the description of the proposal, as set out in the tabled supplementary report, following the receipt of additional information from the applicant.

Note: Councillor Hashmi, having declared that he was on the Board of BHP, withdrew from the meeting room and did not take part in the discussion or voting on this application.

The Planning Manager Andy Bates informed the Committee that the applicants had submitted further details on landscaping and a revised Design and Access Statement.  He added however that further detailed information would be required on landscaping scheme to satisfy a landscape condition and condition 12 in respect of balconies.

The Committee heard from the Planning Manager Andy Bates that the applicant’s agent had confirmed that the porch doors would be internally mounted to avoid external brackets and thus maintain the existing character of the property. He added that detailed sections of the proposed porch also requested had not been received and whilst it would be preferable for this information to be provided at the application stage, this can be secured by a condition requiring the submission of the information prior to the commencement of works. The Planning Manager drew members’ attention to a new condition as set out in the tabled supplementary report.

Wednesday 21 October 2009 at 7.00pm.

As that meeting will consider reports on policy issues only there will be no prior site visits.

At this meeting there were none.