Agenda item
Former Kensal Rise Branch Library Building, Bathurst Gardens, London, NW10 5JA (Ref. 13/2058)
Decision:
Refused planning permission with amended refusal 2.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of the existing vacant building to provide 7 residential units (3 x one-bed flats, 3 x two-bed flat & one x two-bed house) on the ground and upper floors and 175m2 muti-functional community space (Use Class D1) on ground floor and basement.Alteration to roof pitch over and increase in height of rear wall of central section of main building, proposed new roof with flank wall windows to existing west wing. Provision of new entrance doors on College Road and replacement rear and flank wall windows with associated waste storage, cycle parking and solar panels.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission with amended reason 2 as set out in the supplementary report.
With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager responded to the following issues that were raised at the site visit:
(i) Parking problems
As the area was within a controlled parking zone (CPZ) with good public transport accessibility of the site (PTAL4), a permit-free agreement, where future residents would not be entitled to residents parking permits, would be a potential means of suitably addressing this issue. This would have been secured through a s106 agreement but given that the application was being recommended for refusal no such agreement had been made.
(ii) Refuse/Recycling storage
The applicant has indicated proposals for the storage of refuse/recycling that would appear to be insufficient to meet the guidance and as such officers had recommended an informative drawing the applicant’s attention to this issue. A larger bin store could, of course, have an increased and unacceptable visual impact.
(iii) Ownership and management of forecourt
He confirmed that as the forecourt was a private land and formed part of the development site, its management would be a matter for the developer and any other subsequent landowner, if the development was to be permitted.
(iv) Heritage and alterations
As the building was not listed, protected nor within conservation area, the changes proposed would have been considered acceptable. However, the concerns about the bulk of the proposed roof extensions did form the basis of one of the reasons for refusal.
(v) Cycle parking
No designated cycle parking facilities appeared to be indicated for the community hub. Standards for libraries were set out at 1 space per 10 staff and 1 space per 10 visitors and, if the application were to be approved, it would be reasonable to require a similar provision, secured through a planning condition.
(vi) New entrance to community hub
Proposals for the formation of a new entrance onto College Road had been considered by the Council's Urban Design Officers and were generally considered acceptable, subject to sufficient design detailing to comply with the required standard.
(vii) Consultation update
He referred to allegations that some of the comments submitted in response to the public consultation appeared to have been fabricated and officers’ attempts to identify and deal with fraudulent responses as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
(viii) Daylight and sunlight report
The applicant submitted a revised report on day lighting and sunlight. Members heard that despite the revised view on the issue of daylight, officers were of the opinion that the living room would provide an unsatisfactory form of outlook for potential occupiers. On that basis he recommended that the reference to daylight be removed from the second reason for refusal as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
Andy Bates then referred to further correspondence from the applicant sent to a number of Councillors relating to a number of issues about the report and drew members’ attention to officers’ responses to them as set out in the main and tabled supplementary reports.
Mr David Butcher, speaking on behalf of Friends of Kensal Rise Library (FKRL) endorsed officer’s recommendation for refusal adding that the design and space provisions were inadequate as a library. Mr Butcher continued that FKRL would like to see a genuine partnership between the Council and the community with a view to restoring the building to meet a suitable local need.
Mr Peter Grigg speaking on behalf of FKRL referred to results of a survey he had conducted to support his views that the proposal lacked adequate community space particularly for those with children and mobility issues. He added that there was no appetite within the community for the proposed change of use.
Ms Jay Venn speaking on behalf of Kensal Triangle Residents’ Association (KTRA) also concurred with the officers’ reasons for refusal, adding that the community use space provided was inaccessible and inadequate.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Cheese stated that he had been approached by members of FKRL. Councillor Cheese objected to the proposal on grounds of inadequate and inaccessible community space which failed to meet community aspirations. He added that the proposed dwelling units constituted an unaffordable cramped form of accommodation. Councillor Cheese also referred to issues with the consultation.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shaw stated that she had been approached by members of FKRL. Councillor Shaw stated that the Council’s designation of the building as a community asset and a listed building was a material consideration which should not be overlooked. She continued that as the proposed development would result in additional parking problems for the residents and loss of the only library facility in the area, the entire community were united in opposition to the application.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Hector stated that she had been approached by local residents. Councillor Hector noted that issues on recycling and refuse had been addressed in the supplementary report however, pertinent issues relating to inaccessible provision to significant parts of the building and inadequate amenity space remained unresolved. Councillor Hector also endorsed officers’ reasons for refusal as set out in the main and supplementary reports.
Mr Nicholas Taylor the applicant’s agent stated that the reasons for the applicant’s inability to provide community access were genuine and that there was no intention to remove significant features of the building as the windows and internal features would be retained. He added that facilities on the ground and lower ground floors for community uses would be made available to the local residents free of charge. Mr Taylor continued that the closure of the library was made by the Council following its library transformation project which sought to re-allocate resources into improved library services in other parts of the Borough. He also added that demolition of the entire building may be required if the applicant was to comply with all standards.
In response to members’; questions, Mr Taylor submitted the following;
i) Amenity space was lacking but could be addressed by requiring the applicant to make compensatory contributions to the area.
ii) Any attempt to provide amenity space in the back garden would result in over-looking to the nearby cottage.
iii) In his view, it was impossible to meet community space requirements without demolition of the entire building.
iv) The application did not constitute an over-development of the site as it complied with internal space requirements and that the applicant would consider a reduced number of dwelling units provided it was to be compensated with bigger dwelling units.
vi) Parking problems would be resolved as the proposal was for a “car free development”.
vii) The applicant was proposing a community space and a number of changes to the scheme that would address the matters referred to by one of the objectors in his survey results.
viii) The seven flats proposed were adequately sized except for a couple of windows which did not have an excellent outlook.
DECISION: Refused planning permission with amended reason 2 as recommended.
Supporting documents: