THAMES WATER DEPOT AND TRAINING SH, 225 Harlesden Road, London, NW10 3SD (Ref. 13/2537)
Grant planning permission subject to amended conditions 7 and 8 and plan numbers as set out in the supplementary report, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Demolition of existing industrial buildings and construction of 26 residential units comprising of 9 two-storey dwelling houses (3-bedroom),1 part two/part three-storey dwelling house (3-bedroom) and 16 flats within a part two/part three-storey block (4x 1-bed, 10 x 2-bed and 2 x 3-bed) with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager in reference to the tabled supplementary report responded to queries raised at the site visit regarding visual amenity and the treatment of the main access route. He explained that the submitted plans indicated that the retained equipment would be screened by a timber fence along the site boundary. Whilst this was considered sufficient, in principle, to address concerns regarding the visual amenity and safety of the surrounding area, further details of the height and appearance would be agreed under condition 8 to ensure that these issues were suitably resolved. Andy Bates clarified that the access route would have a clearly marked 1.2m pavement area to one side for pedestrians and a speed table at the bottom of the ramp to ensure that traffic would move slowly on entering the site. In respect of the access road, surface material changes had been made in line with the pedestrian access to properties to alert drivers entering the site to their presence. He then referred to the applicant’s submitted revised plans indicating some minor amendments to the proposals which were required to ensure that the scheme complied with affordable housing guidelines and the Design and Access Statement which had been revised to reflect the changes. In reiterating the recommendation for approval, Andy Bates drew members’ attention to amended conditions 7 and 8 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
Ms Juliet Cooper in objecting to the proposal raised concerns on road safety due to the proximity of the site to the local hospital’s car park and inadequate parking facilities in Harlesden Road which also had two bus routes. She referred to a shortage of school places in the area and enquired as to whether any provision had been made for additional demand for school places which could result from the development. In summary, Ms Cooper stated her objections as follows;
(i) Road safety
(ii) Loss of light
(iii) Loss of privacy
(iv) Unacceptable noise levels
(v) Inadequate vehicular access within a built up area
(vi) Inappropriate use of the site for affordable housing.
Ms Anya Bullick, objected to the proposed development on the following reasons;
(i) Unacceptable increase in the number of vehicles and pedestrians on a dangerous road with resulting potential danger to vehicular and pedestrian safety
(ii) Unacceptable increase in parking problems;
(iii) A 3-storey building would constitute an over-development of the site, result in overlooking and detrimental impact on residential amenity
Ms Kelly Harris for the applicant stated that the proposed development which complied with policies and standards would provide affordable housing incorporating private amenity space and play space with appropriate screening. She added that as a result of an extensive traffic survey, twenty eight (28) car parking spaces had been provided in order to alleviate parking problems that may result. In addition, the applicant had taken measures which sought to address concerns on pedestrian safety, bulk, scale and layout of the development.
In response to members’ questions, Ms Harris submitted that Notting Hill Housing Trust did not support gated development and that adequate amenity space would be provided throughout the development. She clarified that the traffic survey carried out showed that the development would not generate detrimental traffic levels. Members heard that the proposal complied with Brent guidelines on privacy and as it exceeded guidelines within Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 (SPG17) on minimum distances, light pollution would not result. In response to a member’s question, Ms Harris confirmed that the rent would fall below 80% of market rent.
In response to some of the issues raised, Andy Bates advised that as the site was tight with bends in the access road, physical measures would be put in place to slow down vehicular movements and provided the conditions imposed were adhered, vehicular movements were expected to be low. He drew members’ attention to the Section 278 legal agreement to reinforce the advice. He took note of members’ request for an on-going discussion with the developer including measures to prevent vehicular conflicts to ensure pedestrian safety. Andy Bates also drew members’ attention to the conditions recommended which addressed concerns on visibility, vehicular conflicts and lighting. He also took note of members’ suggestion for additional access controls during construction period.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended subject to additional access controls during construction period being secured by condition.