Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to additional conditions requiring additional landscaping and amendments to the bin store 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.

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing building and erection of a replacement 3 storey building comprising 9 residential flats with associated car parking, cycle storage and amenity space.

RECOMMENDATION:

Grant planning permission subject to additional conditions requiring additional landscaping and amendments to the bin store as set out in the tabled 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.

In reference to the tabled supplementary report, Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager informed members that the number of proposed parking spaces which had been corrected to 8 was considered satisfactory by the Transportation Engineer.  He added that the bin storage design had been amended and would now open inwards or use a sliding door arrangement, drawing members’ attention to a condition attached to secure the amendment.

In response to residents’ concerns, the Planning Manager submitted that the proposal would be constructed on the foot print of the existing building and with a similar height. He continued that due to its irregular shape, the layout of the proposal was considered reasonable in terms of residential amenity and to ensure that the proposed development was of a quality that complied with the London Plan standards. Members heard that the submitted plans were based on the assessment that the original side projections on the Chaplin Road houses were non-habitable, hence concerns about separation distances were not considered significant.  He continued that the applicant had agreed to undertake additional landscaping along the boundary of the site with improved screening, in respect of which an additional condition was recommended to require further details of landscaping along the boundary.

Mr Wadjiani an objector stated that whilst he supported the development in principle he had concerns about separation distances as the habitable room fell short by 3m.  He continued that the application did not comply with SPG17 in that it would not meet the minimum rear elevation separation distances to new builds.  He also added that as the new windows, balconies and doors would be much larger than the current arrangement, overlooking would result. 

Kerry Radford, the applicant’s agent stated that the separation distance maintained was in excess of guidance and would minimise any potential overlooking that could result. The amenity space provision was also in excess of Brent’s requirements. She added that the building which had been vacant in excess of eight years had become dilapidated and attracted anti-social behaviour.  The quality of accommodation proposed complied with the minimum requirements of the London Plan with all areas of bedrooms and balconies provided with windows to maximise outlook and light to those areas. Members heard that the reduced amount of parking spaces would allow greater scope for landscaping.

In response to a member’s enquiry, the Area Planning Manager clarified the relationship of the proposed development to boundaries and separation distances adding that had it been a new site, officers would have insisted on greater distances between boundaries.  He advised that the separation distances were in accordance with SPG17 standards and that the proposed scheme was not considered to result in additional overlooking.  In reiterating the recommendation for approval, he drew members’ attention to additional conditions requiring additional landscaping and amendments to the bin store as set out in the tabled supplementary report.

DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended.