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.

3.         7-8 Elmwood Crescent Kingsbury NW9.

Councillor R Moher declared a prejudicial interest, addressed the Committee and left the meeting without taking part in the discussion or voting.

13        South Kilburn Regeneration roundabout site

All members declared that they had been approached by Westminster City Councillors in connection with the application for South Kilburn. 

Minutes of the meeting held on 3 February 2010 (to follow).

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 February 2010 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting subject to the following amendments to the declarations made;

Councillor R Moher declared a prejudicial interest in the application for 7-8 Elmwood Crescent NW9

Delete “19 Crawford Avenue” from the declarations made by Councillor Jackson.

This application was deferred from the last meeting of the Committee for a site visit to assess the impact of the proposed development and the change of use.  With reference to the supplementary information tabled at the meeting the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks responded to the issues raised at the site visit.

The Head of Area Planning stated that the height of the proposed side extension complied with SPG5 guidance and although the height of the proposed rear extension was 0.4m higher than the existing conservatory, due to the distance of the extension from the site boundary, the proposal would not have a significant additional impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residents.  He did not consider that the proposal would add significantly to existing problems which arose from the local special school.  He outlined the differences between this and the previous application and similar facilities in Fairfields Crescent.  In respect of the comments about the suitability of the ground floor front-facing bedrooms the Head of Area Planning submitted that the rooms would provide an acceptable level of accommodation similar to many other residential properties with similar bedroom orientations.  He then referred to a petition from residents adding that it did not raise new issues.  In reiterating the recommendation for approval he drew members’ attention to an amendment to condition 9 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.

Ms Bashir in expressing her objection stated that the location of the proposal was inappropriate within a residential area as it would grossly impact on the neighbourhood in terms of loss of privacy, sunlight and noise pollution.  She added that the scale of the development within a small cul-de-sac would exacerbate the problems with parking and traffic flow in addition to the detrimental impact on local infrastructure.

Mr A Letvin also objected on grounds of loss of privacy, over-intensity of use due to its bulk which would be out of character within the residential area and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks updated members that since the report was published the applicant had withdrawn the application.  He however asked members whether on the basis of the information available they would have been minded to refuse the application.

The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks referred to residents’ requests for the application to be deferred as they had not seen the revised plans and stated it was not considered necessary to re-consult as the revisions had reduced the depth, width and any impact on neighbouring properties. He added that as the covered area behind the garage was not included on the elevations, he recommended an additional condition 9 and an amended condition 6 on the advice of the Interim Borough Solicitor as set out in the tabled supplementary report.  The Head of Area Planning drew members’ attention to comments by Councillors Colwill and Steel on the character and the roof lines of the house and the officers’ responses to them.

Ms A Green an objector welcomed the revisions but requested that additional conditions be imposed requiring the applicant to ensure that delivery of materials and construction of the extension were carried out during normal hours and to replace any broken pavements and an informative advising the applicant to ensure that the property remained as single family dwelling.

In granting planning permission subject to conditions with additional conditions and informatives, members requested the Head of Area Planning to alert the Council’s Streetcare Unit about the pavement. 

The Head of Area Planning drew members’ attention to an amended description of the proposal as set out in the tabled supplementary report and added that one further objection from a neighbour on grounds of loss of light, being out of keeping with the area and possible use for commercial purposes had been covered in the main report.

Mr Gudka an objector reiterated his objections on grounds of loss of light, loss of privacy, being out of keeping with the character of the area and possible use of the enlarged property for commercial purposes.  He added that he would not object to a single storey extension.

Councillor Steel in contribution requested the imposition of additional conditions on use as single family dwelling and the contractor to sign up to the Considerate Construction Scheme.

The Committee decided to allow the objector to make together her representations on this application and the other applications for Woodfield School (items 8 and 9).

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Farrell, ward member stated that she had been approached by the local residents.  Councillor Farrell whilst welcoming the recommendations emphasised concerns that the extensions and particularly outside lighting would facilitate more intensive out of hours’ use of the school which would lead to increased noise and disturbance and an unacceptable impact on the Welsh Harp Site of Special Scientific Interest.  She requested that any outside lighting should be subject to conditions and breaches swiftly enforced.

In reiterating the recommendations, the Head of Area Planning drew members’ attention to the conditions and informatives which sought to address the issues raised by Councillor Farrell adding that any impact on neighbouring residents from the use of sport facilities was likely to be minor.

See item 7 above for discussion at the meeting.

See item 7 above for discussion at the meeting.

With reference to the tabled supplementary information the Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, clarified the uses proposed in the ground floor of the building and confirmed that the D1 use would not be for a place of worship.  In terms of potential noise from the development, the Area Planning Manager submitted that conditions 4 and 5 would ensure that there were no adverse noise implications from the use.  He also drew members’ attention to an advice from the Borough Solicitor that full conditions for the parent application 08/2472 be attached to the grant of planning permission.

In reference to the tabled supplementary report the Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, clarified the issues raised by members at the site visit.  He suggested that in view of the concerns relating to slow implementation of the enforcement action on the porch, an additional informative be added advising the applicant that the existing porch must be removed within one month from date of issue of this decision notice and that failure to do so would result in direct action by the Local Authority.

With reference to the supplementary report tabled at the meeting, the Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates clarified issues about the state of the tennis court and the fence and added that there was no planning basis for asking for signage to be erected.

In reference to the tabled supplementary report, the Area Planning Manager Andy Bates submitted the following responses to issues raised at the site visit.  He reported that the Traffic Assessment inspected by the Council’s Transportation Unit and Transport for London (TfL) had concluded that the predicted impact on traffic flows would be acceptable.  In addition the applicant had submitted an air quality assessment which suggested that the predicted traffic flows would not cause significant harm to the air quality in the surrounding area.  He continued that the Council's Transportation Unit had stated that it would not be advisable to propose a one-way operation on Cambridge Road at this time, but instead to review the operation of the scheme once it has been operational for a period of time.  He added that the information submitted by an objector did not conclusively suggest that signalled junction would give rise to a significant increase in accidents within the vicinity of the junction. On the comments about trees Andy Bates confirmed that all tree planting associated with the proposed development would be carried out prior to occupation.  He considered that the development would provide adequate amenity space for use as balconies and storage and that right to light issues were unlikely to arise.  He added that the Environment Agency (EA) had withdrawn their initial objection subject to a further condition on flood risk assessment (FRA) as set out in the tabled supplementary report

Ms Kim Zeineddine objected to the proposed development on grounds of noise and vibration from four bus routes, air pollution, loss of daylight and loss of trees.  She added that that the development which he felt was poorly planned would cause health risks through nitrogen dioxide with detrimental impact on the quality of life of the residents.

Mr Terry Street in objecting stated that the signalled junction would not be able to cope with the expected traffic problems leading to congestion particularly during peak hours.  He added that the true costs of demolition of the existing buildings including asbestos had not been taken into account.

Councillor Alistair Moss, ward member for Carlton Vale (an adjoining ward) in the City of Westminster stated that he had been approached by the local residents.  In objecting to the development Councillor Moss stated that due to the poor quality of its design and inappropriate scale, the development would give rise to on-street parking and traffic problems.  He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report the Area Planning Manager Neil McClellan clarified issues raised on flooding, landscaping and the requirement to comply with lifetime home standards.  He drew members’ attention an additional condition 18 in respect of lifetime home standards and amendments to conditions 8, 9, 11 and 16 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.

The Area Planning Manager, Neil McClellan, in reference to the tabled supplementary report confirmed that the applicant had submitted revised drawings to reflect the amendments to the design of the building to the south-western corner of the Plot 1 building.  He added that the primary nature of the use was considered to be that of care and treatment.

The Area Planning Manager Neil McClellan drew members’ attention to the model of the proposed development from the applicant. He suggested an informative to address the initial concerns by the Council’s Highways Engineers about the proposed layout for servicing in the event of a fire emergency.  He added following the GLA’s expression of satisfaction with the revised Energy Statement, the wording of clause (e) in the agreed Heads of Terms of the S106 legal agreement had been revised accordingly. The Planning Manager also drew members’ attention to the list of amendments to conditions and an additional condition requiring the applicant to comply with lifetime homes standards as set out in the tabled supplementary report.

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Butt, ward member stated that he had been approached by the applicant.  In welcoming the application, Councillor Butt expressed his endorsement of the recommendation for approval.

In response to an enquiry by Councillor Mistry, the applicant’s agent confirmed that the swimming pool facility would be fully accessible to all residents and that the pricing would be similar to that charged by similar facilities. 

RESOLVED:

That the planning and enforcement appeals for 1 to 31 January 2010 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 64.

None raised at this meeting.