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.

None at the start of this meeting.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 December be approved as an accurate record of the meeting subject to the decision on Malorees School being amended to “planning permission refused”.

The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks informed the Committee that the application had been withdrawn.  He however asked the Committee whether, on the information available, they would have supported the recommendation to grant planning permission for a 2-year temporary period.

The Committee decided to allow the objectors and the agent to make together their representations on this application and the application for 63A Beverley Gardens. In his introduction, Steve Weeks drew the Committee’s attention to the list of additional objections received set out in the tabled supplementary adding that the issues raised had already been dealt with in the main report.

Mr John Parker, Chair of Barnhill Residents Association in objection stated that the building was overbearing to the extent that it did not allow occupiers of neighbouring properties to enjoy their garden.  He added that the property which was in multiple-occupation and overcrowded was out of character with the area through increased noise resulting from parties being held on the terrace and in the garden.  Mr Parker expressed a view that it would set a precedent for other similar undesirable developments in the area and for those reasons he endorsed the recommendation for refusal of both applications.

Mr Ros Lakani the applicant’s agent acknowledged that the applicant had made some few mistakes in his attempts to comply with planning conditions.  He added that the property which had been let to students on short term let had not changed from its single dwelling status to a house in multiple-occupation (HMO). In respect of the application for 63 Beverley Gardens (agenda item 12) Mr Lakani submitted that the current 3metre depth of the extension was not overbearing and did not constitute an overdevelopment of the site.  He continued that both developments which were not within a Conservation Area were not out of keeping with the character of the area as there was a similar development at No 63 Beverley Gardens. In addressing the allegation about the overflow refuse bins, Mr Lakani stated that it arose because the Council did not provide wheelie bins in time.

Mrs Sheelagh Putnam starting by applauding Brent Planning Services for insisting on original windows for the applications on the agenda, items 7, 8, 9 and 10.  She however felt that more details should be required from the applicant (Stadium Housing) to ensure that the glazing was preserved, pointing to her own replacement windows as an example. 

Members decided to defer applications for agenda items 7, 8, 9 and 10 to enable them to visit one property in the area in order to assess the practicality of the example given by Mrs Putnam.

See item 6 for the discussion on this application.

See item 6 for the discussion on this application.

See item 6 for the discussion on this application.

See item 6 for the discussion on this application.

In respect of members’ query raised at the site visit on the status of the windows at Nos. 4 and 8 Barn Way, Steve Weeks confirmed that there was no planning record for the windows at Nos. 4 and 8 Barn Way.

Mrs Tugby the applicant circulated photos for members’ consideration.  She stated that the windows were redesigned with uPVC to match the windows in the neighbouring houses.  She added that although there were differences in windows in the properties in the area, the design of her windows would enhance the character of the Barnhill Conservation Area.  In response to members’ questions Mrs Tugby stated that the windows were replaced because the original windows were in a poor condition and that she was not aware of the guidelines in the Article 4 Direction for the Barnhill Conservation Area.

Members noted from the photos that there were numerous differences in the windows of the properties in the area.  Councillor Baker expressed a view that the retention of the windows would not be detrimental to the character of the area, a view that was echoed by Councillor Anwar and the Chair.  Councillor R Moher in expressing a different viewpoint stated that the windows failed to comply with the Conservation Area guidelines.  On examination of the photos, Councillor Thomas felt that the applicant ought to make changes to the ground floor windows to ensure proportionality with the upper floor window and therefore moved an amendment for deferral for further details to be submitted.

Prior to voting, Steve Weeks responded that the proportions of the ground floor windows needed improving and submitted that on balance he could not recommend the application for approval.

Members voted on the amendment in the name of Councillor Thomas for a deferral for further details to be submitted which was declared lost.  Members voted on the substantive recommendation for a refusal which was declared also lost as members were minded to grant planning permission subject to the ground floor extension windows being changed to ensure a relationship with those in adjoining houses.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, voting on the recommendation for refusal was recorded as follows;

FOR                            Councillors R Moher and Thomas                                               (2)

AGAINST                  Councillors Kansagra, Powney, Anwar, Baker, Hashmi

                                    Jackson, CJ Patel and Steel                                                          (8)

ABSTENTION         Councillor Cummins                                                                      (1)

See item 5 for the discussion on this application.

With reference to the tabled supplementary the Head of Area Planning informed members that the applicant had submitted a revised drawing which was considered acceptable.  In respect of the section 106 agreement he stated that the additional 3 bedrooms would require a contribution of £9,000.  He then reported on the access for the owners of No. 336 Stag Lane to the rear outbuilding and added an informative for the right of way to be maintained.  It was noted that the Residents’ Association had removed its objection as their concerns had been addressed.  He continued that the Environmental Health had required a noise and vibration assessment relating to the air conditioning to the retail unit and an appropriate sound insulation to mitigate against noise transmitted between flats.  In order to ensure compliance and to safeguard the amenities of the occupiers he recommended additional conditions 9 and 10 as set out in the supplementary. 

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Dunwell, a ward member stated that he had been approached by members of the local Residents’ Association.  In reference to comments by the Director of Transportation Councillor Dunwell felt that the width of the gates would not be sufficient for refuse storage wheelie bins to go through. He continued that this would require refuse trucks to stop whilst the refuse bins were being brought to the road side, adding to the congestion in Stag Lane at its junction with Grove Park.  He also expressed a view that access for emergency vehicles through the rear of the property was inadequate. 

In response to the comments by Councillor Dunwell, Steve Weeks stated that the distance from the carriageway of 9-10metres were acceptable as was the access for emergency vehicles and the arrangement for refuse storage and collection.

The Planning Manager Andy Bates in reference to the tabled supplementary information reported that there were no similar proposals within the immediate locality pointing out however that, members had previously approved open terraces and julliet balconies within roofspaces. He added that the application satisfied the key issue which was whether the extension can be erected without impacting on amenity.  He continued that Building Control Officers had visited the site and noted that the loft conversion was unauthorised and did not comply with Building Regulations.  He also added that Environmental Health Officers had confirmed that a noise complaint had been received in relation to the application site, in August 2009 and although the matter did not result in any action it had raised the neighbours’ concerns about future problems that they feel could arise from the proposal.

Andy Bates informed members about additional objections received from Councillor Shaw and a resident who claimed that the freeholder had not given his consent to the applicant for the proposed development.  He added that most of the issues raised had been dealt with in the main report and clarified that in the absence of the freeholder’s consent, the proposed works could not commence. Andy Bates noted that the application description did not include the existing side and rear rooflights within the proposals which, as a flat, would require a separate planning consent regardless of the outcome of this application.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shaw, a ward member stated that she had been approached by the applicant and the freeholder.  Councillor Shaw objected to the proposal on grounds of unacceptable internal layout, noise nuisance, overlooking and its detrimental impact on residential amenities, character and appearance of the area.  She referred to the visit by the Council’s noise patrol team to the site as further evidence of the problem of noise nuisance in the area.  Councillor Shaw added that as the freeholder of the property had not given his consent to the works to be carried out there was no justification in granting planning permission.

During discussion Councillor Anwar stated that due to its proximity, the size of the terrace would adversely impact on the amenities of the occupier of No 52 The Avenue by way of noise.  The Chair added that by opening outwards, the dormer would be inappropriate and could give rise to overlooking and loss of privacy.

Steve Weeks in responding to requests about the use stated that further clarification sought from the applicant and agent as to the current and proposed use of the roofspace had confirmed that it would be a photography studio/study.  This was classified as a work from home facility and ancillary to the residential use.

Members were however minded to refuse planning permission contrary to officers’ recommendation for approval for the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

In his introduction Andy Bates the Planning Manager made an amendment to the description of the development that the final scheme included 40 private units and 113 affordable units, (and not 42 private units and 111 affordable units as stated in the main report).  He then referred to a number of points raised about the methodology of the study that assessed the possible overshadowing from the proposed buildings on the buildings to the north of the railway line.  He informed the Committee about the conclusions of the study which confirmed officers’ view that any likely impact would be acceptable and that none of the other properties would suffer an unreasonable impact.  This view was reached, in part, as a result of the separation distance between the existing and proposed buildings which was in excess of 70 metres.  He added that officers were not aware of an obstruction to light to such an extent as to warrant a refusal based on loss of light and overshadowing to properties to the north of the railway line.

Andy Bates then referred to additional representations from Sarah Teather MP adding that the issues raised did not raise any new issues.  He recommended a further condition as set out in the tabled supplementary in order to ensure that the development was sustainable.  He also referred to a number of comments and amendments to conditions 5, 10, 11 and the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 legal agreement made by the Borough Solicitor and as set out in the tabled supplementary.  In reference to a request for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) officers considered that he stated that having regard having regard to the characteristics of the development, its location and potential impact, the proposal would not have significant environmental effects and, therefore, an EIA was not required.

Mr Kevin Barrett an objector started by saying that the consultation for the development did not follow the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and therefore residents were not given sufficient time to consider the full extent of the proposed development.  Mr Barrett also raised objections on grounds of loss of day lighting and noise nuisance that could result from the proposal within a Conservation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

In response to a query raised at the site visit on the relation of the proposed building to Blake Court Dave Carroll clarified that the existing building would be approximately 16.5m from Blake Court to the north.  He drew members’ attention to the tabled supplementary that set out an additional condition on details of a communal television and amendments to the Section 106 legal agreement and highlighted that £32,500 of the S106 standard charge would be used to offset the site’s carbon emissions by decentralised energy generation, or other energy saving scheme to be implemented by the Council

In response to Councillor Cummins’ enquiry, the Planning Manager outlined the differences between this application and the application for The Coffee Shop, No. 11 The Broadway as follows; the nature and intensity of use due to late night use of the premises, the resulting impact on residential amenities through noise nuisance and the impact on service arrangements.  He added that the applicant had accepted suggestions for modifications to the application which may be re-submitted.

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 64.

None at this meeting