Agenda and minutes
Venue: Conference Hall - Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ. View directions
Contact: Joe Kwateng, Democratic Services Officer 020 8937 1354, Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk
No. | Item | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Declarations of personal and prejudicial interests Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda. Minutes: 4. 37 Lydford Road, London NW2 5QN
All members declared that they had received email correspondence from the applicant and the Mapesbury Residents Association (MAPRA) but would consider the application with an open mind except Councillor Colacicco who declared a prejudicial interest that she had been actively involved with the application and would therefore withdraw from the meeting room when the application was being considered after she had addressed the Committee.
5. Former Cricklewood Library, 152 Olive Road NW2 6UY
Councillors Colacicco and Choudhary declared prejudicial interests and stated that they would withdraw from the meeting room during consideration of the application and take no part in the discussion and voting. Councillor Colaccico indicated however that she would address the Committee. |
||||
Minutes of the previous meeting held on 15 October 2014 PDF 116 KB Minutes: A speaker from the previous meeting had raised a concern that his representations had not been recorded in full in the minutes. This was discussed by the committee and it was agreed that the minutes should stand as the speaker’s representation had been taken into consideration had been taken into consideration at the meeting. It was noted that the minutes were not supposed to be a full account of each speakers’ comments, but a summary of the points they had raised.
RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 15 October 2014 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
||||
15 Summit Close, London NW9 0UL (Ref.14/2690) PDF 598 KB Minutes:
With reference to the supplementary report, Stephen Weeks (Head of Planning) clarified the issues raised by members at the site visit. He informed members that the proposed dwelling would respect the established building line along the established patterns of development of Summit Close whilst maintaining sufficient amenity space for both the existing house and the proposed dwelling. He submitted that the development would not be out of character or cause harm to the borough's suburban character. He continued that the level of parking (2 off-street spaces for the existing dwelling and 1 off-street space for the proposed dwelling) and access arrangements were supported by the Council’s Transportation officers as they accorded with Brent's Domestic Vehicle Footway Crossover Policy (2008). The Head of Planning also confirmed the distances of the proposed dwelling to the existing house and the boundary treatments as set out in the supplementary report. He added that the issue about the applicant’s future intentions for the development was not a material planning consideration.
Members noted that the neighbour who had requested to speak in objection did not attend the meeting.
Derrick Harrison (applicant’s representative) and Rupert S (architect) were in attendance to respond to members’ queries. Members heard that the parking provision for the new property was reduced on advice of Transportation officers in order to minimise impact and that an accurate survey and measurement of the site were undertaken. The architect continued that following a tree survey and in order to maintain the character of the area, key trees would not be removed except for one small apple tree. He clarified that the applicant’s intention was to enhance habitable space and there was no intention to submit an application in future for conversion of the dwellings into flats.
In response to member’s questions as to development of a garden area and whether the proposal would be overbearing and out of character, the Head of Planning advised that in the specific circumstances where there was an unusually large side garden with a street frontage and retention of a garden reflecting the size of the adjoining house, and where side gardens were not a characteristic of the street scene, that as the application complied with the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), and in also taking into account its design, the proposal was considered acceptable. He added that a condition had been recommended which would restrict future permitted development rights for the two sites.
|
||||
37 Lydford Road NW2 5QN (Ref. 14/2952) PDF 574 KB Minutes:
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) in response to a query raised by Mapesbury Residents Association (MAPRA) about the correct number of objections recorded in the report stated that since the report was published, an additional objection had been received, bringing the total to 89. He added that the additional objection raised no new issues. He drew members’ attention to the plan numbers as set out in the supplementary report which amended condition 2.
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Colacicco stated that she had been approached by members of MAPRA in connection with the application. Councillor Colacicco stated that the proposed development would detract from the character of Mapesbury Conservation Area, resulting in a detrimental impact on the area. In urging members to refuse the application, Councillor Colacicco requested members to have regard to the existing Conservation Area Design Guide for Mapesbury. She also referred to chapter three of the Local Development Framework which stated that “boundary treatments should be retained where they form an integral part of the character or appearance of a Conservation Area” and BE27 which states that “Consent will not be given for the demolition of a building… in a conservation area unless the building, or part of the building, positively detracts from the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.”
Councillor Colacicco then left the meeting room and took no part in the ensuing discussions and voting on the application.
David Gee (Secretary MAPRA), an objector, by reference to the Committee report stated that only minor changes had been made to the proposed development which would have a fundamental impact on the conservation area. He added that the proposal would be inconsistent with, and contrary to, the design guide policy which sought to resist any development that resulted in garden impact. He stressed the importance of the gardens to the character of the conservation area. He also stated that the proposal would not enhance or preserve the character of the area and would set a dangerous precedent for future undesirable developments within the conservation area. In response to a member’s question, David Gee clarified that the site was a garden which was converted to a builders’ yard and therefore the proposal should be viewed as a back garden development.
Eric Cliff of MAPRA circulated a paper which highlighted the Council’s successes in appeals to the Planning Inspectorate relating to sites within the conservation area. He urged members to refuse the application and offered the full support of MAPRA if the applicant chose to lodge an appeal.
Darren Stewart and one other neighbour (Marcia) of Teignmouth Road spoke in similar terms adding ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |
||||
152 Olive Road, London NW2 6UY (Ref.14/2548) PDF 419 KB Minutes:
With reference to the supplementary report, Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) reported that the applicant had reconfirmed their intention that the Friends of Cricklewood Library (FoCL) would occupy the community floor space and that significant pre-application discussions had been held with the FoCL to influence the size and layout of the community space.. He understood that the FoCL had submitted an outline business plan to the applicant, a condition precedent to the offer of a lease to the FoCL.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Colacicco declared that she had been working with the FoCL on the library. Councillor Colacicco spoke in support of the application and welcomed the offer of ground floor space for community use. She then withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the discussion or voting.
Councillor Carr, ward member, indicated her support for the application.
Sally Long (Chair and Edward Lazarus (Finance Director) of FoCL spoke in support of the application, adding that the FoCL were in a position to run the library using the ground floor D1 space which they considered most suitable as a hub for the community to meet. In response to members’ questions, Edward Lazarus stated that the FoCL were still negotiating on the annual service charge of £2,500, however, this would not pose a significant problem as FoCL had access to grant giving organisations to fund the project.
Mandip Sahota (applicant’s agent) informed members that the ground floor D1 community use had been arrived at following consultations with community groups including FoCL. He confirmed that the applicants had notified FoCL that the space would be let out to them. He continued that the scheme had the support of residents and the general community and that the residential flats also complied with space standards. Mr Sahota then invited the applicant’s architect to respond to members’ questions on technical aspects of the scheme. The architect stated that an amended elevation which would ensure additional daylight was provided had been submitted since the report was published. He clarified that the ground floor D1 use had been given a stronger presence and that the residential element had been set back appropriately.
In respect of the bin store and waste management, members’ attention was drawn to condition 3 as set out in the ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
||||
1-25 New Crescent Yard, London NW10 (Ref. 14/1309) PDF 554 KB Minutes:
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) informed members that the Church had withdrawn their objection to the scheme. He clarified that the proposed perspex screen to the railings would be transparent and would only be installed to a small section of the railings. Andy Bates drew members’ attention to revised plan numbers which amended condition 2 as set out in the supplementary report.
In approving the application, members added a condition for the material selected to be maintained in clean condition.
|
||||
58 Brondesbury Road, London NW6 6BS (Ref.14/2026) PDF 376 KB Minutes:
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) in reference to the supplementary report informed members that the scaling of the front garden was correct and that the proposed arrangement showing one car parking space, enhanced landscaping and bin storage could be accommodated on the site. He reported that although the applicant had confirmed that the outbuilding would be removed, he recommended an amended condition 3 as set out in the supplementary report. He continued that other than the excavation of the rear patio level for the lower ground floor flat, the applicant did not propose to make any change to the ground level of the site.
In response to members’ questions, the Head of Planning stated that the proposal did not constitute an overdevelopment of the site and that there was no extension proposed into the garden. Members heard that there was an approach to limit to the size of lightwells in the conservation area and that condition 4 which required that the person carrying out the works was a member of Considerate Constructors Scheme (CCS) would minimise construction noise.
|
||||
Any Other Urgent Business 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.
Minutes: None.
Note: At 9.15pm the meeting was adjourned for 2 minutes.
The meeting ended at 9.47pm
S MARQUIS Chair
|